Sitting of 3 December 2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Division No. 15]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Gummer, rh John

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Hermon, Lady

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Salmond, Alex

  858

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pete Wishart and

  Weir, Michael

  Hywel Williams

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Crausby, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cruddas, Jon

  Allan, Richard

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Baird, Vera

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Battle, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Denham, rh John

  Benn, Hilary

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Berry, Roger

  Doughty, Sue

  Best, Harold

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Betts, Clive

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Borrow. David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Breed, Colin

  Fisher, Mark

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Flint, Caroline

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Burden, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Foulkes, rh George

  Burnett, John

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burstow, Paul

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grogan, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Harvey, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Heath, David

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Heyes, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  859

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Holmes, Paul

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hutton, rh John

  Mole, Chris

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Illsley, Eric

  Moore, Michael

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Moran, Margaret

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Morgan, Julie

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Morley, Elliot

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jones, Helen (Warnngton N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Olner, Bill

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  O'Neill, Martin

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Alan (Fettham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prescott, rh John

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Lamb, Norman

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lammy, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Lepper, David

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

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Love, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Stephen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  McDonnell, John

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McFall, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McKechin, Ann

  Sawford, Phil

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  860

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

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Soley, Clive

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Spellar, rh John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Rachel

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ward, Claire

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  White, Brian

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wilson, Brian

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Thurson, John

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Thurso, John Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wyatt, Derek

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Dan Norris

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

  Communications Bill

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

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

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

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

    Consideration and Third Reading

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

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

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

    Other proceedings

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

    The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 102.

    Division No. 16]

    [10:14 pm

    AYES

    Abbott Ms Diane

    Colman, Tony

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Allen, Graham

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Cousins, Jim

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Crausby, David

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cruddas, Jon

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cummings, John

    Baird, Vera

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Battle, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Beard, Nigel

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Dalyell, Tam

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Benn, Hilary

    Davidson, Ian

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Berry, Roger

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Best, Harold

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Betts, Clive

    Denham, rh John

    Blackman, Liz

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Edwards, Huw

    Bryant, Chris

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Burden, Richard

    Farrelly, Paul

    Burgon, Colin

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Fisher, Mark

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Flint, Caroline

    Caton, Martin

    Follett, Barbara

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Challen, Colin

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Chaytor, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Foulkes, rh George

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Gilroy, Linda

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Goggins, Paul

    Coaker, Vernon

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Grogan, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Coleman, Iain

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    862

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hanson, David

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McWalter, Tony

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    McWilliam, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Healey, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Heppell, John

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Heyes, David

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Martlew, Eric

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Miliband, David

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Mole, Chris

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moran, Margaret

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Morgan, Julie

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Morley, Elliot

    Hutton, rh John

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Mudie, George

    Illsley, Eric

    Mullin, Chris

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Olner, Bill

    Jamieson, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jenkins, Brian

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Plaskitt, James

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Joyce. Eric (Falkirk W)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Prescott, rh John

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Kelly, Ruth (Bo/ton W)

    Purchase, Ken

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Kidney, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

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

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Lammy, David

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Lazarowicz. Mark

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lepper, David

    Rooney, Terry

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ruane, Chris

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Linton, Martin

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Love, Andrew

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sawford, Phil

    McCabe, Stephen

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Singh, Marsha

    McDonnell, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    McFall, John

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    McIsaac, Shona

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    McKechin, Ann

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Soley, Clive

    863

    Spellar, rh John

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Squire, Rachel

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Locnaoer)

    vaz, Keith (Leicester t)

    Ward, Claire

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Watts, David

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    White, Brian

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Stringer, Graham

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wilson, Brian

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Winnick, David

    Taylor rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaste C)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Woolas, Phil

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Worthington, Tony

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Timms, Stephen

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wright David (Telford)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wyatt Derek

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Trickett, Jon

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Truswell, Paul

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Dan Norris

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Knight rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Baldry, Tony

    Lamb, Norman

    Barrett, John

    Lansley, Andrew

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Bercow, John

    Lidington, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Maclean, rh David

    Breed, Colin

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Burnett, John

    Mates, Michael

    Burstow, Paul

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Cameron, David

    Moore, Michael

    Cotter, Brian

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Öpik, Lembit

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Doughty, Sue

    Page, Richard

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Evans, Nigel

    Paterson, Owen

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Flook, Adrian

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Forth, rh Eric

    Redwood, rh John

    Francois, Mark

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Rendel, David

    Goodman, Paul

    Robathan, Andrew

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Greenway, John

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Gummer, rh John

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hammond, Philip

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hancock, Mike

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Salmond, Alex

    Harvey, Nick

    Sanders, Adrian

    Heald, Oliver

    Shepherd, Richard

    Heath, David

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

    Hermon, Lady

    Holmes, Paul

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Stunell, Andrew

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Swayne, Desmond

    864

    Syms, Robert

    Whittingdale, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Thurso, John

    Willis, Phil

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Wishart, Pete

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Watkinson, Angela

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Mr. Mark Hoban and

    Weir, Michael

    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

    Question accordingly agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

    Question agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Question agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Estimates, 2001–02

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

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

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

    PETITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Carers
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Mr. Gary Streeter: It is a great privilege, on carers' rights day, to raise the issue of carers in the House. I am delighted that so many colleagues are present and able to take part in this important debate. I am grateful to whatever system it is that operates behind the scenes that ensured that this important subject was chosen.
The purpose of my remarks is first to pay tribute to those many people who demonstrate such sacrificial love and care on those who need their help—often, but not always, members of their own families—and who do it day in, day out. I pay tribute also to the many organisations that, under the banner of carers' rights day, are taking steps in every locality to ensure greater awareness of the needs of carers and of the people for whom they care. It is a great privilege to take part in this debate.
It will be salutary for us to think for a moment of the scale of the issue, and of what is involved for those who, every moment of every day, are ruled by the needs of others. Some of the families to whom I have been speaking since being told that this subject had been selected for debate have humbled me by demonstrating such commitment, such dedication, to the people for whom they care.
The scale of the problem is immense. Nearly 7 million people care full time or part time for loved ones who are frail, disabled or chronically ill and who could not manage without their help. One in eight of our population is a carer, and in Devon, 69,204 people are carers. Week in, week out, many of us talk and listen to carers in our constituency surgeries, and we hear of their struggles, problems and aspirations. Although the expression is overused, the words "unsung heroes" come to mind.
There is no question that society would collapse without those carers. However, at times in the history of mankind, disabled children would have been left out on the hillsides to die. Even in modern times in Europe, such as in Ceaucescu's Romania, children with mental or physical disabilities were abandoned in awful institutions and neglected. Thank heavens that does not happen in our society—thanks largely to the work of 7 million unsung heroes.
In our country, 1.8 million people care for others for more than 20 hours a week, and nearly 1 million spend 50 hours a week or more caring for their loved ones. We know from our surgeries that many spend not 50 hours a week but 24 hours a day looking after a disabled son or daughter or an elderly parent.
This year, 301,000 people will become carers for the first time. A particularly challenging statistic is that 51,000 young carers under 18 years of age not only cope
178WH
with school and the turbulence of the teenage years—those of us who are parents know all about that—but have to go home at 3.30 or 4 pm to care for parents who are disabled or challenged in some way. They require our special support. One million parents care for their disabled children. If ever a statistic demonstrated the love of parents—in many instances it is mainly that of the mother—it is that 95 per cent. of disabled children are cared for in the home, not in institutions. We have all met people who commit their lives to caring for their disabled children. Carers collectively save the state £57.4 billion per annum. I am sure that the Minister would be horrified if all the carers in the country suddenly said, "We shall not do it any longer; the state must provide the services that we have willingly been giving free for all these years." The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a difficult day trying to find the money to do that. It could not happen.
It is a salutary fact that most carers are caring for a husband, wife or partner, son, daughter, mother or father. Although we often think that the family is under threat—it is certainly changing shape in many quarters—we must remind ourselves, today of all days, that blood is thicker than water; family does work, it is the important building block of a strong society. The statistics demonstrate the meaning and the immense value of family.
Those of us who are married said in our wedding vows, "For richer, for poorer, for better, for worse, in sickness and in health." We said it and we meant it. For many families, it is an everyday reality. We do not know in advance how our families will develop. We do not know when a child is born, or when our parents reach 50, 60 or 70, how their health will be. Some people say that that is unfair. Yes, it is unfair and there are no guarantees. However, the humbling lesson is that 7 million people have said, "Yes, it is unfair, but we will love through and provide the services anyway." It is important to recognise that.
The state could not take over these responsibilities even if it wanted to—it would not be right for it to try to supplant the natural family responsibility. However, we want the state and society to give the right kind of help. There are three distinctive layers: the family on the front line, the state, in the shape of both national and local authorities, and the wider community—charities, voluntary organisations, churches and all of us as neighbours. Each of us can play a part in helping the nation's carers.
We all have favourite examples of carers in our constituencies who have come to us for help, whether in writing or at our surgeries. I think of a man, now in his late 60s, who has been caring for his blind wife for more than 30 years. Many carers experience unrelenting pressure, day in, day out. I do not notice such things, but my wife tells me that the blind wife always looks terrific: she is well dressed—as she cannot dress herself, her husband dresses her—and they are active as a couple. They attend many events in the village, at the local church and in a larger association. They are always there, always active, always playing their part. That man is a hero. Uncomplainingly, he cares for his wife in a remarkable way.
In recent days, I have been talking to a family whose daughter is blind. She cannot walk, talk or eat and she is partially deaf. She always has tubes in her. The rest of

179WH
her family have devoted their lives to raising Vicky in her own home. It was a surprise to me to learn that the parents' main concern is not for themselves—"How could this happen to us?"—but that their other two children should live lives that are, in their words, more normal; not bogged down by tubes or blood testing all the time. They want their children to have proper holidays, away from such pressures. All these people deserve our support. I am sure that we have all met elderly people in our constituencies who care for their disabled adult children. Their abiding fears are what will happen to, and who will look after, their sons and daughters when they get too old to help them or die. That is such a difficult subject. Care will pass to another group, and it will not stay within the family in the same way.
Carers care sacrificially, but their care is not cost free. The Princess Royal Trust for Carers carried out a survey recently, and some of its members' responses are interesting. It states:
"Over eight out of 10 carers said that caring had a negative impact on their own health. Almost nine out of 10 reported that they feel stress, anxiety, depression or loss of sleep, due to being a carer. Carers also saw the sheer relentlessness of caring and its effects on their mental and physical well-being as being their biggest problems.
The majority of carers would like to take a break from caring. Those more likely to say they wanted a break were female, those caring for 15 hours a day or more, those caring for a son or daughter and carers aged 44 years or under. Carers need different types of help to take a break. Overall around two thirds of carers would need help with respite care, one third would need help from a sitting service and a third would need financial help, to take a break."
Caring does not come without a price. The mum in the family that I spoke to over the weekend talked about being permanently tired as a result of caring for her child.
That is the scale of the issue, but what can we do about it? I pay tribute to the Government for the additional resources that they have made available in the past few years, and for their focus on the issue. It is much to be welcomed and commended. The debate is not about wagging the finger at anyone to say that they are not doing enough.
The Carers UK website contains the understatement of the century when it states that
"the benefits system is complicated".
That has always been true. It is certainly true in relation to people who try to get help as carers. Some help goes directly to the disabled person, and some goes to the carer. Different rules apply for people under 18 or over retirement age. Some help comes from social services under a completely different system, and there is respite care, the new assessment system, some day-centre services and home visits from the local social services, for example. That last form of help is patchy and differs throughout the country. Sometimes it is excellent, but sometimes it is not so commendable. Much of the help is necessarily means tested. The forms seem to become longer and more complicated.
We are all concerned about the take-up of disability living allowance, invalid care allowance and related benefits, especially among those who have cared for
180WH
many years. Those who have recently started to care and have had access to better information are more aware, but those who have been caring for a loved one in the home as a matter of course for 10, 15 or 20 years are less likely to be aware of the support available. What more can we do about that?
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are no real take-up figures for invalid care allowance? It might be useful if the Government undertook some high-quality research on the subject. I have noticed that the quarter following carers' rights day last year saw a 12.5 per cent. increase in claims for the allowance. That suggests a large unmet need.
Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically important point. I would not want the Government to load more accounting and reporting requirements on the system, but some forensic research would be excellent. One reason for us being here to support carers' rights day is to make more people aware of it. I have appeared in much of the local media this morning, and I hope that more people in Devon and Cornwall are now aware of their entitlements and will come forward for them.
The lack of awareness continues, despite the excellent work that some of the carers' associations are doing. In my constituency, the Ivybridge Carers Association and the Plymouth carers centre provide information, distribute leaflets and help people to access the systems. However, too many people still struggle to get the help that they desperately need. I ask the Minister what plans she might have to introduce greater simplicity and to streamline the system. I know how complicated the issue is, and I understand that there is no magic bullet or wand. What steps could be taken to increase take-up, by improving simplicity and streamlining the system?
The daughter of a family to whom I was speaking over the weekend had been having free respite care. Now that she is 18, however, the family has to start paying for that. The daughter and her needs have not changed, but suddenly the rules have changed. Maybe that is inevitable, but should it be? The family cannot find out what changed respite care will cost in their changed circumstances, and they have stopped having it. That is the last thing that we want to happen. The situation is like an elderly person not turning their fire on during the winter because they are frightened of the cost. Is there a way of ensuring that the system is simpler?
Recently, the Ivybridge Carers Association talked to me about concern over the fairer charging policies that some local authorities are introducing. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) intends to raise the issue, so I do not want to focus too much on it, except to say that people have genuine concerns that fairer charging policies are leading to increased charges for many people. We do not want to see that.
Is there a plan to simplify and streamline? Are there plans for a greater nationwide awareness programme? Is there anything more that the Government can do to make more carers aware of their entitlement? I think that even the term "carers" leads to some confusion, because some of the full-time professionals who work in domiciliary care and similar roles are also described as

181WH
carers. People may hear the word "carers" and think, "Well, that doesn't apply to me—that's fully paid people." The Government are skilled at the right use of language to get their point across. Is there scope for better language?
It is important that the Government do what they can, but also that there is a wider response to the problem. I feel strongly about a more holistic approach among employers. Best-practice employers are getting better at family friendly policies on such issues as their employees' having to collect children from school, and are showing a greater awareness of school holidays and of the needs that a family have when a child is born and children are at school. However, there is less awareness of the stresses and strains on families caring for a disabled person or an elderly relative in the same way. I was quite taken with the words of the chief executive of Carers UK, Diana Whitworth, on that organisation's website. It reads:
"Four million people in the UK juggle work and care and nearly three million of these carers look after an older relative. Our ageing population means more and more of us will end up caring for an older relative—and many of tomorrow's parents will also have 'elder care' responsibilities.
A sea change in employers' attitudes is needed. Tomorrow's workforce will include a higher proportion of carers and flexible working patterns will have to become the norm rather than the exception."
I am not sure whether this is an unusual thing for a Conservative to say, but I genuinely believe that employers—particularly larger employers—should follow best practice, in terms of flexible working arrangements. It is not all about the bottom line. We should be building a sustainable country, and family friendly policies are an important part of that. I hope that we can make some progress in that area.
Mr. John Randall: My hon. Friend is raising some important points. Perhaps I should speak as an employer. The advantage of a small family business is that one is aware of individual needs, although many employees are frightened to come forward to say what caring needs there are at home because they feel that that might be difficult. We should encourage employees to tell employers what the problems are, and ensure that employers do not discriminate against people who care for others.
Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point, and debates such as this can make us aware of such issues. Central and local government are massive employers and can lead by example. It is matter of attitude, not simply of new rules and regulations. As my hon. Friend says, it is about encouraging employees to step forward and employers understanding the issues.
My next point is my most important. I hope that help and support can be tailored to particular family situations wherever possible, although I know that that is difficult. I have spoken to several charities that are active on this issue, and I asked them which point it was most important to make in this debate. In different ways, they all said the same thing: we should not make assumptions about the sort of help that carers and families need. Wherever possible, our help should be flexible enough to meet particular needs.
182WH
A few days ago, I learned that this issue had been selected for debate and I felt strongly that respite care was the most important issue. Being the sort of person I am, I would want to get away as often as possible from the pressures that we are discussing. Interestingly, however, the Princess Royal Trust for Carers survey, from which I read earlier, found that
"four out of ten carers … would not like to take a break. Given the emphasis on carers' breaks as the major new service for carers this finding deserves some attention from policy makers and perhaps more research on the reasons for this. These carers might benefit from other types of support. Some local authorities have used the Carers Grant to fund different types of support for carers, including mobile phones, IT equipment and other equipment needed at home."
I am all for that. It is important that we listen to individual families and carers so that our support systems are sufficiently flexible to give them the support that they need. Earlier, I mentioned a couple who were caring for their daughter. Their main concern was not for themselves but for their other two children, whom they wanted to have a break from the tubes and blood tests, as they put it.
It is important that central and local government take that principle on board, which is why I was interested in the consultation that took place earlier this year on the respite voucher scheme. Although the scheme comes back to respite care, which is still important for many people, I liked the principle behind it. It would empower people to make their own choices by giving them a voucher that they could take wherever they wanted. I am in favour of applying that principle in other areas, such as education and health, because the money should follow the consumer or the patient. It was the Government who introduced this interesting scheme. I know that the consultation ended in June, but I want to know what has happened to it since. Has it become lost in the mists of Whitehall or is it about to emerge to delight us all over the next few weeks? It could make a real difference by ensuring that help is tailor-made to families' and carers' needs. I hope that it can be introduced.
Local authorities have ring-fenced money for respite care, a move that I welcome, but it is not necessary for them to provide the care themselves because there are some excellent charities that can make the provision. On the Winged Fellowship Trust website, I read about some of the excellent holidays that the trust provides for families with disabled children. They are the sort of holidays that I would like the family in Ivybridge to have access to, and the voucher scheme might facilitate that.
It is important that there is much more awareness of carers' needs, of the daily pressures on them and of the immense love and care that they give. There is a need for greater simplicity in the benefits system, and all Governments have tried to simplify it, but it is extremely difficult to do so. Does the Minister have anything new to tell us about that?
My main point, however, is that we should try to give these unsung heroes the help that they want and need, without assuming that we know what it is.

183WH
The message should also ring out loud and clear from this debate, from all corners of the House and all parts of the United Kingdom: every carer—particularly on carers' rights day—we salute you.
9.54 am
Andrew Selous: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) in this debate. I, too, am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on carers' rights day.
We rightly salute the 1 million people who work for the national health service and for social services departments. However, as my hon. Friend said, 1 million people care for loved ones and family members for more than 50 hours a week—many of them for 24 hours a day. A further 1.8 million people care for loved ones for more than 20 hours a week. There are 7 million carers in this country.
We need to remember that carers are not a group parcelled away separately in society; they are not in a place that those of us without such responsibilities are lucky enough to have nothing to do with. We are all potential carers, and most of us will be carers at some time. Seven out of 10 women and six out of 10 men will be carers at some time. The subject affects us all, whether for short, intense periods or for long periods. We heard the moving story of the gentleman in my hon. Friend's constituency who has cared for his wife for 30 years or so.
I am deeply alarmed by a projection that I have seen that by 2037 we shall face a shortfall of 2.1 million carers. The people who need care will suffer if they cannot get it from close members of their family. I am also concerned about the extra demand that will be placed on social services departments.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon mentioned the tremendous importance of strong families. I have raised that theme before, and I shall continue to do so as long as I am a Member of Parliament. Sadly, we are the divorce capital of Europe. More marriages—40 per cent. of them—break down in this country than in any other country in Europe. Obviously, when relationships fall apart, the onus of caring for a partner, husband, wife or other family members can similarly be broken down.
That is one of many aspects of public policy of which the Government should be aware. They should examine the impact of family breakdown on people who need to be cared for. I hope that that argument will be fed back to the groups within the Government who study such issues cross-departmentally.
It is easy to talk about statistics such as the 7 million carers and the 1 million people caring for more than 50 hours a week. However, every carer is in unique circumstances, dealing with their own stresses, including isolation, exclusion from the community and, not least, severe financial demands. I welcome the fact that since October 2002 people of 65 or over who become carers for the first time have been able to claim benefits. I am proud that my party called for that from December 1999. However, to give credit where it is due, the Government introduced the measure.
184WH
Invalid care allowance, which, from next April, will be renamed carers allowance, can be claimed only if the cared-for person is in receipt of attendance allowance or disability living allowance. Yet more than half the people entitled to those benefits do not claim them. Take-up is an important issue. I know that take-up throughout the benefit system is a matter of concern to the Minister. As the Minister will know from previous debates on the minimum income guarantee and other benefits, the issue exercises social security Ministers in relation to a wide range of benefits. We certainly need to concentrate on increasing the take-up of attendance allowance and disability living allowance.
This morning I spoke to a representative from Carers UK who told me that many people find benefit application forms the equivalent of wading through a small novel. I make a plea to the Government to make applying for disability living allowance, in particular, simpler, and to advertise the availability of the benefit more widely so that more people know about it. That will enable carers to claim those benefits to which they are entitled, including the newly named carers allowance from next year and the premium on income support.
Since I became a Member of Parliament, several constituents have come to see me about claiming disabled facilities grants to extend or change their homes so that they can care for a sick or disabled family member. That is an excellent scheme, which enables families to provide care at home for members of their family who need it. An extension, a lift, a downstairs bathroom, or wider corridors can transform a family's ability to care for someone in their own home. I know that in my constituency, South Bedfordshire district council has a very limited pot of funds for that purpose so, sadly, it turns down many applications for grants, severely restricting the plans of those who apply for them. Of course, the system is properly controlled. The council acts on the advice of the professionals involved, such as occupational therapists, to ensure that appropriate extensions are put in place and that families do not try to take advantage of the scheme.
I am aware that certain local authorities in the eastern region seem to have money left in their budgets at the moment. The East of England Development Agency seems to have lots of money, which it is looking to spend on various things by the end of the year. I am also aware of the Government's plans for regional assemblies. I put in a plea that the Government should move some of that money to boost the amount that local authorities have available for much-needed disabled facilities grants. Those grants can be lifesavers and they encourage independence and care within families—exactly the things that we should support.
Last week, the Second Reading of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges) Bill took place. That Bill sets out procedures that will apply to people leaving hospital and will impose fines on local authorities that do not provide people discharged from hospital with somewhere to go within three days of their discharge. Carers UK is very concerned about that and believes that the Bill could be bad news for carers. Carers UK has conducted a substantial amount of research on the issue and discovered some alarming information. At present, 45 per cent.—nearly half—of carers are not consulted at all when the person for whom they care is discharged. That is very worrying. In addition, we know

185WH
that a fifth of carers do not receive a copy of the discharge plan from the hospital. There has also been a big increase in the number of people readmitted to hospital within two months of discharge. Between 1999 and 2001, it rose from 19 per cent. to 45 per cent. Those figures should ring alarm bells for the Government, who should consider carefully the effect of legislation on carers. We need to give statutory backing to the guidance on discharge so that carers have the full force of the law behind them to ensure that what is in the guidance notes comes to pass, and that people are not made to go home before carers are ready to care for them properly.
We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon that some 4 million people in this country juggle work and care; some 3 million of those look after older relatives. They are a group of carers coping with particular demands and stresses as they move daily from the work to the caring environment. I pay tribute to employers such as HSBC, Lloyds TSB, British Telecom, Centrica and the national health service that have worked with Carers UK to develop carer-friendly employment practices. Credit where credit is due—they have made significant steps forward. We should encourage more employers to walk that route. It may be more difficult for very small employers to follow the same route as larger ones, but those who are able to should be encouraged to do so.
Perhaps a carer-friendly employer mark could be developed that larger employers could put on their writing paper to advertise the fact that they have made progress in developing carer-friendly practices. That would not be the heavy hand of legislation, but would encourage best practice.
People who have been caring full time and want to return to the employment market will have gaps in their employment record on their CV. I know people, including members of my family, who feel rather embarrassed about the time that they have been out of the labour market caring for others. That should not be the case. The fact that people have spent a period of time caring for someone who desperately needed it should be seen almost as a gold star on their CV.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon said that it was not all about the bottom line. However, people who have been through the hard times and shown that they have the duty and sense of obligation, day in day out, to look after someone in great need would make sterling employees and be particularly loyal to their employer; they should come highly commended to employers. Carers should not be embarrassed or try to tuck the fact away, but say with pride, "I cared day in day out for a sick relative, which is why I was out of the labour market. I hope you will respect the strengths that I have gained from that experience."
Many employers are taking steps to introduce good child care facilities. I salute and commend those excellent, much-needed steps, but as my hon. Friend said there is less progress in providing facilities for those who care for older relatives. We know that employees who care for older people are reticent about making their employers aware of their needs. We should encourage them to come forward, and encourage employers to take a responsive and sensitive approach.
186WH
I welcome the fact that those who have become carers in the past year seem to be more aware of the benefits, respite care and assessments to which they are entitled. Research conducted by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and other organisations has shown that people who have been caring for many years are less aware of their rights and entitlements and the extra help that they can receive than those who have recently become carers.
In some parts of the country, GPs register their patients' carers. We need to extend that excellent scheme. I do not want to load GPs with extra administration—they should receive specific funds to help them cope, although the requirement would not be that onerous—but if we could extend the scheme nationally, for the first time we would have a register of the 7 million carers about whom we have been talking this morning.
As far as I am aware, there is no register of carers. If that information were available, it could be passed on to the Department for Work and Pensions, which would then know who was entitled to the new carers allowance and the income support premium. Local authorities would be able to make carers aware of respite care schemes and the assessments to which they were entitled. Such a scheme could make a big difference, and I commend it to the Minister. Perhaps she will be kind enough to give me her initial response in her winding-up speech.
Some information is available to carers. Carers UK does some excellent work, which includes running Carers Line on 0808 808 7777. It is available from 10 am to midday and 2 pm until 4 pm every Monday to Friday. It is worth putting that number on the record because if people read the record of the debate they may be encouraged to ring Carers Line to find out about their entitlement.
I should also like to commend my county council in Bedfordshire, which has been running a countywide short breaks bureau and helpline for two years through the Bedfordshire Rural Communities Charity. People can ring a freephone number to get vouchers to provide short-term respite care to enable them to go to the shops, visit a friend or take a break. The helpline has been running successfully for two years, and I know from constituents who have come to see me in my surgeries that it is greatly appreciated. Indeed, many people have asked me whether it would be possible to extend the scheme.
One of my constituents, Mrs. Maureen Fuller, has given me permission to mention her case. I spoke to her yesterday, and I have seen her on a number of occasions since my election to Parliament. Mrs. Fuller cares for her daughter Julie, who has learning difficulties and has been in a wheelchair for many years. Mrs. Fuller is Julie's sole carer, and she has raised a number of particular issues.
Mrs. Fuller lives in Leighton Buzzard, which was once described to me as being about eight miles from everywhere, and there are no facilities in the town where her daughter can be cared for on a daily basis. Eight miles may not sound very far from the nearest facilities, but Julie Fuller has great difficulty travelling in transport in her wheelchair to the nearest day centre because she gets pressure sores. There are plans, which will possibly be implemented in conjunction with

187WH
Mencap, to open a small unit to care for people with learning disabilities in Leighton Buzzard. I strongly support those plans.
Respite care has been mentioned this morning. It provides people with an important and welcome break. Sometimes it is not just a break but a necessity. In the next few weeks Mrs. Fuller will go into hospital, so she will need to find somewhere—she hopes that she has done so—for her daughter Julie to stay meanwhile. She told me that when Julie has gone into respite care in the past, those caring for her have not always properly read her notes. That small practical detail is tremendously important. When carers hand over to someone, they should have confidence that the notes will be properly read so that the person's day passes as well as it possibly can.
It is important that agencies who provide carers for people such as Julie have sufficient back-up to cover for their staff when they are sick or go on holiday. For a carer, it is the most alarming and worrying thing in the world if they are expecting someone to come in at 9 o'clock every morning to wash and dress the person for whom they care and nobody turns up. Unless one has been in that situation it is impossible fully to imagine the upset, worry and concern that it causes. I flag that up on behalf of Mrs. Fuller and the many other people who no doubt have to cope with the same situation.
10.16 am
Mr. Paul Goodman: I begin—how else could I?—by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on making a fine speech. It is a privilege to take part in this debate, although I feel a sense of inadequacy in doing so, for two reasons. First, the most useful contribution of all was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire when he gave the free Carers Line number and rightly said that people who leaf through Hansard to read the debate may care to take note of it. Secondly, I feel a deeper sense of inadequacy—my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon mentioned this—in the face of carers who come to my surgery week in, week out and have to deal with challenges and difficulties that I for one would feel unable to cope with or to bear. I am sure that the Minister and all hon. Members who speak in the debate will have had such experiences.
That leads me to praise the work of carers of all backgrounds in my constituency who care for sick, infirm or chronically ill relatives or friends. In my year or so as the Member of Parliament for Wycombe, I have often been struck by the fact that many of these carers would be unable to cope were it not for the network of charities, clubs, churches and faith communities that keep them going. Often, these organisations are staffed by volunteers who are recently, or not so recently, retired and are carers themselves. That should go on the record, too. I want particularly to praise the work of the South Bucks carers centre in High Wycombe, which provides information, advice and support for carers in the area.
As my hon. Friends said, carers who have been caring for the longest are often least aware of the good things that the Government are trying to do for them. I
188WH
particularly draw attention to the needs of my ethnic minority constituents, whom the South Bucks carers centre makes great efforts to help. As carers in these communities may speak English as a second language, or not at all, they often have the most difficulty in getting access to the services and means of help that are provided by the state or by voluntary groups. There is a high concentration of poverty and challenges to carers among the elderly, and in particular among elderly women, who may not take up benefits to which they are entitled. Reference has been made to the carers allowance, which is due to be introduced soon.
Let us consider the take-up of some benefits: for example, of the minimum income guarantee, which carers often need and which helps them to look after the people for whom they are caring. The number of people who do not take up such benefits may be as high as 1 million. Will the Minister respond to the points raised by my hon. Friends about take-up? What do the Government intend to do for older, ethnic minority carers, who, because of the language barrier and the work that they often have to undertake in the home—looking after children—are not aware of the advice and support that they can receive?
Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the full range of ethnic minorities have this difficulty? It does not affect only one ethnic minority. Carers UK in London is launching its campaign today in Soho among the Chinese community, where there are particular problems in conveying such information to carers.
Mr. Goodman: There is a small Chinese community in High Wycombe and I would agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to say that the problem is not restricted to certain ethnic minorities. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire and I have often made that point in our work for the Select Committee on Work and Pensions.
I could not possibly cover all the challenges faced by carers in this brief debate. However, carers in my constituency have consistently asked me to raise a point about the effect of the Government's so-called fairer charging policy, which I prefer to call the means-testing policy on carers. I was interested to learn that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon has had the same point raised by carers in his constituency. Until recently, charges for home care were essentially at the discretion of local authorities. In Buckinghamshire, clients were asked to contribute an average of between £25 and £35 a week. I do not believe that I have received one complaint from my constituents about the policy that previously applied.
As the Minister will know, Government policy now obliges councils to provide home care to the very poorest people, if they did not do so before. That is obviously admirable in principle but, financial pressures being what they are, it means higher charges for those who may not be the poorest carers, but who are often in challenged circumstances. Such carers feel that they are being penalised for saving, being thrifty and exercising prudence. The extra weight of the charges may make them feel that they cannot afford the consequences of the Government's fairer charging, or, as I prefer to call it, means-testing policy. For example, Mrs Hackshaw in High Wycombe asks me to urge

189WH
"the Government to review their thinking on the question of their 'Fair Charging for Home Care' policy."
She writes:
"My husband suffered a severe stroke in January 1998, since when he has had to have constant home care for which I already pay what I consider to be a fair charge.
My husband and I are both aged 74, and worked from the age of 16 to 65 without any unemployment or benefits of any kind. We were careful with our income, bought a house, raised two children, one of which we helped through university, and managed to save a small amount for our retirement. Now we are being penalised for being prudent which is grossly unfair."
I have a letter from Diann and Patrick Douneen of Marlow, who make a point about the complexity and difficulty of the forms. They say of their parents, who cannot understand the forms:
"They are a proud and independent generation, many of whom have fought for this country, but due to life's circumstances are not always able to pay for their needs as they become house bound and frail."
Mrs. Geers of Hughenden Valley, near High Wycombe, plays a part in caring for her 92-year-old mother-in-law. She writes:
"She is often confused, is very unsteady after suffering a stroke and needs help with washing and dressing, but the home care enables her to retain a measure of independence in her own home, which she values. She has always been very careful not to waste her money, but as a result of her thrift she is likely to have to pay around £200 a week from now onwards".
She continues:
"It seems to me scandalous that she will be required to pay possibly 10 times as much for these vital services—no other sector of the community would tolerate such a massive increase at one fell swoop in charges of any sort, but those requiring home care are probably the most vulnerable group in our society, and least able to express their plight."
It is hard for me to overestimate the anger and distress of many of my constituents at the imposition of this fairer charging or, as I prefer to call it, means-testing policy on carers in Buckinghamshire. As the local government settlement is due on Thursday, I would be grateful if the Minister were to indicate what the Government might be able to do to relieve these difficulties. I do not want to make points in a partisan spirit, but these are the concerns of my constituents, and it is fair to voice them.
I was interested when my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire drew attention to the additional burden that is likely to be placed on carers in future years, and their declining numbers. I am sure he would agree that one of the main drivers of that potential loss of carers is the breakdown of family structure in Britain. Rightly, he has consistently urged the Government to find ways of keeping people together. He has asked the Government—as have I—to take up the Prime Minister on something that he said in 1998—that marriage is the most reliable means of keeping two people together. If the Government did a little more, and I believe they could do more, to encourage people to stay together and to encourage marriage, many of the burdens placed on carers might be relieved a little. I know the challenges for the Government are great, but I hope that the Minister will respond to these points.
10.28 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on his good fortune in securing a timely debate on an important subject. We have heard some detailed speeches about carers' concerns. I shall briefly pick up on a few issues and illustrate them through experiences in my constituency. We heard the hon. Gentleman set out the statistics that underpin the debate. It is worth stressing that the bulk of care is provided by informal carers and not the state. Often these carers are family members, but there are others, as we have heard.
The hon. Gentleman documented clearly the impact that that role can have on a person's health, wealth and well-being over time. It does take its toll. It is right to stress that in developing services for carers, as well as those for whom they are caring, we should ensure that they are not designed on a single template or based on a one-size-fits-all approach. We must ensure that they meet the needs of the individual.
Today, however, especially because the Minister is responsible for the benefits system, I shall raise some issues relating to the way in which that system sometimes gets in the way of, or certainly does not assist, carers and those for whom they are caring. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Carers UK website describing the system as complex. Sometimes it is not only complex but inaccessible, and access to benefits is an important issue for many carers. Research by Carers UK has revealed the financial hardship endured by carers. Eight out of 10 said that, on becoming a carer, they became financially worse off.
A case from my constituency highlights how the benefits system can let carers down. A daughter returned to her parents' home to care for them. The mother had suffered a stroke and required constant care day and night. The father was about to go into hospital for an operation. Both had clear and demonstrable care needs. The daughter took on the caring role. She applied for invalid care allowance, which is to become the carer's allowance, but she was turned down on the ground that she was fit for work. She had an interview at the local Benefits Agency office, where she explained her circumstances. However, instead of listening and offering help and suggestions, the official pressured her into applying for jobseekers allowance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): On what date was that?
Mr. Burstow: It was in the past month, so I hope that the Minister can pick up on the case when she responds to the debate. As I said, the daughter was asked to apply for the JSA and eventually she gave in and did so. It would be helpful if the Minister would give us extra information. I shall explain why in a moment. The daughter made it clear on the application form that she was available for work between 11 pm and 5 am—while her mother was asleep. The Benefits Agency official saw that that was set out on the form in black and white, and my constituent has been monitored over the past few weeks on that basis.
The case came to my attention when I told the Sutton carers centre in my constituency that this debate was to take place and asked it for an example of how the

191WH
benefits system sometimes lets carers down. Eddie Parsons, the carers' information and support worker, told me about the case and accompanied my constituent to her next interview at the Benefits Agency to support her and again explain her circumstances to the officials. During the interview, she was accused—the precise wording was not taken down—of evading work, of trying not to take on a work responsibility. Finally, the Benefits Agency worker explained that the daughter's ICA claim had been turned down because her mother did not receive attendance allowance. Why that had not been flagged up at the start of the process beggars belief.
According to a 1998 survey by the Department for Work and Pensions, anything between 40 and 60 per cent. of those entitled to attendance allowance do not claim it. In the case to which I have referred, the parents were unaware of their entitlement, a problem that other hon. Members have mentioned. As a consequence, the benefit was not claimed, the entitlement was not established and the ICA was not available. The parents are now applying for the benefit, but have been told that they may have to wait for two months and go through appeal procedures to get it.
The system let the mother down in the first instance by not ensuring that she was aware of her entitlement to attendance allowance. Secondly, the system let down the carer by not listening when she explained her circumstances and not signposting a way forward that would enable her to gain entitlement to the ICA and to discharge the caring responsibilities that she had chosen to undertake.
This afternoon, I shall attend a question time session with carers in my constituency as part of carers' rights day. I hope that the Minister will go beyond her intervention and explain what I can tell them about how such a circumstance can transpire and what can be done to ensure that it does not happen again. We have also heard that, at present, there are no reliable figures for the take-up of ICA. Research is therefore needed to underpin our understanding of how we can target take-up campaigns more effectively.
We know that one of the most important changes in a person's life that leads to the onset of a caring role is the discharge of a loved one from hospital. In that context, reference was made to research carried out by Carers UK, which found that 70 per cent. of carers who took on a caring role were not consulted about whether they wished to do so. I hope that when the Department of Health issues fresh guidance on discharge planning, we can ensure that information on benefits checks is built into it. Those who are about to be discharged should be given advice about their likely entitlements so that they can make further inquiries, and carers should also be given that advice through their assessments.
We have not yet mentioned blue badges, or disabled parking badges, in this useful debate. A short while ago I met a constituent—the carer of a young child who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and whose condition is on the autistic spectrum—who was concerned about the eligibility criteria for disabled badges. I have had several letters in my mailbag recently on the same issue. The constituent applied for a disabled badge and was told that it could not be made available because the scheme was designed according to the
192WH
recipient's ability to walk. However, the concern in this case was the ability of the recipient to walk safely, because of the child's autistic condition and their challenging behaviour, which made life very difficult for the carer and the parent to carry on with their caring duties. I would have welcomed the opportunity to expand on that issue.
Will the Minister ask the Department of Transport to examine the criteria, so that they can be made more flexible? In that way, the situation would be improved for thousands of carers in the United Kingdom, and probably hundreds in my constituency, who have responsibility for caring for disabled children and who would find a disabled badge a god send.
We have had a useful debate, which has illuminated some of the concerns of carers in the UK. It is not the first debate on the issue this year. That demonstrates that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the value that we place on carers. They are the backbone of our caring system, and it is our duty to ensure that they receive the support that they deserve.
10.37 am
Mr. Oliver Heald: I shall take up the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) about the blue badge scheme. My experience of that issue is different from his but I, too, am concerned, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.
The case concerned a child with mental health problems. A badge had been issued to the family, but they found that they received abuse, and had difficulty in using the badge, because members of the public did not understand that the child was entitled to it on the basis of the sort of safety concerns outlined earlier. The public did not appreciate that, because the nature of the badge implies that it is related to physical mobility and walking.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made another good point about the complexity of the benefits system, which echoed that made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). In the example given by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, it was the fact that the mother had not received attendance allowance that had led to the surprising events in relation to invalid care allowance. Does the Minister have any plans to simplify the system, and, if so, will she outline them?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon on securing the debate, and for doing so in such a timely way; we are discussing carers on carers' rights day. It is not often that the House of Commons is as efficient as that. I notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are looking doubtful at that statement, but I believe it to be unusual that we manage to be that effective.
I notice that early-day motion 254 on the Order Paper today also highlights the support of many Members for carers' rights day, and pays tribute to Carers UK and to Lloyds pharmacy for all their support for that day.
My hon. Friend started by talking about the scale of the issue; the 7 million people in the country who are looking after someone who is sick, frail or disabled. Many of those carers are unaware of the help that is available to them. Carers UK conducted a survey in

193WH
which it found that half the number of carers said that it took them two years to realise that they were, in fact, carers, and were therefore entitled to receive help. Last year's carers' rights day led to a 12.5 per cent. increase in claims for invalid care allowance in the following quarter, which is worrying.
As I said, there are no accurate take-up figures for ICA, and it would help to know the exact scale of the problem when targeting campaigns. The research undertaken by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers—which shows that the carers who have cared for the longest period of time are those with the least information—could be properly tested. We could examine ways to tackle the problem for the generation that is not receiving the advantages brought by the more recent changes.
It is right to welcome the Government's actions in extending ICA as an underlying benefit and in providing the extra payments after death. Those are caring measures that we should all welcome. It was right of my hon. Friend to mention "Without us…?", the Carers UK report that demonstrated the economic value of carers, replacing whom would cost £57.4 billion. It is also worth remarking that the number of carers has risen by 70 per cent. in eight years. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, the projections are worrying. Given the estimates for the increase in caring need, as many as 9 million carers could be required by 2037. One of the documents that Carers UK produced highlights the case of a carer from Liverpool—Roger, aged 48—who made the point:
"We save the country a fortune by a life of long hours, hard work, physical and mental pressure."
It is right that we should recognise that and pay tribute to it today, but there is a moral and an economic imperative in giving support to carers. I visited several carers' groups in the past year, and spoke at a "Rethinking Severe Mental Illness" meeting in Oxford. What impressed me was that not everyone had wanted to be a carer—many had found it extremely hard—but by coming together in a carers group they could provide each other with a tremendous measure of support.
A young man and his carer were talking about the drugs that are now available to tackle schizophrenia. The group had a wealth of knowledge about the different medications that are available, which brings me to an important point that has already been mentioned; we do not always know exactly what information carers want. The information that we give should he informed by the views of carers themselves. We should make as much use as possible of carers' groups and the voluntary sector when we consider the issue. The Princess Royal Trust for Carers found that all too many carers want more information about medication and its side effects. Six out of 10 believe that they do not have enough information about medical procedures such as giving injections, using catheters and dialysis. A third of carers said that they found the sources of advice and help difficult to use. Paragraph 8.8 in the summary of conclusions states:
"A significant minority of these carers were shown as lacking access to support, information and contact with health and social care professionals. A picture emerged of 'information-poor' carers."
194WH
Do the Government have a strategy for tackling the problem? It would help if they did the requisite research and knew more about it. Producing a plan to deal with this information-poor group would be an extremely good contribution.
Some carers say that they would appreciate information about simple things such as lifting techniques. They can suffer illness because they do not have the requisite knowledge. How should we best tackle that problem?
We have heard a good deal from the Government about respite care. That is welcome, but I want to ask for two points of information. In mental health, 700 more staff are projected for 2004 to enable carers to take more breaks. That is the target. I have asked several parliamentary questions but found no evidence that, two years into the NHS plan, any of the extra staff have been employed anywhere. Can the Minister give an assurance on that? Secondly, what of the voucher scheme? It is a long time since consultation and most of us expected that something would have happened by now. Will the Minister also help us on that?
On the recommendations from the trust, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire mentioned the register proposed in paragraph 8.11. Do the Government welcome it and what is their response?
On premature discharges from hospital, the Minister will know that Carers UK stated:
"Our research shows that policies to reduce delayed discharge can result in patients being sent home too soon and without proper support. The proportion of patients readmitted to hospital within two months more than doubled—from 19 per cent. in 1999 to 45 per cent. in 2001."
The Minister will know that the more recent figures are even worse.
"The same research found carers struggling to cope when members of their family were sent home. Nearly half of those surveyed said that they had not had enough support."
Given that many of the carers are elderly and not in good health themselves, it is terrible if patients are sent home too early. The reason is probably connected with bed blocking. The Minister knows that 60,000 care home places have been lost in recent years as a result of Government policy. Bed blocking happens in virtually every hospital in the country. Are risks being taken by sending patients home rather than to an institutional placement? If so, what are the Government doing to halt this unfair burden on the carer?
Does the Minister agree that employers could do more through carer-friendly practice? Do the Government have any proposals to encourage that? My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) referred to charges. What is the Minister's take on that? The wider range of care is obviously welcome, but could the position be ameliorated?
Carers' rights day provides a great opportunity across the country, with 250 events taking place. It should help people to learn more about help available through the benefits system and community services. Everyone welcomes what is happening today. However, would it not be better if the information were made simpler through a streamlined system that people could more readily understand? It is surely a criticism of the Government's overall policy on benefits that it is impossible for many people to understand the system or

195WH
involve themselves with it. The complexity of forms is a real problem. Are there any plans to simplify the system, the procedures and the forms? It would greatly assist many people who do not currently take up their benefits.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): The debate has been good as well as timely. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) has been assiduous in securing it on the right day. He took his opportunity to set out both the current situation and the concerns of his constituents in detail. I congratulate him on that.
I shall set out briefly what the Government have done to improve the support and help given to carers and will use the rest of the little time available to answer the many questions that have been put. I shall do my best to canter through them, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if time constraints mean that I do not reach all of them.
This is one of the first Governments to have focused on the needs of carers in the way in which we have done—to be fair, the hon. Gentleman recognised that and said that he approves of what the Government have been doing—which has resulted in an extra £0.5 billion package to provide fuller support for carers than they have had previously. Until 1976, the benefits system did not recognise the work of carers at all, so this is a major change for a system that has been going since the 1940s. Invalid care allowance is the only real recognition of the work that carers do. As hon. Members have said, there are many interfaces with social services and elsewhere. Some of that is welcome but other aspects of it cause some of the complications that have been mentioned.
The aim of the extra package is to improve the support for carers, particularly older and poorer carers and the many who seek to combine work with their caring responsibilities. As a result, the ICA earnings limit was increased in April 2001. Many carers work, and ICA is a maintenance benefit; it exists to give a measure of financial support to those who have to give up work. To be eligible, one has to do 35 hours of caring per week. That does not leave much time for working, which is why I was surprised and appalled to hear the story told by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). I hope that he will give me the full details in writing, because what his constituent was told was wrong. The mistake should have been spotted earlier. The story sounded so bad that I would like to look into it. His point about attendance allowance is correct. For the carer to be entitled to ICA, the disabled person who is being cared for has to receive a qualifying benefit. On the evidence of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman outlined, his constituent's mother should have been eligible for attendance allowance. I hope that the problem can be sorted out.
There has been an increase in the earnings limit from some £50 to £75, plus additional expenses, to enable those who care to stay in touch with and remain in the labour market. There has also been an increase of £10 per week in the carer premium for carers at the lower end of the income scale. As many hon. Members have mentioned, carers often pay a financial penalty for the
196WH
caring that they do. The premium focuses on their needs. An extra £10 per week in income-related benefits via the carer premium has been widely welcomed and benefits more than 233,000 carers.
The name of the benefit will—at last—change to carer's allowance in April 2003. It amazes me, but it is a feature of the social security system that changing the name of a benefit can take longer than making any of the other reforms that we have made. That is because ancient computer software means that we cannot generate letters with the right name on them until it has been updated next April. At that point, we will at last have completed the package of increased support.
There is an eight-week run-on of ICA when a disabled person dies. It is incredibly insensitive for virtually the first letter for someone to receive after they have been bereaved to be from us saying, "Give us your book back. We want the money back." The eight weeks will at least enable carers a little time to adjust to the new circumstances that they face. Often, bereavements following care for many years are even more difficult to adjust to than others.
From October, we have also extended ICA to the over-65s. There have already been 18,000 applicants for ICA who are over 65, 7,500 of whom have underlying entitlement to ICA in income-related benefits, and 4,000 of whom receive payment as well because they are poorer carers. We have focused on those poorer and older carers whom Opposition Members mentioned.
Many hon. Members raised the issue of take-up and whether there were take-up figures for ICA. Entitlement to ICA is increasing and the numbers are increasing annually. The forecast for this year is up to 421,000, whereas the 2000–01 figure was 390,000. As ever in the benefits system, we send out general information to try to encourage people to take up that to which they are entitled. Of course, the basic responsibility is to claim. We cannot seek out everyone for every benefit; we would spend our entire budget on that if we were to try it. We want people to claim their entitlements.
We have reduced the length of forms. The minimum income guarantee form has been cut from 40 pages to 10. We have recently completed an experiment to cut heavily the attendance allowance form for over-75s, and that has been successful. New computers in disability benefit centres mean that we can tailor our forms and identify people's requirements in a much more focused way, instead of having to ask people to fill in a general form about everything. We are also conducting experiments in Glasgow on the disability living allowance. There has been movement due to the introduction of new computer technology. The old technology has restricted us in the past.
Andrew Selous: Will the Minister give way?
Maria Eagle: I wish I could give way, but I have hardly any time and will not reach most of the points made.
Many hon. Members mentioned employment. With Carers UK, we are funding a project called "Action for Carers and Employment", which will assist carers to keep in touch with the labour market. The average time on ICA is two and a half years, so it is tremendously

197WH
important to give carers who care for such periods that sort of information. They will not then be disadvantaged if they want to return to work.
Flexibility in provision was referred to. The Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 allows for direct payment, which is an excellent way to ensure flexibility. It means that resources go to specific carers to be used as they want, to meet their needs when they want them met. That means that the local authority does not tell them when they will be given provision. The authority in the area represented by the hon. Member for South-West Devon has made direct payments, which I welcome.
The short-break voucher scheme was led by the Department of Health. Guidelines are being drafted and we expect publication early in the new year. That is another way to increase flexibility where direct payments are not taken up or not quite as appropriate, so that some respite care is given.
Hon. Members also referred to the fairer charging policies. They arise out of "Charging with Care", the Audit Commission report that suggested that there was too great a disparity between charging policies. Department of Health guidance has been issued on the subject. Local authorities are not required either to charge or to charge more than they do. I am sorry to hear the point made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) about massive increases. The Government do not require them. Social services budgets have been increased by the Government by more than 6 per cent. this year, so there should be money available to enable local authorities to make good choices. I hope that the local authority in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will bear that in mind.

Coal Industry
11 am
Paddy Tipping: The energy sector in the United Kingdom faces a period of difficulty and profound uncertainty. As the Minister knows, some energy companies are in crisis. There are severe problems at British Energy, TXU, AES Drax Power and UK Coal, but they are merely symptoms of a deeper, underlying problem. The Government recognised that there was a problem and commissioned the performance and innovation unit energy review, which was published last February. Even in its opening lines, the review clearly acknowledged the underlying problems. In the foreword to the review, the Prime Minister wrote:
"Energy underpins our daily lives … That's why securing cheap, reliable and sustainable sources of energy supply has long been a major concern for governments".
In a sense, three goals are thus set out: cheapness, reliability and sustainability. However, those three goals do not sit easily together—for example, there is real tension between cheapness and sustainability. There are those who argue—I have done so myself—that if we want sustainable sources of energy, we need to consider energy that is more expensive, rather than progressively cheaper. In fairness, the wholesale market price for energy has fallen by 40 per cent. since 1998. However, the knock-on effect for the consumer has been very limited—perhaps just over 1 per cent. off bills. That is a clear demonstration that the market system is not working properly. Furthermore, the problems that energy companies now face show that the progressive policy of squeezing assets has run out of juice.
The PIU report is good on questions but, unfortunately, short on answers. The question of nuclear energy is left for another day. I wonder what we should now make of the statement in the report, which was published some months ago, that:
"Because nuclear is a mature technology within a well established global industry, there is no current case for further government support."
Well, a lot has changed since then. Just last week, for the third time in three months, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had to roll on a £650 million loan to British Energy. Most significantly, it was backed by a grant from Government of between £150 million and £200 million over a 10-year period. That is a significant investment in maintaining an energy sector not through the consumer, but directly, through the taxpayer.
For my part I felt that in some ways, the PIU report showed complacency. Do we really want 80 per cent. of United Kingdom energy needs to be met by gas, 70 per cent. of which will be imported by 2020? What do we mean, post-11 September, by security of supply, if such a scenario is included in the PIU report? The real difficulty is that although the Government acknowledge the problem—I know very well that the Minister works extremely hard on such issues—the planning, policy and market cycles are out of sync. Immediate decisions need to be taken in the market, but the White Paper will not be published until early in the new year. Uncertainty in the market is leading to problems for companies such as British Energy and UK Coal.
The past few months have been extremely difficult for the deep-mined coal industry, witnessing the closure of the Prince of Wales colliery and the rundown—which I

199WH
think will become quicker—of the Selby coalfield. If urgent action is not taken, worse is yet to come, because England's largest coal producer, UK Coal, is currently reviewing every colliery. Daw Mill, for example, is a pit with enormous potential, yet it has huge geological problems; the work force and the management are trying to work through those problems, but things are difficult and Daw Mill is proving to be an enormous drain on the finances of UK Coal.
David Taylor: Daw Mill employs approximately 450 people, a good number of whom come from my constituency. Does my hon. Friend hope that the Government will learn from the serious mistake made in respect of Asfordby in north-east Leicestershire, where more than 800 million tons of coal were left sterilised by a decision not to support the working through of geological problems? Will he therefore urge the Government to reflect on that case and to give Daw Mill and other collieries the support they need at relatively low cost?
Paddy Tipping: The Government need to reflect on the fact that Daw Mill, Harworth and Maltby have long-term strategic reserves of 20 years. We must not lose them, even though there are short-term problems at Daw Mill. A pit that might not have such long-term reserves is Clipstone, in my constituency—it has had a long, good history, but, in fairness, I have to say that it is coming to the end of the reserves. However, its life could be lengthened if closure aid were available for some of the limited reserves, or, in the longer term, if UK Coal were to dispose of it and pass it back to the Coal Authority, and a new owner and manager came in who was prepared to invest in access in the black shale—although that would be a multi-million pound project, I admit.
There are problems at Harworth and Maltby. The men who work in those pits are extremely concerned about the future, so they are in discussions with the management and UK Coal to keep those pits open, and they are prepared to consider new working practices and new methods of investment to do so. At best, the solution will be that UK Coal comes back and cuts costs—in effect, reduces the work force. At worst, it will announce the closure of both collieries, even though they have long-term strategic reserves that we would do well to safeguard. The crunch is that UK Coal is determined to make an announcement about Harworth and Maltby before Christmas.
UK Coal's problem is that it simply does not have the resources to invest in the future. Development of new kit, new faces and new seams is a £1-million project, and UK Coal's short-term funding problems inevitably mean that it is not investing in the future. That will mean progressively more closures in a domino effect. I think that UK Coal is currently funding its operations by closing down one colliery after another, and using the money from the pit that is designated for closure to support the rest of the company. Announcing the closure of a pit is not investing in the future—there is no longer any need to safeguard that pit, and the income from sales keeps the company and the rest of the group going. However, a domino effect has a consequence: at
200WH
some point, UK Coal will run out of pits to close. I fear that that day may not be far off. Collieries can be used as cash cows, raped and pillaged in the short term, but that cannot go on forever.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the old formula for privatisation of the industry from 1994 was flawed? When it was privatised, the whole industry was beyond the critical mass; that had implications for the financial market, which will not invest in an industry that it sees is beyond the critical mass. Therefore, it weighs heavily on Government to provide an aid scheme to allow the mining of a strategic resource to continue.
Paddy Tipping: That is a strong point. My hon. Friend and I go back 10 years on that argument. The mass of the pits has shrunk far too much. The key problem for UK Coal and other energy companies is that they need to borrow money but they are borrowing against short-term contracts, and the financial markets are not prepared to support that. In that context, decisions need to be taken immediately about whether coal has a place in a balanced, diverse energy policy. I have no doubt that it has, and I think that the Minister believes that coal has a future. Put bluntly, coal is the only source of energy that has the flexibility to meet the peaks and troughs of energy demand.
The question then arises do we want indigenous British coal or imported coal at a cheaper price? If we are interested in long-term solutions, we need to maintain our coal industry for reasons of security of supply. In fairness to UK Coal and to the men who work for that organisation, costs are coming down. Project 105 has been difficult but we are achieving closer parity between the costs of imported coal and home coal. Of course, the market is cyclical, and at the moment, we have a relatively strong pound. Things will change, but if we decide that we need a coal industry, we must support it.
The Minister has worked extremely hard in Europe to develop proposals for an investment aid scheme. That is an important step forward because it will allow investment in the future. There has been consultation on the scale and scope of that proposal. I hope the Minister will listen to the responses to the consultation and deepen and widen the scheme, because the total quantum currently envisaged is insufficient, as is the amount available for each pit.
David Taylor: Is not the gap between the cost of imported coal and UK coal wafer thin—a gap that can be bridged at relatively little cost to the Exchequer? Is it not the case that, during the past two and a half years, the average UK production cost per tonne has been about £33, whereas the average cost of imported coal has been about £30 per tonne? Would it not be astonishingly short-sighted to let an industry collapse for want of such a small sum?
Paddy Tipping: I am sure that the Government are aware of that argument. That is why they have stepped in to support British Energy at a cost of £650 million, with progressive annual payments of £150 million to £200 million. They believe in long-term security, which is what the investment package from Europe is all about.

201WH
The Minister needs to do two things. First, he needs to ensure that the package is ready to go at the beginning of 2003—not confirming the arrangements until later in the year simply will not do. He also needs to look further at the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) made about long-term borrowing against short-term contracts. Europe will provide 30 per cent. grant in some cases, but the company will have to raise 70 per cent. from the private sector. I have seen advice, as I guess the Minister has, that suggests that the Government could loan the other 70 per cent., provided that they did so at commercial rates. We might need to examine that proposition, because I do not believe that the market and the banking sector will provide the other 70 per cent.
The Government have, of course, given the coal industry aid over the past three years, including £150 million under the existing coal operating aid scheme. UK Coal's problem is that it has had its perceived "share" of the money. Its funding is capped at £75 million, but it has made bids to the Government for £137 million. I simply do not believe that the new investment package will make a difference on its own. I know that the Minister has listened to discussions about rolling the coal operating aid scheme out further. It will probably have to finish at the end of the month, and I suspect that it could operate until the end of the year. I hope that the Minister will look at that. If the Government seriously want to keep the coal industry going, they must lift the cap from £75 million to £137 million. That would cost £60 million, for which we would get a commitment from UK Coal—it has already made this commitment to several hon. Members present—to keep collieries open for four more years.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I am following my hon. Friend's speech carefully. The figures that he is using should be compared with the £650 million loan to British Energy. We should also consider the budget for renewables, which will cost £870 million by 2010. We must put those figures side by side. The coal industry is asking for less than £200 million, but the significant funding proposed for British Energy and renewables is far in excess of that.
Paddy Tipping: It is true that renewables have a market advantage—that is why the renewables obligation was set up as it was. The market is already rigged in favour of renewables.
As hon. Members have said, the £650 million for British Energy is simply astonishing. I accept that it is a loan, but we are talking about the possibility of a Government grant of £1 50 million to £200 million over 10 years. That takes some explaining in coalfield communities in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. I ask the Minister for a commitment simply to look again at whether the current coal operating aid scheme can be rolled forward, and at whether the cap on UK Coal can be lifted to allow an extra £60 million into the coal industry. I believe that UK Coal will honour its commitment to keep all UK collieries open for a further four years. I say that in the secure knowledge that it has honoured such commitments in the past at Clipstone and Ellington.
202WH
I have not spoken about the environmental pressures on the coal industry, but in the long term, they will be the force that sounds its death knell. I ask the Minister to work closely with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and with the Environment Agency in respect of European legislation such as the large plant directive, which is now on stream. I simply point out that advances in reducing emission levels have been made on the backs of the coal industry and the people who live and work in coalfield communities. If further limits on emissions are needed, other sectors should be considered—for example, the transport sector, which has contributed nothing—rather than the coal industry.
The men who work in British collieries are the most efficient miners in Europe. They can face tough decisions—after all, they lived with the consequences of tough decisions for many years. However, what they, the coal industry and the wider energy sector, find most difficult is uncertainty, which can be dysfunctional and can lead to the postponement of decisions. Financial decisions necessary for the longer term will simply not be made in the short term on the back of short-term contracts. The essential test of the forthcoming energy White Paper will be whether it injects a sense of direction into our energy policy.
Mr. Clapham: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the industry is to be tied to short-term contracts, it could result in a change in the method of working coal? That would add to the cost, as bringing the revenue stream on more quickly would entail moving from retreat mining to advance mining. That, in turn, would result in collieries being closed sooner.
Paddy Tipping: That is exactly right. One of the things that UK Coal is exploring is how to reduce costs. Retreat mining needs long-term investment for greater long-term profit. Advance mining means that short-term decisions are made because of the need for profit. My point is that because of uncertainty in the market, long-term decisions are being postponed. An energy policy is needed now. It should be published very soon to ensure that coal has a real stake, a real place, in an energy policy that is diverse, balanced and secure for all communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a 90-minute debate. The convention is that the Chair is required to commence the winding-up speeches of the three Front Bench spokesmen 30 minutes before the conclusion of the debate. That leaves those seeking to make a contribution about 38 minutes. Protocol advises Members to forewarn the Deputy Speaker that they intend to try to catch his eye. I have received five requests this morning, so we do not have much time. I ask those who are called to be pertinent and brief and to try to resist taking interventions, which, so far, have been far too frequent. I call the hon. Member for Selby.
11.22 am
Mr. John Grogan: It gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on

203WH
securing it. He referred to last week's historic announcement on British Energy. He knows that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry held a briefing for Back Benchers after that statement. I shall not breath a word of what was said at that briefing, but I shall paint a picture. It was held in Room almost as big as this Chamber, but there were only three parliamentary private secretaries, one distinguished Government Whip, my hon. Friend and myself present. There were no Members representing nuclear constituencies in sight. That is because all their problems have been solved—Christmas has come early for them, and there is nothing much to do for the next 10 years. That is not true about the coal industry. We are appealing for a degree of balance and even-handedness and a sense that justice has been done.
I want to reinforce the case for lifting the cap on UK Coal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said, we have 28 days to save the critical mass of the industry—that is 28 days before the scheme runs out of operating aid. We have 28 days to lift the cap on UK Coal, which would give it another £60 million to support the pits.
Ministers and officials have raised three objections, questioning whether that can be done. One objection centres on whether Europe would allow it. Hon. Members might remember that the same sorts of objections were raised when we instituted the scheme in the first place. Many civil servants argued that Europe would not allow the scheme, that we were starting too late and we should have started in 1993 if we wanted to start at all, but those objections were overcome. I rang the European Commission yesterday. I was told that, except for Christmas day and Boxing day, someone would be standing by the telephone, and the Commission would be prepared to entertain an application to lift the cap, although, obviously, it would not give a decision on that to me, and I was told that arguments would have to be made about changed circumstances.
I remind hon. Members that the cap of £75 million on UK Coal was instituted when the cap on the overall scheme was £120 million. Since then, the cap on the overall scheme has been lifted to £170 million, while no adjustment has been made to the cap of £75 million on UK Coal. The scheme has been extended for a further six months, so one could argue that the figure of £75 million was time specific to the cap of £120 million. There are therefore good arguments for raising it.
The second argument relates to what UK Coal will do in response to the lifting of the cap. The Government should ask UK Coal about that. As the hon. Member for Sherwood said, we have received assurances from the senior managers of UK Coal that in return for lifting the cap, the future of the three collieries under threat would be secure for four years, and Selby would be seen through until spring 2004. That is extremely important if we are to make effective the work of the Selby taskforce in retraining people and finding them new jobs.
The third question raised is about money. Sixty million pounds is a significant sum, but if the investment aid scheme is to mean anything, one must have something in which to invest—for example, places such
204WH
as Daw Mill. It is essential that in the next few weeks we do everything possible to lift that cap. I do not think that Europe would be a barrier to that.
Moving on swiftly to the situation in Selby, even if the cap is lifted, £60 million will not save the Selby coalfield. However, it will ensure that its life is prolonged until spring 2004. We in Selby have had some good news in the past week. AES Drax, which owns Drax power station to which most of Selby's., coal is delivered, has reached a six-month standstill agreement with its banks and will continue to take Selby coal at the price agreed for those six months. That is encouraging news for the Selby coalfield, and I pay tribute to the management of UK Coal and AES Drax for continuing to talk to each other during the past weeks. A worse situation could easily have developed, leading to Selby coalfield closing very precipitately.
Three things are on the minds of men in Selby coalfield, which they tell me about most forcibly. One is a real hunger for training and retraining. Some have already started: 50 men have started further education courses, and many others have had interviews and are making plans. It is essential that the Government respond to the request of the Selby taskforce for various pots of money as quickly as possible. That would, for example, allow for the day release of miners.
The second factor high on the agenda of Selby miners, particularly the younger ones—the average age of the men in the Selby coalfield is 45—is the chance of working elsewhere. The new National Union of Mineworkers leadership should be congratulated on beginning to talk about flexible working at Kellington and Rossington. I know that it is a controversial subject and that agreement has not been reached, but I am told that there is potential for extra weekly payments of £200 a man if agreement can be reached. Many Selby miners hope that there is a future for them at Kellington.
The third thing on the minds of Selby miners is that ordinary miners are not entitled to a full pension at 50 if they are made redundant, whereas pit deputies are. That is a source of continuing injustice, which I have discussed with the Minister before.
In summary, we must make every effort in the next few days throughout the coalfields of Great Britain to persuade the Government to apply to Europe to lift the cap. That would give a breathing space to the industry and enable us to maintain a viable industry so that there is something on which to build when investment aid begins next year. December will be the decision month for the future of the British coal industry.
11.29 am
Adam Price: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on making the case for coal. Perhaps there should have been a question mark at the end of the title of the debate—if only the Table Office would allow it. We have been here many times before. The Government have dramatically changed their position from that of a year ago, when they said that they were not minded to continue with any form of state aid. I am glad that we won that argument as a result of pressure from coalfield Members of Parliament, the industry and the Coalfield Communities Campaign. We should be talking about

205WH
details, but yet again, as the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said, we are talking about the whole future of the industry.
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): May I correct the hon. Gentleman? He said that a year ago we had no intention of doing anything to support the industry. I assure him that since I came into this job I have never said that.
Adam Price: I am, as always, grateful for the Minister's support. We hope to hear more in that vein when he winds up the debate.
Yet again, we are not talking about 28 days to lift the cap, but 28 days to save the British coal industry. Why is that industry important? As we have heard, the European Commission's Green Paper on energy said that EU coal is vital to security of supply. As for economic arguments, the coal industry supports employment in some of the most disadvantaged communities across the length and breadth of the UK, including 2,000 people directly employed in Wales. As it stands, the package is inadequate—indeed, some industry insiders say that it is an insult to the industry. In the words of the Coalfield Communities Campaign,
"The UK coal industry faces the threat of wholesale closures. Without action from the Government, most of the remaining pits will close within the next 12 months or so—abandoning access to at least 20 years of reserves."
The declining amount of aid year on year is unacceptable. The upper limit of £20 million and lower limit of £1 million offers too little for large companies and, in effect, excludes small mines that are vitally important in terms of anthracite coalfields. The Government's aid proposals focus exclusively on investment aid, but EU rules allow investment aid, operating aid and closure aid. The Welsh Office's 1998 document, "The Future for Welsh Coal", argued that a key principle was to secure a level playing field for the British coal industry. If we are to achieve that, we need the flexibility to ensure that operating aid, closure aid and investment aid are available for our mines.
Apart from the wider debate, there is specific concern about Betws colliery in my constituency, which, like other anthracite producers—including Aberpergwm in the constituency of the new Secretary of State for Wales—will be excluded under the Government's proposals because it produces anthracite for the domestic fuel market. Why is it excluded? What is more sustainable than producing local clean coal for the local domestic fuel consumption market? That anomaly must be addressed. There is no sense in importing Chinese anthracite into west Wales when we have productive mines in which productivity has risen enormously over the past 10 years against the backdrop of difficult times for the British coal industry.
The Government must clarify their energy policy. The new Secretary of State for Wales, the former Minister for Energy and Competitiveness, recently said in Wales that the future of the Welsh coal industry was secure. I should like to know on what basis he made that statement. Apparently he has the ear of the Prime Minister, so perhaps he knows things that no one in this Chamber knows. He says that he is against nuclear energy and wants a future for coal and renewables, and I wholeheartedly support him in that, but we need clarity
206WH
from the Government. We need them to give a commitment that coal has a role to play in future energy strategy. We need an improved aid package that focuses on opportunity, not restriction. Above all, we need a far more flexible approach if the Government are to do what they said all along that they wanted to do—to support the future of the British coal industry.
11.33 am
John Mann: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on securing the debate. I thank the Minister for agreeing at short notice to meet a couple of weeks ago a delegation from every union with members at Harworth colliery. He will be pleased to know that since then, output at Harworth has hit record levels. Indeed, according to the latest figures I have, it was the best within UK Coal—Yet UK Coal says that Harworth is not productive. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood mentioned project 105 and the unit price at UK Coal. The figure last week for Harworth was 83. That figure is matched by some of the surrounding collieries—in fact, some of them scored less than that. There is no question but that there has been efficient and improved production across British coalfields in recent times.
The issue of nuclear industries and waste has been raised. I strongly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who said that it was like Christmas for the nuclear industry constituencies. We have touched only the tip of the iceberg of the problems of nuclear waste and nuclear reprocessing. The long-term costs to the taxpayer, the Exchequer and the country are only just beginning to be revealed. I have not been anything other than supportive of the nuclear industry—as in solar energy and other sectors, I would like to see the industry developed—but I have always argued for a balance and a security of supply across all sectors.
The sort of subsidy that has been handed out to the nuclear industry will be greatly increased in forthcoming years—I am talking about the real costs and real subsidies, over not only the next two or three years, but the next 30, 40 or 50 years. We can compare the sums involved with the minute amount of money—most estimates put the figure at about £100 million or £150 million—required to maintain the UK coal industry at its current levels. That sum would be a drop in the ocean compared with the cost of the nuclear industry. Is this the end of subsidy of the nuclear industry, or is there more round the corner? How can we possibly not compare the modest amount that the coal industry requires with the enormous amount that the nuclear industry requires?
In my constituency this week, Cottam power station unveiled its new advanced technology, similar to that found at West Burton, which is also in my constituency. I visit both power stations regularly and I invite the Minister to join me. Those power stations are investing for the future. As energy suppliers, they see the future, but where will they get their energy supplies from?
Just after I met with the Minister, a delegation travelled to Brussels to meet Christian Cleutinx, the head of the coal unit within the European Union. We questioned him about operating aid, investment aid and the future of the industry. Some of his answers were

207WH
convincing: there is no question but that there is sufficient flexibility within the existing rules to allow the UK coal industry as it exists at the moment to be maintained. He left us in no doubt whatever about that, but I challenge the European Union on another issue. As a key objective, the European Union wants to have a stake in the future of every other sector of industry—that is almost its ethos. In the coal sector, there is a degree of madness and convenient short-termism. We in this country have the opportunity to absolve ourselves from that.
Is it not the case that, as Mr. Cleutinx outlined, the European Union can provide the sort of subsidies that we require, should we apply for them? How much coal will be produced in the UK in 2020? The issue is far bigger than UK Coal plc. Frankly, I do not give a damn who runs the coal industry, so long as they run it well. I want this country to have the security of supply that it will need in 20, 30 or 40 years.
In 2020 or 2030, will we be reliant on Chinese coal and Russian gas for British energy needs? If so, what are the security implications for this country? That is the nub of the question. Of course, jobs are an issue—I have as many working miners in my constituency as any other hon. Member—but the overall issue is far bigger than that: it is about British national security. Are we going to leave ourselves open to the political intrigues of whatever regimes or Governments are running China, Kazakhstan and Russia in 20 years' time? Will they be determining what energy we have in this country? That is not in our economic interests, nor is it in the interests of national security.
Short-term, modest assistance to the coal industry would allow us to expand the seams at Harworth to make 30 years-worth of coal available—with a similar amount in other collieries. That would mean that we would still have British coal going into our power stations in 20 years' time.
11.40 am
Mr. Denis Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on securing this timely debate.
Each colliery in UK Coal's portfolio has vast reserves of coal, which is the reason why the collieries have survived. They were the crème de la créme of the former British Coal, and billions of pounds of public money were invested in them prior to privatisation to make them world-class operations. However, UK Coal has stated openly and honestly that it cannot run the industry at its current size. It has announced the closure of Selby, and three other major collieries—Harworth, Maltby and Daw Mill—are under review. As I understand the position, such is the fragile state of the company that each individual unit is under review.
I am not attacking UK Coal. It is in a difficult situation. It is a plc and under pressure from shareholders to return profits; to that end it must make commercial decisions. However, its decisions are having a detrimental effect on the United Kingdom's energy reserves, and that cannot be right. Each and every remaining colliery is at risk. A major geological or technical problem can mean immediate closure, with the company unable in the short term to sustain such a financial loss.
208WH
The coal industry needs a period of stability. My hon. Friend the Minister has faced—and is, I hope, overcoming—a major crisis in the nuclear industry. Many argue that the crisis has been created by the wholesale price under NETA—the new electricity trading arrangement—falling by some 36 per cent., which makes it difficult for companies to compete in an open market. The Government have, rightly, intervened with a massive injection of public money, and British Energy has appointed a new chairman. The company remains a plc, but the Government's package will cut its costs, deal with its liabilities and raise cash. One industry analyst said:
"The key point is the Government now owns 65 per cent. of British Energy's cash flow. That is 65 per cent. of the economic value of the company and when you look at the appointment of Adrian Montague as chairman it is clear the Government is calling all the shots."
What works for British Energy should work for the British mining industry. Such a deal would keep Selby mining coal for many years to come, and it would permanently protect redundancy payments and pension rights. It cannot be right to force men into making decisions on their future or to sterilise millions of tonnes of coal by introducing an arbitrary cut-off date to qualify for payments.
The people who mine Britain's coal deserve the very best that the nation can afford. Investing in a new company would allow the Coal Authority some influence on the way in which coal is mined and on preventing the sterilisation of the nation's vast reserves. By extending operating aid and introducing a more generous investment regime, we could assist the mining industry, but that would be like applying sticking plasters when major surgery is required.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister genuinely wants to help the mining industry. He understands its strategic value, and the important role that the pit plays in mining communities. I therefore urge him to use the example of British Energy to restructure the British mining industry completely. For a fraction of the cost, we can retain the mining industry at its present size for many years to come.
11.44 am
Mr. Kevin Hughes: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on securing the debate and running through a detailed analysis of where the industry stands today.
I also pay tribute to the Minister. He has done an awful lot of work and produced an awful lot of cash to help save what is left of the British deep-mined coal industry. That should not be overlooked. He has done a lot of hard work to ensure that we are where we are today, but there is still a long way to go.
Last week on the Floor of the House, we saw the Government rescue a botched privatisation by the Tories by stepping in to rescue British Energy, which supplies nuclear energy. We already knew that they had advanced a £650 million loan, but a further £150 million to £200 million a year for up to 10 years is a substantial amount of public funding. Media pundits added up the whole deal, which comes to about £3 billion over 10 years—I do not know how they reached that figure, but

209WH
you know what the media are like, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Even if the true figure is only half that amount, it is still a huge sum.
I do not have a big problem with the Government's rescue of the nuclear industry, because they have a duty to maintain the security and diversity of supply in this country. However, I object to the hoops that the coal industry has to jump through to qualify for relatively small amounts of money compared to the sums available for the nuclear industry. The Government must ensure the security of supply, and to do so they must keep their eye on diversity. British deep-mined coal has a big role to play in providing security of supply, and it should not be cast aside.
Some people think that the British deep-mined coal industry should be left to wither and that it is safe to import coal from wherever we can get it. They think that the world markets will stay low for ever and that there will never be political problems in the countries from which coal now comes—my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) alluded to that. They also believe that our gas supplies will be safe in the near future, given the countries from which we will be importing it in 15 to 20 years' time. I do not share that view and think it dangerous to go down that road.
The Government are right to underpin the nuclear industry. They also underpin, with an obligation, renewables, which is right because we need to be aware of the environmental consequences of burning coal in an unclean way. That is a problem that we need to face up to, and my view is that the Government should start pouring money into burning British deep-mined coal via an obligation to the renewables obligation.
David Taylor: It is certainly true that over the next 10 years £2 billion or more is to be put into trolleys and pushed towards the nuclear industry. Is my hon. Friend disappointed that the Department of Trade and Industry is suggesting a cap of £5,000 per job on aid to the coal industry, which at a typical pit would amount to perhaps £2.5 million? That is nowhere near enough.
Mr. Hughes: I agree. That is why I am arguing that it is high time the Government recognised the role of British deep-mine coal in security of supply and the provision of diversity. It is time that the Government underpinned the coal industry with resources on the same scale as those they will invest in renewables and British Energy over the next 10 years. The Government must ensure that when people flick the switch, the lights go on. They can do so only by underpinning a percentage of our energy supply. The way to achieve it is to underpin nuclear, underpin British deep-mine coal and underpin the renewables obligation.
Coal provides an energy source that we know is available and we know how to exploit. We also know that it is reliable and that it will last for many years to come. Yes, we need to start burning coal cleanly, but it is time that the Government gave proper consideration to underpinning the industry to provide the security and diversity that we need.
11.50 am
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I shall refer to the possible investment in a scheme for the coal industry mentioned in a recent consultative document issued by the
210WH
Department of Trade and Industry. I submitted a response to the Minister and I invite him to reflect further on it.
We are all arguing in favour of supporting the mining industry. That requires a secure market for coal, and that is a possibility because some power stations are fitted with flue gas disposal systems. If power stations such as Drax and others fitted with that equipment burned to capacity, it would help the industry substantially. Power stations without the equipment could be encouraged to fit it, burn coal smokelessly and reduce the amount of sulphur emitted into the atmosphere. A scheme to do so is already there; it is simply a question of encouraging the power stations to introduce flue gas desulphurisation. Failure to encourage further such installations will make it difficult for the coal industry to obtain venture capital.
We are closing down mines that are capable of becoming viable in the not-too-distant future. People are not investing in new reserves because of the uncertainty in the market. We should recall the scheme offered to the nuclear industry in the first instance—when we had the non-fossil fuel obligation—which was not a charge on the Treasury because it was passed on to consumers. We could work out a similar scheme that would benefit the coal mining and electricity generation industries. The Royal Academy of Engineering and the Lattice Group plc are forecasting higher gas prices, so becoming more dependent on gas generation would have an impact on our local industries and domestic consumers.
The Minister should know that schemes could be introduced—I would be happy to discuss them in more detail—to provide a secure market for coal, to help the electricity generation industry to burn coal and to meet the standards imposed by European directives. That could be done with no real call on the Treasury to contribute. It is a matter of introducing a formula, working out a strategy with the coal and electricity producers, and ensuring that we obtain the proposals for which all hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the coal industry are pressing. That would enable the industry to prosper, and we would not depend on imports of gas, oil or coal.
I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to give us, in the short time that is available, an opportunity to present those schemes on behalf of the mining and electricity generation industries, so that we can go forward with a substantial programme. We must accept that the energy industry is in a mess. We are therefore obliged to try to get the industry out of that mess, and coal could play a major part in solving the problem.
11.55 am
Brian Cotter: I have listened to many hon. Members who obviously know much more than me about the coal industry. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) spoke about the need for a strategy, which is a key point. We need a clear strategy for our energy policy, be it on coal or other forms of energy.
It is difficult to be as positive and optimistic about the coal industry as one would like. As with any other industry, we would like to be able to give help, as has been given in the past. However, it is rather unfortunate

211WH
that the Government have given so much help to nuclear power and British Energy. As has been said, considerable amounts are being given, but it is likely that those amounts will be increasingly a drain on our resources. As the hon. Member for Normanton said, we need a strategy to ensure that we are not just investing money in one direction and neglecting other forms of energy.
We must help the coal industry in any way that we can, as with any other industry. There is no question but that help should be provided for research and development with regard to cleaner forms of coal and productivity measures. That is discussed a lot in the paper, and the coal industry has taken tremendous steps forward in that direction. However, as those of us who have worked in the industry as opposed to the services know—I can say this modestly as I have worked in it all my life—the pressure to improve productivity is there all the time, year on year. The Government need to help in any way possible, whether by pulling together both sides of the industry, if that is appropriate, or through research and development and other ways of helping with the productivity of the industry.
I have to draw the unfortunate conclusion that such measures should be supported, but we cannot continue to support operating costs in any significant way. In the past, there have been many initiatives in that direction, but we must now develop a strategy that makes the industry sustainable and creates a future for energy provision in this country.
It is regrettable that there are to be, and have been, closures. We certainly support all that can be done to help communities affected by closures.
David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the Liberal Democrat policy is to accelerate the closure of the British coal industry?
Brian Cotter: No, certainly not. As I said, we need a proper strategy on energy policy. In their economic policy, the Government—not necessarily the Minister here—must address certain issues related to the exchange rate. Their policy has not helped in obtaining the exchange rate needed for businesses in the United Kingdom to export and to cope with imports. I could speak at length, although I will not, on the subject of the euro and exchange rates.
If we cast our minds back to November 1997, we felt strongly that a greater commitment to the idea of the euro would have helped to keep the exchange rate down. Hon. Members may disagree with that—we are all entitled to our views—but the exchange rate is an important issue.
We are not saying that closures should be accelerated or that the coal industry should be wound down. We are supportive of that industry, and of policies on productivity measures, cleaner coal and the exchange rate.
John Mann: Are you saying to workers at Harworth colliery—
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. I am not saying anything at all.
John Mann: Sorry. Is the hon. Gentleman saying to workers at Harworth colliery, who have been threatened
212WH
with the closure of the colliery by the employer, that they will have to wait for Britain to join the euro, or does he support operating aid going to that colliery in the next few months to keep it open?
Brian Cotter: No. The hon. Gentleman is looking for a solution to be produced today, and he is right to do that. I must also address why we are in our current position. I am not proposing an instant solution for tomorrow, but I seek a strategy from the Government—I have sought such a strategy for a long time—that would put us in a better position. That is all I am saying to the hon. Gentleman.
If the European Community can be prevailed on to provide assistance—that has been discussed and seems possible—that should be the route forward. We will back any significant help to the industry that we can get. However, we cannot go down the route taken by British Energy of pumping in more and more money. I look to the Government to produce a strategy that takes into account the whole of the industry, including investment in renewables and investment for environmental reasons. More should have been done in those areas in the past.
I bow to hon. Members here who know much more about coal mining than I do. I have been down a coal mine once, and that is all. I bow to them in that respect, but wonder whether more could not have been done in the past to help produce cleaner coal to ensure that we did not face our current problems.
I hope that the Minister will reply on the coal industry specifically and, more generally, on a clear strategy for energy in the UK. Such a strategy should give stability and a future for people in the industry, and should enable them to see the direction in which the Government are going. At present, that direction is not clear. The Government have distorted the market, particularly by helping British Energy.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Henry Bellingham rose—
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) represents a mining constituency, but he did not enter the Chamber until the debate had been running for an hour. I call Mr. Bellingham.
Mr. Bellingham rose—
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. Is it a new rule of Parliament that if someone is not in the Chamber when a debate begins, they cannot be called? Every day in the House of Commons, people wander in and out of debates and take part in them. I have been busy in Parliament on other business and, to be frank, the rule

213WH
that has just been announced is wrong in principle. It is not in "Erskine May" and, if applied generally, many people—especially Privy Councillors—could not speak.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in trying to be in two places at once, but hon. Members are now making their winding-up speeches.
Mr. Skinner: What about the ruling?
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. I asked you whether you would apply that ruling generally? I will ask the Speaker what he thinks.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that other hon. Members are unlikely to be called when the debate has entered the winding-up period. If he catches the eye of the Minister or a Front-Bench spokesman, he will be able to intervene if he so wishes. However, as a matter of courtesy, custom and practice, Members who wish to take part in debates usually notify the Chairman first, and then do other Members the courtesy of listening to the debate before they seek to intervene.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. You are taking a new tack. You are now saying that I was not here before. In fact, I stood up before the Liberal spokesman got to his feet, as the Clerk knows, but I was not called. I am not complaining, but it is not true to say that I was not here before then. The Liberal spokesman had not stood up at that point. As for the subsidies about which the Liberals are complaining, why do the Liberal Democrats take subsidies in the form of Short money? Why cannot the coal industry receive some?
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman is merely detaining the Chamber and delaying the debate.
12.6 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall try to be brief, as the more time the Minister has, the more time there will be for interventions from various hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I also wish to pass on the apologies of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who is the Conservative spokesman on energy. He is currently visiting oil rigs off the coast of Aberdeen.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on securing the debate. I have great admiration for his efforts in fighting for his constituency and his community, as I do for the efforts made by the hon. Members for Selby (Mr. Grogan), for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) in fighting for theirs. They are right that our miners are not only the hardest working miners in Europe, but are, without doubt, the most productive. They want some clarity and certainty about the future, for which the forthcoming White Paper will be pivotal.
214WH
The year 2001 was cathartic for the United Kingdom coal industry; it was the first year in our industrial history in which we imported more than 50 per cent. of our total coal requirements. In 2001, imports exceeded domestic production. I hope that, in the White Paper, the Minister will discuss the 33 per cent. of electricity that is generated by coal and its future. I also hope that he discusses the 51 per cent. coal imports and what will happen to that. The White Paper needs to make very clear statements about the future as the Government see it, and what the Government want to happen.
Hon. Members have asked what formal risk assessment had been made of the potential for disruption to the coal supply to the UK. Before 11 September 2001, the accepted wisdom in the European Union was that the risks of disruption to the supply were minimal, such was the geopolitical diversity of coal supplies. Will the Minister still say whether this is the case, or will it be addressed in the forthcoming White Paper?
Several Members rightly touched on the coal aid operating scheme extension, which expires in 28 days, and almost every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate asked about the new investment aid scheme. In July this year, the Minister announced the start of a full consultation on the new scheme to help the UK coal industry to compete in the global energy market. The consultation will examine several key areas, not least whether the coal industry needs investment aid, whether the safeguarding or creation of jobs should form the basis of a scheme, which mining projects would qualify for aid and how to judge the quality of different mines. Will the Minister comment on how that consultation is going?
Mr. Bill O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman referred to the consultative document issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. Will he explain what the Conservative party has contributed to it?
Mr. Bellingham: I shall discuss that with my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know.
Mr. O'Brien: Do I take it that the Opposition spokesman has come to the debate without any information on the document on future investment in the coal industry? Has he come unprepared to make any contribution about it?
Mr. Bellingham: The hon. Gentleman is being a bit unfair, as I have the document with me. I am not dealing with it; my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate is, and I will let the hon. Gentleman know exactly what he has done.
Several hon. Members have made clear their views that the sums involved in extension of the scheme are minor compared with the money that has gone into British Energy. I hope that the Minister will think about that. It is vital that there be no hiatus after 1 January. We should now know how much money will be forthcoming.
The hon. Member for Selby spoke movingly about the impact of the local pit's closure on his constituency. He mentioned what is being done with the multi-agency

215WH
taskforce headed by Lord Haskins. We welcome the £1.5 million funding for it. Obviously the terms of reference are ambitious, but we especially welcome the requirement to galvanise existing resources and identify new opportunities for support from Government and European sources. The taskforce was to make its recommendations by 20 October 2002. What news is there of those recommendations?
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made a vital point about the environment. The debate on cleaner fossil-fuel technology is crucial to the future of coal-fired power stations. Huge progress has been made on sulphur dioxide and NOx emissions. He mentioned that the flue gas desulphurisation scheme—FGD—is making progress. It removes a staggering 90 per cent. of SO2 emissions but only two power stations have FGD in place, including AES Drax Power.
The scheme costs about £30 million a year to operate, and it strikes me that most UK power stations are avoiding that cost. Following the standstill agreement that AES Drax Power secured with its banks and bond holders, it is generating at well below capacity. We are in a ridiculous situation whereby less coal is burned at Drax, which has that extremely environmentally-friendly system in place, but more imported coal is burned elsewhere, which harms the environment.
Will the Minister comment on the work on CO2 emissions? A great deal of research and development is being focused on cleaner coal technologies. Much of that work is on the reduction of CO2 for improved boiler efficiency. He recently announced that the case for supporting a cleaner coal technologies demonstration plant would be made. What progress has been made on the subject?
A great deal of uncertainty faces the industry, some of which is beyond the Minister's control. However, a lot of it is not. We need clarity and a new sense of purpose from the Department of Trade and Industry, because we are at a critical moment. We need to know exactly what will happen after 1 January, and we need a clear idea of what will go into the White Paper. I look forward to his response.
12.14 pm
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on securing the debate. I will try to answer as many points as possible and I will write to those hon. Members whose points I do not answer.
For reasons that have been touched on, the debate is very timely. On the other hand, it is slightly premature because many of the wider issues that we have discussed will form the substance of the White Paper. None the less, I recognise the urgency with which these matters are viewed in some quarters.
It is clear from a lot of what has been said that, even after five years of Labour government, much of our time is still taken up with dealing with the follies of the 1990s. That is particularly true of the ideological privatisations that took place, and I would categorise the privatisation of the nuclear and the coal industries as ideological.
216WH
I should say something about the analogies that have been made with the nuclear industry. I do not think that it is good for the debate to go down that road. I am sometimes characterised as being pro-nuclear or pro-renewables and I hope that I am sometimes characterised as being pro-coal. However, I would say that I am pro a balanced energy mix. It is a mistake to say that someone who is for one form of energy is against another; that is a divisive argument.
On British Energy, there are two reasons why we have taken the steps announced in recent months—security of supply and the need to guarantee the safe operation of nuclear power stations. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would oppose either of those objectives, and I want to add three subsidiary motivations. One is the need to maintain an indigenous energy source, and, again, I do not think that anyone present would disagree with that. Secondly, whatever else nuclear energy might be, it is non-carbon, which is crucial to our environmental obligations. Thirdly, it would cost more to shut nuclear power stations than it does to keep them open. There is an interesting historic argument about whether we should have nuclear power, but we must address the objective circumstances. In that context, it is misleading, mischievous and, n o doubt, tempting to draw a comparison between coal and nuclear power. From what I have said, however, people will understand that we have done the right thing and that not one penny would have been released for coal or anything else if we had done something different. Indeed, we would have to spend more on mopping up the nuclear industry than we would on sustaining it. It does not, therefore, make for a good analogy, however superficially attractive it might be.
The thrust of many of the speeches this morning, and perhaps the reason for the debate's timing, is that there are 28 days to go, UK Coal is in trouble and three pits are threatened. It seems that all we have to do is pick up the phone to Brussels, get the nod and write a cheque to UK Coal for another £60 million. I know that those of my hon. Friends who are making that case are being disingenuous and I know that they know they are being disingenuous.
David Taylor: Let me say to my hon. Friend in all comradeliness that the issue is much wider than the future of UK Coal—it is about the future of the British mining industry. The two are distinct.
Mr. Wilson: I have no intention of avoiding the wider question, but I have said—quite accurately, I think—that the nub of the debate is the short-term issues and the prospects for three pits, which my hon. Friends have said are under threat. The point that I made at the outset is valid, and some of the issues are very much tied up with the White Paper. No one has suggested that the next 28 days will determine the wider issues, but there are clearly more pressing short-term concerns, which I am as anxious as anyone to address. That is why I took slight exception when the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) said that someone had suggested a year ago, or at some point since I came to this job, that there would be no more support for the coal industry. I certainly never said that. In fact, virtually every working day during the past 15 months or so, I have been involved in one way or

217WH
another in trying to ensure that support for the coal industry continues wherever it is helpful, first under the operating scheme and, now, under an investment aid scheme. Since 1997, the Government have put a lot of money into the coal industry. They have put more than £160 million into the operating aid scheme and have moved on, against considerable odds, to gain approval in Europe for an investment aid scheme.
Adam Price: No one doubts the Minister's personal commitment to the coal industry, but I recall its being said that there were "no current plans" to continue the operating aid scheme, which is vital to my constituency.
Mr. Wilson: Perhaps it is a translation problem; things can be said much more subtly in Gaelic, as I am sure they can in Welsh. "No current plans" is parliamentary terminology for "It's on its way, but it's not there yet." Of course, at that time, we probably had not received approval from Brussels for an investment aid scheme, whereas we now have. There has been a continuum of our putting ourselves in a position to support the coal industry.
Insufficient attention is paid to the coal industry in the wider energy debate. Given that coal accounts for more than a third of our electricity generation—more than any other energy source—it is remarkable that its contribution to our energy mix is not discussed more often and in more positive terms. That is why I believe that we need a coal industry and why I believe that, within the bounds of what is possible, we should continue to ensure that we have a healthy deep-mined coal industry in the United Kingdom. It is disingenuous to suggest that there are any easy options, especially in the next few weeks, such as extending the operating aid scheme instead of adopting the investment aid scheme. Hitherto, everyone has agreed that we should pursue the latter route rather than sustaining non-viable operations any longer.
I am no uncritical admirer of the market that has been created in electricity, and I sometimes wonder what weighed on my predecessors' minds in introducing certain measures, but whenever I ask that question, I am told that their primary consideration was to create a level playing field for coal. How we got to a situation in which the level playing field for coal further exacerbated the problems of the UK coal industry is a mystery that I have not got to the bottom of yet. I recognise that the current problems in the market are creating further problems for all generators other than renewables and, therefore, for all suppliers to those generators.
Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister, like me, think that the subsidy is okay? The farmers get it, the Liberal party gets it, nuclear power gets it and God knows who else gets it. What worries me is that if the pits remain in private hands, the people who own them will eventually shut them on the basis of profit and loss. This Government must deal with the real question; whether, at this late stage, when there are only a handful of pits left, we save them permanently by taking them back into public ownership, so that we do not have to deal with the restraints of the common market, subsidies and the rest. We can do it because we believe in it as a matter of
218WH
principle. At some point, the Government will have to wrestle with the problem of taking them back. Instead of handing out the money, we can buy them for a song.
Mr. Wilson: Even I do not agree with all of that. It is not productive to keep pits, or any business, going under public ownership irrespective of the cost. However, it is true that if a pit's current operator wishes to close it, the pit reverts to the Coal Authority, and it is possible in some circumstances for somebody else to take over its running. That is what happened to the Hatfield colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes).
In answer to the Opposition spokesman, the future of the industry is tied up with clean coal technology. Coalfield MPs should not make too much of the damage that has been done by legacy issues arising from other energy sectors. Of course, nuclear power gives rise to huge legacy issues. However, I sometimes sit in halls full of miners who have paid the cost of the coal industry with their health. None of us should rest easy with that legacy. The Government are fulfilling their obligations—in so far as they are capable of being fulfilled—to people who have lost their health and the families of those who have lost their lives in the service of the coal industry.
If the industry has a future, it has to be built on clean coal technology. We are supporting a £17 million programme of research and development and technology transfer for cleaner coal technologies as well as developing a project to support retrofitting a supercritical boiler in an existing power station. I hope that we shall do more to exploit clean technologies and the considerable potential for carbon storage that exists in the North sea.
Reverting for a moment to Hatfield, I was also encouraged to hear that Coalpower Limited has secured 75 per cent. of the financial backing for the construction of a 400 MW integrated gasification combined cycle plan projected to be capable of taking 1 million tonnes of coal a year from Hatfield. It will be of interest to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr that Progressive Energy Limited is about to seek consent for a 450 MW plant in south Wales, which would use local anthracite. The news is not all gloomy; good things happen where there is new technology and clean coal technology.
UK Coal has not announced an intention to shut any of the pits that have been named today. When I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), I met the unions from Harworth. I shall be pleased, after the debate, to meet those who are here from Maltby. We are not in a position to take a decision. UK Coal knows well the work that is going into creating an investment scheme and I should be very disappointed if, at this juncture, the closure of any pit were to be proposed. I said at Harworth that the option existed to get round a table and discuss proposals for a viable future. I know that that has been taken forward. I hope that there is the basis for that kind of discussion at Maltby. I stress again that there has been no announcement of a proposal to close Maltby colliery.

219WH
I have valued this debate. I acknowledge and share the strength of feeling on the matter. I want to see a continuing role for the UK deep-mined coal industry. Many problems exist, but, because of the history, it is not within the gift of the Government to sort all of them out. I hope that if we work together and proceed with the investment aid scheme and other measures taken to assist the coal industry, when a White Paper is published, there will be a role for coal and for a UK domestic coal industry.

Social Services (Oxfordshire)
12.30 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I welcome the Minister, as I want him to hear me saying something nice before I start the tale of woe about the dreadful situation in Oxfordshire social services. Those of us who were elected in the last Parliament were pleased to see talent rewarded with his appointment to ministerial rank, and we continue to wish him luck. However, I think that the way in which the Government approach the difficult situation facing the most vulnerable people in some of our communities will be a test.
We face serious problems in Oxfordshire, and have done so for many years. When cuts are being made, I think that hon. Members of all political parties see it as a problem. Social care services in Oxfordshire are facing significant cuts this year, and will do so next year. That has been the case ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, as it was before 1997, when the Conservatives were in power, the Minister's party was in opposition and Labour politicians joined me and other Liberal Democrats in condemning the cuts.
The cuts are not the only problem. The other, related problem is the steep rise in council tax that has occurred in Oxfordshire. The county council, led by parties of all political persuasions, has increased council tax way beyond inflation. Council tax is a regressive tax—it hits people who are on fixed incomes, as the elderly often are. No one is happy about the need to raise council tax to reduce the level of cuts. It is one thing to raise council tax to develop new and improved services, but it is even harder to take when it is done merely to reduce cuts.
Given that there are cuts, and that council tax has risen to nearly double figures on average, there are clearly inadequate resources in Oxfordshire social services. My first question to the Minister is whether, in his opinion, that is indeed the case. I want to give him the opportunity to write that question down, because I do not want him to forget it.
I think that the Minister will find my next question easy to answer. Is he happy that Oxfordshire county council is cutting services to the most vulnerable in society? Does he see that as "one of those things" or as a matter of regret, about which something needs to be done? If he sees it as a matter of regret, what does he suggest that the county council do? Does he believe that the county council should, where possible, increase charges to users of social services, under the Government's policy of fair charging? Does he believe that council tax should be increased yet further, into double figures, to avoid some of the cuts? Does he perhaps think that the central Government grant should be increased to deal with core services?
If the Minister claims that the Government are increasing funding to Oxfordshire sufficiently, why does he think that cuts are being made? If he thinks that that is the case, does he know something that the Audit Commission does not know? That is, is he aware of profligacy and waste, or a pile of money lying unspent in Oxfordshire? Does he believe that Oxfordshire county council is now spending too much on social services, and that it would be appropriate for it to reduce the spend? I remind him that the spend in Oxfordshire is £22 million

221WH
over Standard Spending Assessment—that is the budgeted spend, before considering overspend. That is on a budget of £105 million. The SSA—the amount that the Government think Oxfordshire should spend—is £85 million, and it is spending 20 per cent. over that.
Is the Minister satisfied that the amount—the SSA—that the Government think Oxfordshire should be spending on vulnerable service users is adequate? If so, does not that mean that he thinks Oxfordshire is overspending, and therefore should cut services? Does he believe that the council tax is the fairest way of raising extra resources, or that, if there is a choice about how one raises resources from taxation, it would be better to use a more progressive tax, with a more easily identifiable link to the ability to pay?
I shall speak for about another 10 minutes, and I hope that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) will have a minute or so afterwards to put his point of view. I made the point earlier that there is little division between local politicians of all parties about the regrettable nature of the cuts.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned that he wants to invite another hon. Member to participate. He should be aware that in a half-hour debate, that needs the consent of the Minister as well as the initiator of the debate.
Dr. Harris: I was aware of that, as was the hon. Member for Witney. I think that, certainly, if the Minister was not aware, he will perhaps now show his willingness to allow the contribution. I mentioned it to show that I did not object. As I have said, I think that there is cross-party agreement on this matter—and local members of the Labour party are included in that, as they recognise that the situation is intolerable.
The budget for 2002–03 reveals a 4 per cent. increase in SSA—the amount of money that the Government think should be spent. However, there is a 5.8 per cent. increase in the social services budget. That is significantly above SSA, so I do not think that the county council can be accused of not spending all the SSA increase on social services. Despite that, there were £9 million or more of cuts in the budget, to repay a £6.4 million overspend in the previous year, plus another £4 million of cuts. It looks as if £7.5 million of cuts have been made, at the price of extreme pain and hardship to social services users, but there is still a likely overspend of £3 million.
I want to make it clear that cuts mean a lack of service for people who need it—not savings, getting rid of waste, cost improvements or other euphemisms. In Oxfordshire we are now talking about taking services from people who need them. Everyone in receipt of domiciliary services—older people and physically disabled people—has had to be reassessed and many have had their provision cut. Those were not easy cuts to make. People's independence is threatened when they receive less care—when, for example, they are given no care or help in the matter of sorting out their house or their home help.
The cuts that we are dealing with included £2 million of budgeted cuts this year in home support for older people; £900,000 of cuts for people with physical disabilities; £1.3 million of cuts relating to learning
222WH
disabilities; £100,000 of cuts in children's home support; £100,000 of cuts in physical disability equipment; and £800,000 of cuts for children's homes. Learning disability resource centres for children, which have received a great deal of publicity, were subject to £500,000 of cuts. I think that we know how painful those cuts have been, and will be, to implement. There were £600,000 of cuts in residential accommodation for old people and £100,000 of cuts in day centres.
Of course, it has not been possible to deliver all those savings, and legal action has been taken to challenge some of them, as the county council is bound by statutory duties. The Government need to explain which of those cuts they are happy with and where more cuts could be made.
The cost pressures in the coming year also look drastic. Before the Minister says that everything will be fine and that there will be a 6 per cent. increase in real terms in Government funding for SSA, I ask him to say whether he is aware of the unavoidable pressures, over and above inflation, that exist in social services. For example, to deal with the problem of delayed discharge for older people, a 5 per cent. increase in fees—more than was budgeted for and more than inflation—is the minimum needed to maintain capacity, let alone build on it, in the care home sector, which suffers cost pressures of £740,000. Physical disability service purchasing faces cost pressures of £140,000, as a result of a 5 per cent. increase in fees when in fact providers need between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. to keep the services afloat. For learning disabilities, cost pressures of £300,000 are predicated on a 5 per cent. rise in fees.
As far as demography is concerned, one cannot blame Oxfordshire for increased longevity or for people surviving with disability beyond childhood; indeed, the Government might argue that they should take credit for it. However, a 1.69 per cent. increase in the number of older people is forecast for the coming year, which predicates an additional spending pressure of £240,000 just to keep the same services. For physical disabilities, there is an anticipated increase of 0.8 per cent., but on previous experience, that will amount to 15 extra clients costing another £200,000. In learning disability, another £50,000 will be needed.
There is more. Because the planned savings by learning disability resource centres are not achievable, there will be the pressure of another £400,000 over budget. In mental health and acquired brain injury placements, £225,000 more will be needed because of increased demand for an expensive service. That stems from mental health review tribunals and an increased incidence of injury—and it assumes a 50:50 share or thereabouts with the health service.
The Government's changes to charging—called fair charging, which I do not necessarily disagree with—have cost implications for those counties that were charging above that rate. The loss of income, which will now have to be corrected to be within Government guidelines, is £1.1 million. That, effectively, is an extra duty imposed by the Government. Foster care allowances are up by £167,000 because Oxfordshire now pays less than the recommended rates.
There is more. Information technology needs £110,000 to administer Government grants to service providers because that responsibility was transferred

223WH
without funding. Home support for children with disabilities will be £195,000. The cost of administering the payroll will be another £65,000. It is estimated that the social care of asylum seekers will cost £200,000, following the Law Lords' ruling that if local authorities have responsibility for the community care health needs of asylum seekers, they must also provide accommodation and cover subsistence costs.
The list goes on. Significantly, independent foster agency placements will need £234,000; and intentionally homeless families will want £200,000 since courts are now directing councils to support some homeless families. It is an extensive list, but I have not yet dealt with the increase in employers' national insurance contributions that the county council will have to pay. Is the 6 per cent. real terms increase in SSA or in Government funding in addition to extra money needed to pay for those national insurance contribution increases, or is it part of the 6 per cent.?
Will the Minister answer the following important questions about grants? Oxfordshire currently receives a building care capacity grant of £1.5 million and a promoting independence partnership grant of £1.6 million. It is still not clear whether those grants will continue or whether they will have to be absorbed into the 6 per cent. increase. It is bad enough that people cannot plan because they are not sure whether the grants will continue, but it will be even worse if the grants do not continue and they are threatened with having to find that money from the 6 per cent. increase. The increase clearly will not be enough.
Do the Government accept that a tragedy is overtaking vulnerable people in Oxfordshire? The elderly, the mentally ill, the physically and learning disabled and young people at risk are bearing the brunt of underfunded extra duties placed on social services. The county council has been unable to raise council tax any further within reason, even if it had not been capped during previous years. Those cuts in services to the most vulnerable in society are the sort of cuts that the Labour party in opposition used to condemn.
The Labour party claimed it came to power to do something about such treatment of vulnerable people, and to reverse the cuts. Will the Government take responsibility today for the level of cuts affecting services to those vulnerable groups? If not, that will be seen as a disgraceful and immoral abrogation of their responsibility to the people of Oxfordshire, who know that the Government, not any local political party, are to blame, and they will not forgive them.
12.45 pm
Mr. David Cameron: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing the debate, and thank him for allowing me to take part. He spoke extremely clearly. We have a most serious situation in Oxfordshire. We are spending £20 million more than the standard spending assessment, but it is still necessary to make severe cuts. The social services inspectorate gave Oxfordshire social services a fairly clean bill of health, so the problem is one of funding. I join him in begging the Government to help us.
224WH
I would like to make three quick pleas. First, there are three care homes in my constituency whose future is in question. Rural areas need more funding for sparsity so that great homes such as Langston house in Milton-under-Wychwood can survive. Secondly, during the summer Adjournment debate, I raised the question of adult placements. That would not require more money from the Government, but it would require them to think about regulation. I have had no reply to the points made during that debate, to my letter sent to the Department of Health, or to my written question. Adult placements are like fostering services: they do not need to be subject to the National Care Standards Commission. I would grateful if the Minister would consider that point.
My third plea to the Minister is that he should come and visit Oxfordshire. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and I would gladly show him around. I would take him to Chipping Norton and show him those older people who have had their care assessments changed, and introduce him to the parents of children who have had their care packages changed.
We have to get it right. Carers in Oxfordshire are under huge pressure, and if they pack up, the cost to the state and the county council will be even greater. We have to grab the issue—it is the most important one in Oxfordshire at the moment. I look forward to the Minister's response.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate on social services in Oxfordshire. Clearly, social services staff play a vital role in the support of some of the most vulnerable people in society. I agree that the matters he raised are extremely important to his constituents and people throughout the country. I acknowledge that health and social services in Oxfordshire are operating under tremendous pressure. I was pleased that he paid tribute to staff in social services and the national health service, who manage to do a first-class job for may of their patients and clients, sometimes under very trying circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned resources. Between 1996–97 and 2002, resources have increased by more than 20 per cent. in real terms, an average of more than 3 per cent. a year. That compares with an average, annual, real terms growth of only 0.1 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1996–97. He must acknowledge that. He went on to make some very strong political points, suggesting that the Government do not care about social services in Oxfordshire, but that is not the case.
That is why we are putting in extra funding across the board. Such decisions are the responsibility of the local authority. I am advised—the hon. Gentleman may want to correct me—that the nine-strong executive of the local authority is drawn from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, and that its own corporate self-assessment of council tax was that in 2002 it spent £689 per head of the Oxfordshire population, compared with an average of £749 in other county councils; only three county councils spent less than Oxfordshire. That was the assessment of the Liberal Democrats and

225WH
Conservatives who run that part of the country. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to be less strong in making political points about this important subject.
Dr. Harris: I am grateful to have the opportunity to explain what those figures are about. They were intended to answer the charge that Oxfordshire is an overspending county council and that the cuts are a consequence of that. The figures show— the same point has been made by Labour-Lib Dem and by Labour-Conservative administrations—that Oxfordshire gets a bad deal, relatively speaking, and is not a wildly overspending council that needs to reduce its overspend.
Mr. Lammy: Let me go on to deal with resources more specifically. Decisions are about to be made across Government, and I do not intend to pre-empt the various formulae that are about to be produced. I should say, however, that the local authority run by the Lib Dems and the Conservatives went on to say that this year's consultation showed that many people would still be prepared to support a larger council tax increase, especially if it was cleat which services would benefit. I am not responsible for executive statements made by the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives who run Oxfordshire; I am responsible for the Government. As I said, we are making a 20 per cent. increase across the board, while specifically ensuring that money goes to Oxfordshire.
Looking to the future, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Chancellor's Budget statement in April indicated that resources will increase again by an average of 6 per cent. a year in real terms over the next two to three years. That includes an extra £100 million over the next three years for each full year of operation of the new scheme to tackle delayed discharges that the Health Secretary announced a week or so ago. The local government finance settlement for next year will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 December, and I am unable to say anything today about the exact allocation of resources to individual local authorities, including Oxfordshire, for next year. Those details and the new general grant allocation formulas will be published on Thursday. Like all hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman awaits those decisions, which all our local authorities will examine carefully.
The means of distributing funds for future years has been the subject of an extensive review. There has been a full consultation exercise on the proposed changes for channelling money through to local authorities. Until now, the grant has mainly been distributed using standard spending assessments by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. It is right that we look afresh at the formulae. One of the aims of the review of allocation formulae is to make the new system more transparent so that people affected have a chance of understanding it.
There is a trade-off, however, in that the price of oversimplification is a system that fails to take account of the appropriate indicators, and we need to avoid that. When coming up with a formula that applies nationally, it is extremely difficult to guarantee that every local authority will benefit. Local government has called for an increase in predictability and stability in any new system, which is obviously important for county councils such as Oxfordshire.
226WH
Turning to the specific resources available to Oxfordshire county council, we all await the announcement with interest. For this year, its personal social services SSA has increased by 5.6 per cent., compared with the national average increase of 4.9 per cent. Similarly, for the past year its SSA increased by 6.5 per cent., compared with the national average increase of 4.7 per cent. In addition to its SSA, Oxfordshire receives substantial specific grant allocations from the Department of Health. This year, for example, it has received a preserved rights grant of more than £6 million, a children's services grant in excess of £3 million and, in order to tackle delayed discharges, a building care capacity grant of £1.5 million.
The authority's grant allocations have also shown marked increases in recent years. This year, for example, the carers grant has increased by 22 per cent. and the children's services grant by 11 per cent.
As I said at the outset, I recognise that there are pressures on social care in Oxfordshire. In particular, the authority is concerned, as the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said, about the shortage of affordable residential and nursing home places. The substantial increases in personal social services resources that the Government are making available over the next three years will help. We should continue to ensure that investment is maintained, but it is only one part of the equation and not the only criterion by which we should judge the success or otherwise of the reforms, because it is fundamental that other things happen as well.
I should like to commend Oxfordshire social services and its primary care trust health partners on the creation of a pooled budget under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 for the purchase of residential and nursing home care. That is one way in which to maximise the purchasing influence of health and social care.
During this year, Oxfordshire county council has also had the benefit of support from the Department of Health funded change agents team, which has worked with the health and social care economy to identify further improvements to both the system and the use of capacity in Oxfordshire. All the partners have signed up to an action plan, and it is of the greatest importance that they follow through and implement the agreed action to secure improvements for service users and patients.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon criticised the resources available to Oxfordshire, and asked for the Government's response. Most resources available to local government are not earmarked for any particular purpose. It is for individual local authorities to decide how much to spend on their social services in the light of local priorities, and how to make the necessary resources available, which includes deciding how much should be raised by council tax. We have heard the assessment, which was made locally by the Oxfordshire executive—by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives—on council tax, which is a matter for them and not for the Government. The SSA is not an indication of how much the Government consider Oxfordshire should spend on its social services, which is a matter for Oxfordshire to decide in light of its priorities.
Dr. Harris: This year's council tax rise is 9.9 per cent., which is three or four times the level of inflation, because

227WH
Oxfordshire people would rather have rises in an unfair tax than suffer even more cuts. Can the Minister explain whether he thinks that that is insufficient? If all the money is going into Oxfordshire, can he explain why Oxfordshire is still spending above its SSA, despite what he described as "a generous SSA settlement"? Is it his opinion that it is spending too much?
Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I acknowledged that there are pressures in Oxfordshire. At the same time, the Government have to look across the board. I explained that we have increased the amount available to Oxfordshire by much more than the national average. If Oxfordshire is overspending its personal social services budget, it needs to improve its budget forecasting. Oxfordshire has been clear that there are issues relating to deficits and financial management that it wants to get to grips with in order to move forward. There will therefore be local determinants for which the Government, quite rightly, are not responsible, and—
Mr. Roger Gale: Order. Time is up.

Newspaper Industry (Scotland)
1 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am pleased to have the opportunity to highlight an issue that is important to the newspaper industry in Scotland and has wider implications for newspapers elsewhere in the UK.
My choice of debate has been prompted by the recent speculation about the likely future ownership of The Herald, the Sunday Herald and the Evening Times, following the announcement by the Scottish Media Group that it was disposing of those interests, and in particular about whether those papers will be purchased by the current owners of the Scotsman group. A great deal of debate has taken place in Scotland, the Scottish media and the Scottish Parliament about the possible sale of the Herald newspapers to The Scotsman. It is right that Westminster should also focus on the issue, given that policy on competition, including competition in the media industry, is the responsibility of the UK Parliament.
I am aware that press reports at the weekend suggested that the owners of the Scotsman group—more precisely, Ellerman Investments, which was the vehicle for the bid—had been excluded from the final shortlist of two possible purchasers for the Herald newspapers. However, that does not render today's debate unnecessary—in fact, it is even more appropriate.
First, from the way in which corporate mergers often unveil, a takeover involving The Scotsman and The Herald may come back on the scene again. Secondly, and more importantly, the possible sale prompts much wider questions about the way in which media ownership is regulated in Scotland. Given that later today the House is beginning its detailed consideration of the Communications Bill, it is appropriate to highlight my concerns, which are shared by other hon. Members.
I am not making any particular criticism of The Scotsman's owners for seeking to buy the Herald newspapers; nor am I motivated by any particular dislike of The Scotsman's editorial line, or any individuals associated with the papers. I do not always agree with the editorial line of The Scotsman or the other papers in its stable, but I am as likely to choke over my breakfast at something I read in the Daily Record or The Herald as at something in The Scotsman.
I recognise also that The Scotsman has recently adopted a role as something of an outsider from what it sees as a dominant Scottish political and media consensus. I am not sure that all my colleagues would agree, but I believe that by doing that The Scotsman plays a valuable role. In a small country such as Scotland, a danger is that differing views and challenges to a political consensus become excluded from public debate.
In so far as The Scotsman has chosen to challenge received wisdom, I welcome it. It highlights the very reason why I believe that the Scotsman group of newspapers should continue to be distinct and separate from the Herald group.
In Scotland, the Scotsman and Herald groups are two distinct and competing newspaper groups, both opening their pages to a wide range of views and contributors,

229WH
and both very much competitors in the market. That competition is even more apparent in their respective Sunday publications, which have both established themselves as papers with a Scotlandwide readership and appeal. My fear, and that of many others, is that if the ownership of the two groups were to become identical, such diversity and competitiveness would diminish and run the risk of disappearing.
Senior figures from the Scotsman group have said that if there was a takeover, The Scotsman and The Herald, and presumably the Evening News and the Evening Times, would remain separate titles. Despite the sincerity of those who made the pronouncements, there must be a risk of a diminution in diversity and competition because of the normal pressures from shareholders and the market. What has been said about The Scotsman and The Herald, has not been said, as far as I am aware from the reports, about the future independence of the Sunday Herald and Scotland on Sunday.
No matter what good intentions there may be, there is a risk of the papers' separate existence being eroded because the media world is competitive. New channels and methods of communication are being developed all the time. Shareholders need a return on their capital. If the two groups of papers were to merge, there would be an inevitable tendency for an owner of the combined group to consider ways of cost saving sooner or later. It would be amazing if they did not, and it would probably be an abdication of their responsibility to their shareholders.
One can easily foresee the pressures that there would be to merge various aspects of operations of the two newspaper groups. Why would there need to be a multiplicity of foreign teams? Why would there need to be two parliamentary teams, either at Westminster or at Holyrood? Why not just have one team in both Parliaments? Obviously, that one team would report events in the same way for both papers. Why have two sets of offices in cities and towns throughout the length and breadth of Scotland? What is true of news operations, which are perhaps more visible to politicians, would undoubtedly be true of the many less visible aspects of the businesses. The merger would affect everything from the advertising sales department to farming reports and distribution networks. That would be a clear threat to jobs in Edinburgh and Glasgow, in particular.
What is even more significant to the political process is that at a time when it is especially vital that there are a range of voices in the Scottish media to ensure that there is a vibrant political debate and a hard-hitting scrutiny of the Scottish political scene, there is a risk of two very different and powerful voices being replaced by one voice alone. That would be bad for Scottish democracy— a democracy that is still finding its feet in a new world following the establishment of a devolved Parliament and Administration.
Those in the metropolitan media world may not fully appreciate the significance of such a merger in relation to public debate, news coverage and media policy in Scotland. They should ask themselves what the reaction would be if there was a prospect of The Guardian and The Times merging, without any other broadsheet papers in the market as major contenders. If that were to happen in London, there would be an immediate
230WH
outcry and a chorus of voices from all parts of the media and political spectrum demanding that the regulators intervene. That is what a merger of the Scotsman and Herald groups would mean for Scotland, and that is why the issue is so important.
I call on the Government to refer any such merger to the Competition Commission. Even though the takeover of the Herald newspapers by the Scotsman newspapers may no longer be an immediately likely prospect, the issues it raises have a much wider significance. The issue emphasises that although a newspaper or media outlet may be relatively small in terms of the United Kingdom, its significance for a region or nation of the UK may be much greater. There is a need for such special interests to be taken into account when newspaper mergers and takeovers are on the agenda. The Communications Bill emphasises the need to ensure plurality of views in the newspaper industry. It is important that the role that a newspaper plays in a regional or national arena—particularly one with its own political arena, such as Scotland—is taken into account.
I well understand that the Minister has to be careful in what he says about the competition authorities. He may be especially reluctant to comment on a potential takeover rather than a specific proposal, especially when the takeover might not even proceed. I should not be surprised if he were uncharacteristically restrained in his statement today, but I would be delighted if he could expand on any of the issues.
My hon. Friend should, however, give assurances to the House that, whenever a takeover of the Herald titles takes place—as eventually it will—if it occurs under the present rules for regulating competition in the newspaper market, he will, in deciding whether to refer to the Competition Commission, take into account the role of both the Herald and the Scotsman group in the Scottish market. They should both be treated as national newspaper groups, not merely as regional groups within the UK. Will he, together with his ministerial colleagues, ensure that the new competition regime for newspapers that will be established under the Communications Bill takes account of the need for plurality and diversity in the newspaper market at the local and regional, as well as the UK level? The needs of Scotland, in particular, should be acknowledged.
1.11pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on introducing a debate on an important issue that is highly topical in Scotland and has major implications not just for the future of the Scottish media but for democracy itself. I warmly welcome his decision to apply for this debate and I am delighted that he was successful in securing it.
I look forward to the Minister's reply. If I smiled a few moments ago when my hon. Friend was speaking, it was because he referred to the Minister's reluctance to become involved in controversy. I had never viewed the Minister in those terms before, particularly in his journalistic role. If anyone understands the Scottish media, it is he, and we have many reasons in Scotland— not least his contribution to the West Highland Free Press—to grateful to him.

231WH
I want to underline the crucial importance of having a variety of opinions on, and interpretations of, the work of this place as well as the Scottish Parliament. I would greatly regret the takeover of The Herald and other newspapers by another news group, which would then have a virtual monopoly on reporting and the expression of opinion. The chattering classes in Scotland—I have never seen the like elsewhere—vare renowned for expressing strong and diverse opinions. Ownership is power—used and often abused—so we must take the correct decisions on these matters.
My hon. Friend spoke about the reporting of this place and the new Scottish Parliament. It is important to reflect on how opinions are presented to mould the perceptions of the readership of Scottish newspapers. The Scottish Parliament is at an early stage of its development. Frankly, it has not been helped by the way in which the chattering classes have reported it. We have also suffered here, because many of the important issues that are dealt with day after day at Westminster are simply disregarded by a media in Scotland that should show greater maturity and responsibility. The events that occurred over the weekend give us a little more encouragement, as my hon. Friend said, but I would very much regret it if the two major newspapers—The Scotsman and The Herald— and their sisters newspapers found that they had the same owners and therefore the same political influences.
I do not want to dwell on what I regard as my own unsatisfactory experience with the Scottish media for three or four years in the 1990s. I must say, I hope objectively, that they behaved disgracefully towards me, although that is a matter for memoirs or another debate. If our democracy is to flourish in this place and in Scotland, we must have the pluralism that we want and to which the people of Scotland are entitled. It would be very grave if the owners of The Herald and its sister newspapers also owned The Scotsman and its sister newspapers. Variety, democracy and pluralism are important, and my hon. Friend has done us a great service by introducing this debate. I am sure that the Minister will respond appropriately.
1.16 pm
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on securing this debate on the important questions of competition and plurality in the Scottish newspaper industry. I say that not only from the perspective of a Member representing a Scottish constituency, although in the light of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my own modest history of press proprietorship I should, perhaps, enter a disclaimer. I am not, however, thinking of entering a late bid.
It is widely recognised that a vibrant and diversified press is essential for healthy, democratic debate, especially in a nation such as Scotland that shares many interests with the rest of the United Kingdom but also has its own rich traditions, culture and concerns. Today's debate is so important that it is surprising that only one political party is represented in the Chamber.
232WH
The Government have noted the considerable interest in the proposed sale of the Scottish Media Group's publishing division. We saw that in the House, the Scottish Parliament, the press arid among the public of Scotland. In particular, there has been lengthy and lively debate about the effect that the sale might have on the plurality of views available from the press. As has been recognised, that chimes with the measures that we proposed to protect the public interest in newspaper mergers in the Communications Bill, which receives its Second Reading in the House this afternoon. I hope that my hon. Friend, and others who recognise the importance of protecting the plurality of the press in the United Kingdom and its nations, regions and localities, will support our proposals in the Bill.
As my hon. Friend properly recognised and other hon. Members will understand, I cannot comment today on the details of an individual case that the Secretary of State may have to consider under the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Acts. However, it would be useful briefly to set out the processes by which a sale of SMG's publishing business may fall to be considered under merger control provisions.
If the acquirer of SMG's newspapers is an existing UK newspaper provider, and if a circulation threshold is met, the transfers would fall to be considered under a special newspaper merger regime. The threshold is that the total paid-for circulation of the newspapers involved averages 500,000 or more each day of publication. Qualifying newspaper transfers are unlawful and void without the Secretary of State's prior written consent, and except in certain circumstances, the Secretary of State cannot give such consent without a Competition Commission inquiry.
Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend referred to the 500,000 threshold for sold copies of a publication. Given that a number of newspaper chains make great play of their total circulation, including copies that are given away, would it not be more appropriate if the figure included the circulation figures as they are claimed, rather than simply the paid-for circulation figures?
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend has alighted on an interesting point, which I shall be pleased to clarify in writing. Whether the 500,000 a day is in sales or distribution should be clarified.
The Competition Commission would be directed to report on whether the transfer might be expected to operate against the public interest, taking into account all matters that appeared to be relevant, particularly the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion. The Secretary of State would have regard to the report in deciding whether to consent to the proposed transfers, and could make consent subject to conditions.
If the acquirer is not an existing United Kingdom newspaper proprietor, or the circulation threshold is not met, the merger could fall to be considered not under the special newspaper regime but under the general merger regime of the Fair Trading Acts. In the first instance, it would be for the director general of fair trading to assess the merger's likely impact before advising Ministers on whether he believed that it should be referred to the Competition Commission.

233WH
The Competition Commission would be directed to report on whether the merger would be expected to operate against the public interest. Again, the final decision would be for the Secretary of State, although under this regime, in deciding on a reference, she would generally expect to follow the director general's advice, and in the event of a reference, she could take no action if the commission found that the merger would not, or would not be likely to, operate against the public interest.
Under the Enterprise Act 2002, which reforms merger control and which we plan to commence next spring, the vast majority of mergers will be assessed only on the test of whether they would result in a substantial lessening of competition. However, we still believe that the plurality of views in the press is a vital public interest and we remain committed to its protection. To that end, the 2002 Act has preserved the special newspaper merger regime of the Fair Trading Acts until such time as the Communications Bill reforms those measures. The principle is important: the special newspaper regime should remain. Those reforms will continue to provide a system for protecting the particular public interest that newspaper transfers can involve. Decision making in cases that raise plurality concerns will rest with the Secretary of State, rather than the specialist competition authorities.
The newspaper public interest considerations in the Communications Bill are substantively directed at the same types of public interest issue that have arisen in the past in relation to newspaper transfers. We have drawn very much from the existing body of precedent. They will cover the concepts of free expression of opinion and accurate presentation of news that are already identified as matters to which the Competition Commission is to have particular regard in the public interest test under the special newspaper merger regime.
There will be a third limb of plurality of views. That is designed to pick up some of the issues that the Competition Commission has previously considered, or might want to consider, in relation to plurality, but that might not fall strictly within the concepts of accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion. In particular, that is aimed at ensuring that, so far as is reasonable and practical, a range of different views is available in newspaper markets.
The Bill will remove the rather anomalous distinction in the Fair Trading Acts under which different regimes apply, depending on whether the acquirer is a
234WH
newspaper proprietor and on whether the circulation threshold is met. In future, there will be a single newspaper plurality regime.
I assure my hon. Friend that we take this issue extremely seriously. Our concern is not limited to what might be called the national press in a UK sense, or the London press, as some might describe it. Newspapers in all parts of the UK play powerful roles as opinion formers for the communities that they serve. For those affected, local, regional and national issues in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and indeed England, as well as the wider UK issues of the day, can be of great significance.
The Communications Bill will rightly allow us to continue to consider issues of editorial freedom and the plurality of views in mergers affecting the local and regional, as much as the national press. In addition, when considering newspaper plurality, the Competition Commission will be specifically directed to test local opinion effectively, for example by means of citizens' juries.
The newspaper industry plays an essential role in political debate and the democratic process. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual merger cases, but I hope that he will rest assured that the Government are committed not only to their current approach but to continuing the protection and maintenance of freedom and variety of expression in the press, and the wide range of views that the UK press offers. We need greater rather than lesser diversity, which is why future legislation will maintain the existing principles.
I recognise that this subject is of widespread interest in Scotland, for all the reasons that have been discussed, and that whatever happens on this specific issue will continue to be of interest in Scotland and throughout the UK. My hon. Friend has done the issue a service by giving it an airing in the debate today, and if I have not dealt with any points that he raised, I will be pleased to respond to him in writing.
Scotland has a tradition of a geographically, culturally and politically diverse press, as has the UK as a whole. It is clear from the approach that we are taking through the Communications Bill, the Enterprise Act 2002, and the perpetuation of the special newspaper regime, that that is the sort of media that we wish to maintain in Scotland and in the UK.

Police Funding (Wiltshire)
1.27 pm
Mr. James Gray: I am grateful to the newspaper industry in Scotland for allowing us an extra three minutes in which to discuss this important topic. I am also grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in the debate this morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) have also lent their support, but sadly are not able to be here today.
We sought today's debate because we believed that there might be a threat to the rural policing fund—the ring-fenced funding directly targeted at rural police forces. We were concerned that, if that money were subsumed into the general police funding, even if there was a proportionate increase in the general funding to take account of it, there would be no guarantee of its continuation in subsequent years. In other words, the extra cash that the Home Office, quite correctly, allocates against the additional costs of policing in rural areas would have had to fight for its survival among the more general funding.
In Wiltshire, the annual rural grant is spent on a range of activities and initiatives, many of which allow the high visibility that is so important in a rural area, as well as contributing to the more obvious extra costs of rural policing. For example, it pays for air support at night time. I pay particular tribute to the voluntarily funded Wiltshire air ambulance service, which shares helicopters with the police.
I am delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), who has now joined the debate. We apologise to her for having started ahead of time, owing to the previous debate having finished early.

The annual rural grant allows more call handling staff, contributes to the prisoner handling team, pays for five support staff who keep the rural stations open, supplies and fits out vehicles that act as mobile police stations, and employs three staff to work on the employment and retention of specials. All those vital services would have been at risk had the rural policing fund been abolished, so we were greatly relieved by the Home Secretary's announcement at the Association of Police Authorities conference that the fund is to be preserved outside the formula. That will safeguard it for subsequent years.
I am delighted to have been joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, to whom I apologise for having started a moment or two early. I am grateful for his support.
A less modest Member of Parliament might attribute the preservation of the rural policing fund outside the general formula—that seems extremely important for future years—to the imminence of this debate, or at least to our lobbying of the Home Office in the past week or two. The Wiltshire police authority and other rural police authorities, especially those from the south-west of England, have also lobbied the Home Office heavily on the subject. We are glad that the Home Secretary listened carefully and agreed to preserve a ring-fenced fund outside general funding. We merely ask the Minister to assure us that that ring-fencing will continue in subsequent years, as that is terribly important.
236WH

That is where the good news, and perhaps the cross-party consensus, begins to peter out a shade. We and our colleagues in the Wiltshire police authority remain extremely concerned about the imminent announcement on Thursday of the local government settlement, and of the proposed changes to the police funding formula. We all hope that the good sense that the Home Secretary applied in saving the rural grant will be brought to bear on his colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister when they consider the settlement.
The press reports—they may be wrong, and one must not believe everything one reads in the papers, so we must wait until Thursday—suggest that funds will be shifted from rural shire areas towards metropolitan areas. That certainly would be the outcome of most of the changes proposed in any of the different versions of the formula that were put out for consultation. No matter which of the five or six options in the consultation process is adopted, some such leaching of funds seems likely.
It is true that Wiltshire has a low crime rate compared with some more urban areas, although the crime rate in Swindon and Salisbury bears comparison with that in most of the larger metropolitan areas elsewhere in England. Yesterday, the Wiltshire chairman of the National Farmers Union, Denise Plummer, reminded me forcefully that even in rural areas there is a worryingly high instance of burglary, especially against farms. In an area such as mine, there is also a worryingly high quantity of drug-related crime.
People often think of drugs as a problem for the inner cities, but rural areas have as big a drugs problem as elsewhere. I discovered only this week that drugs are even a significant problem in one of the smallest rural primary schools in a small local village. Two or three weeks ago, in a superb operation, Wiltshire police arrested 30 drug dealers. People sometimes think of places such as Wiltshire as leafy, suburban, rural and prosperous, but that is not the case. We have significant crime.
The fact that our overall crime levels are in the lowest three in the country is not necessarily because the area is intrinsically better, but perhaps because it is better policed. Crime detection levels in Wiltshire are in the top six in Britain. Our concern is that if funds were leached away from rural to metropolitan areas, that would undermine the fine policing that produces a comparatively low crime rate in places such as Wiltshire. The A303 in the south of Wiltshire, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, and the M4, which goes through my constituency, mean that it is easy to transfer crime from, for example, Bristol, Swindon, London or Reading to areas such as mine. It is wrong to think of such areas as intrinsically less affected by crime.
If funding were cut, Wiltshire police authority, which has taken the lead on several policing initiatives, would no longer be at the cutting edge. We have taken the lead on e-policing, for example, although I was amused to hear that the Home Secretary specifically and personally insisted that the White Paper on policing be circulated

237WH
to all personnel in paper form, even though every civilian and uniformed member of Wiltshire police authority has an e-mail address.
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham)rose—
Mr. Gray: The Minister is about to repudiate that dreadful allegation. Let me say, however, that the chief constable specifically requested that the White Paper be circulated by e-mail. I would be happy to be corrected, but I am told that the Home Office refused to allow that. The Minister wants to put me right.
Mr. Denham: I congratulate Wiltshire police authority on enabling all its staff to be receive documents by e-mail. The reason the White Paper was made available in paper form was that, sadly, not all police forces allow their officers to access material distributed by e-mail. We are working on that, and I congratulate Wiltshire on being ahead of the game.
Mr. Gray: Apparently, not everyone is on the cutting edge like Wiltshire. There is another problem in that regard, which the chief constable raised with me. People do not read documents that are sent out in paper form, and great piles of paper sit unread in the corner of the police station for quite some time, whereas there is a slightly higher chance of persuading everyone to read their e-mail.
Wiltshire has been extremely imaginative in another sense. It is the first county in which the emergency services have set up a joint command and control centre. The police, the fire brigade and the ambulance service are all in one place, and the new building in Devizes will be opened shortly. Admittedly, there is a problem with the fire brigade, which has insisted that a partition be built in the joint control room, and the Fire Brigades Union is contesting the matter nationally, but we hope that the last remaining barrier will be broken down in the not-too-distant future so that all three services can operate from one control room. It is worth having such arrangements in Wiltshire, which leads the nation in that regard. If, in an unhappy change to the funding formula, our funding were cut on Thursday, such innovations would unquestionably be undermined.
The Minister must think very carefully about such issues, and I hope that he will make strong representations to his colleagues in ODPM. Perhaps he will tell us not to worry and that he will put a floor in place so that our grant will not fall below a certain level no matter what changes are made to the funding formula. I would counter, however, that a floor merely extends the length of time over which a cut becomes effective. We are told that funding will not be allowed to fall below a certain level, but that it will not go up either. A floor does not guarantee that funding will remain as it is but merely spreads the pain—possibly over many years. Any such shift in funding is unacceptable in principle, irrespective of how it is managed.
The only other way to counter any untoward change in the funding formula would be to increase the precept. Before the Minister contemplates going down that track, however, he should consider this. It is not unreasonable to assume that there will be a 2 per cent.
238WH
increase in central Government funding on Thursday. Let us also assume that Wiltshire's precept will increase by 10 per cent., which is as much as can be contemplated without inflicting great hardship. In that regard, it was interesting that the Countryside Agency produced a report this morning about poverty and deprivation in the countryside. An increase of more than 10 per cent. in the precept would have very worrying effects on many constituents, while a 2 per cent. increase in general funding plus a 10 per cent. increase in the precept would result in a £1.2 million cut in police funding in Wiltshire. In crude terms, that is equivalent to 50 police officers.
The statistics demonstrate that, even without any further untoward changes in the funding formula, a 2 per cent. general increase in central funding on Thursday and a 10 per cent. increase in the local precept could still lead to the loss of about 50 police officers in Wiltshire. For the sake of the peace of mind of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends, it is only reasonable to say that it is unlikely that 50 redundancy notices will be going out on Friday morning. Of course that will not happen; that is not how it works, and it would be wrong to give that impression. Eventually, in a year or two, because of reduction or delay in recruitment, 50 fewer officers than at present would be available in Wiltshire.
In my area and, I am sure, other parts of Wiltshire, there are real visibility problems. Visibility is extremely important in rural areas. The problem is occurring in places such as Malmesbury, Wootton Bassett, Chippenham and Corsham, the four main towns in my area. My surgery is full of people complaining about it. How much worse things would be if the Government were to try to filch further funds from us in favour of Labour-controlled inner-city areas. That would he unsustainable and politically unforgivable.
I hope that the Minister will take advantage of this short debate and, just as the Home Secretary has done with respect to the rural policing fund, allay our concerns about what may await us in the settlement to be announced on Thursday, and the new formula. Rural police forces await the announcement with some nervousness. The Wiltshire police do an outstanding job and I hope that the Minister will lay out plans that will allow them to continue to be as good as they are.
1.40 pm
Mr. Denham: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on securing this debate. I am pleased to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and the hon. Members for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I am grateful for their interest.
It is of course a bit unfortunate that the debate takes place before the announcement of the provisional police funding settlement for next year, which is due later this week—on Thursday, on the current timetable. However, today we have a useful opportunity to discuss some of the local concerns that were well set out by the hon. Gentleman, as well as what the Government and the police are doing, with local authorities, to reduce crime and make Wiltshire a safer place to live in.
The announcement is imminent and I cannot provide further specifics until it has been made. It is worth bearing in mind that Thursday's announcements will be

239WH
provisional. As with the rest of the local government settlement, there will be an opportunity to make representations during the consultation period, which will run, on current plans, until 14 January 2003.
I acknowledge the record of the police service in Wiltshire. It has a good record as an innovative force. The hon. Gentleman has talked about the joint working that has led to the combined control centre. Those concerned with the provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 for extending the use of police staff in custody suites learned from innovative work done in Wiltshire. Also, some of the changes that we made in that Act to allow wider use of nurses and paramedics were made in response to direct representations from Elizabeth Neville, the chief constable. I am happy to acknowledge—with regard not just to e-policing and the current initiatives, but to several other matters—that Wiltshire police have worked hard to innovate and to lead the reforms that we want to happen more widely.
For the current year, Wiltshire police were allocated Government grant of £56.5 million, which was an increase of 2.3 per cent. over 2001–02. Last year floors and ceilings on the change in police grant were introduced for the first time. Floors protect police authorities that would otherwise receive a lower settlement, by ensuring that no authority receives an increase in grant of less than 2.3 per cent. The use of floors and ceilings ensured that every police authority received a grant at least in line with general inflation.
The way in which grant is distributed according to the system is intended broadly to reflect the relative needs of forces. The formula is weighted according to population so that forces covering larger populations receive more money. It also takes into account sociodemographic factors, and that, in part, is understood by all concerned as one of the surrogates for the pressure on policing—the likely demand and the likely levels of activity.

The hon. Gentleman said that it would be wrong to get the impression that Wiltshire was suburban, rural and prosperous. Large parts of it—I know the southern area best—are indeed rural and prosperous. Not all of it is, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon comes from a part that has its fair share of problems. However, it would be wrong to characterise Wiltshire in the way in which the hon. Gentleman attempted to do.
Ms Julia Drown: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, in the consultation, deprivation has been considered as a factor that might be introduced into the formula? Policing is not like education, where deprivation is used as a proxy for educational challenges or attainment. When crime statistics are used in a formula, as they have been here, surely it is not necessary to include deprivation as well. I hope that he will move on to the matter of cost. The high costs that our police force faces are an important issue for all of us in Wiltshire.
Mr. Denham: We held consultations on a number of possible amendments to the formula because it was, as always, difficult to achieve the correct balance of the factors involved. We are sometimes urged to put a lot of weight directly on recorded crime statistics. That brings
240WH
with it the danger of rewarding the police services that are not performing well, as opposed to those that are fighting crime effectively. The search is always on to balance the factors in a way that fairly represents the different pressures on the police service.
We held consultations on a proposal to bring the rural policing fund into the main police grant formula. There were reasons for that. It would have been possible to have a rural formula that reflected sparsity, and for that to be reflected in the main formula. However, the balance of responses to the consultation was that, although that would have resulted in winners and losers, even in rural areas, there was a sense that the rural areas and those that benefited from the rural policing fund preferred to have a separate, ring-fenced fund, rather than for it to be part of the main formula. The case could be argued either way, but we listened to the consultation and we were pleased to hear the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a few weeks ago.
The rural policing fund is a good example of the way in which some police forces benefit from the allocation of significant sums outside the normal grant formula—in Wiltshire's case, £1.1 million. There are other funds through which forces gain significant sums outside the grant distribution. This year, Wiltshire received £1.7 million from the crime fighting fund, which is tied directly to the recruitment of additional police officers. Thanks to the Government's introduction of that fund, we now have record numbers of police officers in England and Wales.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire made many of my points about the use of the rural policing fund for me. Wiltshire was one of the forces that was able to demonstrate effective use of its expenditure. He referred to the air support providing night-time coverage and faster response times, the investment in call handling staff to improve the service across the county and the establishment of the prisoner handling team. I referred in my opening remarks to some of Wiltshire's innovations: support for rural station clerks, the development of mobile police stations and the investment—which I thoroughly commend—in support staff to work on the employment and retention of special constables.
There are many concerns about and recognised limitations to the police funding formula. As a whole, it has strengths, and it has the general confidence of the policing community. We have been keen to ensure that any new arrangements fully support the reform and modernisation process on which we have embarked for the police, while retaining public confidence. The 2003–04 consultation paper contained six options for change: using new activity analysis data; integrating the rural policing fund into the main formula, which we have discussed; reducing the establishment component to zero; increasing the personal crime component; increasing the public order component; and the possibility of a 2 per cent. deprivation component.
I believe that the majority of the policing community has been in favour of updating the activity analysis data and generally in favour of ending the establishment component. There has been a strong preference for retaining the rural policing fund. The balance of support for the other options is more mixed, as one would

241WH
expect, depending on its impact on different services. The decisions on those options will have to wait until Thursday.
I have already mentioned the effective role played by the crime fighting fund. The Government recognise that police numbers are an important part of a comprehensive package of measures to ensure a modern and efficient police service. The public feel reassured by the sight of police officers on our streets, and that certainly helps to reduce the fear of crime. It is, of course, for the chief constable and the police authority to determine the precise make-up of the force and the distribution of officers throughout the force area. On 31 March 2002, Wiltshire had 1,157 police officers, 37 more than in March 2001. I understand that the force plans to recruit a further 89 officers by March 2003, thereby meeting its recruitment target for the current year.
Since 1997, the number of civilian staff employed by Wiltshire police increased by 174 to 649 in March 2001. Many of the extra civilian support staff have been used to free police officers from paperwork and jobs that can be undertaken as effectively by civilians, allowing police officers to spend more time on operational work. I have already acknowledged the lead of the chief constable of Wiltshire in developing the full role of police staff.
Mr. Gray: The Minister said that there were 1,157 police officers in March 2002. He then went on to talk about the increase in civilian employees since 1997. Perhaps he could tell us how many police officers there were in Wiltshire in 1997 and how that compares with the current figure.
Mr. Denham: I do not have the exact figure, but I know that there were fewer then than there are in Wiltshire now. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
In addition, we are committed to increasing the size of the special constabulary, whose numbers have gradually fallen. That is partly because of the numbers of special constables who have been allowed to join the police service, but none the less, we are currently working with Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Surrey, on a project to consider ways of improving the recruitment, deployment and effective use of specials, which we hope will produce valuable guidance for the service next year. I know that Wiltshire police want the number of special constables to be increased.
The hon. Gentleman referred, fairly, to recorded crime in Wiltshire. Recorded crime levels have decreased since 1996–97. The figures for all categories of offence are lower in Wiltshire than the average in the south-west region or in England and Wales as a whole. Detection rates in Wiltshire for each of the categories are better than in the south-west region or England and Wales as a whole. The annual detection rate of 30 per cent. is higher than that for the south-west region as a whole, which is 23 per cent.
Of course, the support that we provide for the police service is not the only way in which we seek to reduce and tackle crime in Wiltshire. Crime reduction partnerships have also been developed in the county. In 2002–03, the police service was able to work, through those partnerships, with local authorities and others, using just under £750,000 of funding from the
242WH
partnership development fund, the safer communities initiative and the communities against drugs project. More directly, the force has recently applied for, and will receive, funding to employ 15 community support officers by the end of the financial year.
CSOs are an innovation introduced in the Police Reform Act 2002. The Metropolitan police service has pioneered the idea. All hon. Members will have seen the CSOs patrolling who have taken over some of the anti-terrorism reassurance duties in Westminster, allowing police officers to return to their normal duties. I am interested to hear that a predominantly rural police service such as Wiltshire's has also taken advantage of that funding. It will be interesting to see what use will be made of CSOs and how effectively they can be deployed in different circumstances from those of the Metropolitan police.
The hon. Gentleman quite reasonably asked me to speculate on what figures there might be on Thursday. I am afraid that I cannot do that, but I shall make an important point. We have made it clear that this year we shall continue the policy of having floors and ceilings in the grant settlement. He said that the only thing that floors do is spread out cuts. I do not accept that. It is worth bearing in mind that for a number of years the overall funding of the police service has been increasing in real terms, which will continue. The cake is getting bigger. While any changes to any funding formula mean that the relative sizes of the slices of the cake change, that does not mean that police services face cuts in real terms in their allocation.
Mr. Robert Key: Can the Minister assure us that he has given due consideration to the special responsibilities of the Wiltshire constabulary—including special protection—with regard to the Ministry of Defence police, the military police and the other service authorities, which impose a significant burden?
Mr. Denham: When the burdens of such costs are significant enough to be picked up either through direct funding arrangements or in the funding formula, that is done. It is not always possible to pick up every cost, because every police force is able to point to something that is peculiar to the challenges in its area. I could not tell the hon. Gentleman the precise balance of funding, if any, that is available to Wiltshire, though I would be happy to write to him about what provision is made.
The debate about the funding formula has been limited to the six potential changes that I outlined, rather than taking in issues that are specific to any particular force. Any other arrangements would be dealt with outside the formula.
I hope that I have been able to respond to at least some of the points raised. Had the timing of the debate been slightly different—had it taken place after Thursday—we could no doubt have discussed the real figures, but we will have to wait until another day for that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Indian Ocean Territories
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total volume of fish, by type, landed from the British Indian Ocean territories was in each of the last five years. [84052]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The total volume of fish in tonnes in each type of commercial fishery caught in the British Indian Ocean territory in the last five years is as follows:

  Season

  British Indian ocean territory

  Tonnes

  1997–98

  Longline

  2,327

  Purse seine

  2,173

  Inshore

  79.5

  1998–99

  Longline

  2,427

  Purse seine

  6,275

  Inshore

  122.2

  1999–2000

  Longline

  1,939

  Purse seine

  3,415

  Inshore

  309.1

  2000–01

  Longline

  1,828

  Purse seine

  1,064

  Inshore

  224.8

  2001–02

  Longline

  1,034

  Purse seine

  5,795

  No figures are as yet available for the inshore fishery for 2002. It is not possible to list fish catches by individual species.

  EU Commission (Infraction Proceedings)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what infraction proceedings against Her Majesty's Government are being taken by the EU Commission; and when they commenced. [84994]

  Mr. MacShane
  At any given time, the European Commission will have a number of infractions proceedings against any member state. They will be at different stages of the proceedings.

  As of 31 December 2001, the last date for which the Commission has comprehensive public figures, the Commission had 220 infractions cases under examination against the United Kingdom. These cases were opened following a complaint or at the own Commission's initiative. Those cases will have commenced over a variety of years, some even dating back to 1978.

  We are working with the Commission to resolve the outstanding cases.

  India
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will name the successor to HM High Commissioner to India. [84836]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  New High Commissioners to India are publicly announced once approval from the Indian Government is received.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Foreign Minister of India; and if he will make a statement. [84903]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 626W.

  Iraq
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Medact about the effects of a military conflict on civilians in Iraq. [84864]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. No decision has been taken to launch military action against Iraq. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we have always tried to minimise the adverse effects of our actions on the Iraqi people, and we will continue to do so.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the British Government has made to the Government of Nigeria on the stoning to death of those convicted of adultery. [84433]

  Mr. Rammell
  We remain extremely concerned about these sentences. During her visit to Nigeria in September the Minister responsible for Africa, my noble Friend the Baroness Amos, raised with President Obasanjo HMG's concerns about the harsh sentences imposed under the Sharia penal codes, including that of stoning for adultery. She emphasised the strength of feeling against them in the UK and reiterated HMG's opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances.

  The British High Commission in Abuja, together with EU partners, follows all such cases closely and keeps in close contact with local human rights organisations. The High Commission regularly raises our concerns about the sentences with the appropriate authorities.

  The Federal Government has made clear its opposition to the extreme Sharia penalties. It has declared them discriminatory and unconstitutional. Exercise of the Sharia penal code is, however, entirely under the control of the relevant States. The Federal justice system only comes into play if the defendant appeals to the Federal Appeal Courts.

  Referendums Protocol
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he defines an intervention in Irish public and political affairs in
  645W
  connection with the referendum on the Nice Treaty, with reference to the requirements of Her Majesty's Ambassador and embassy staff. [84662]

  Mr. MacShane
  The duty imposed upon diplomats by Article 41(1) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is not to interfere in the internal affairs of the receiving state. This duty is not further denned in international or UK domestic law.

  Shakeela Siddique
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made by the High Commission in Islamabad to the Pakistani Government after 17 July concerning the rape victim Shakeela Siddique and her treatment at the hands of the authorities. [84407]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We take all human rights violations seriously and regularly raise our concerns with the Pakistani authorities. We are working with our EU partners on a comprehensive demarche to the new Pakistani administration on the human rights situation in Pakistan. Experience suggests that concerted action is the most effective way of putting pressure on the Pakistani authorities. We have meanwhile been working with our partners to collate the facts on this and other cases with a view to their inclusion in the demarche. As a result, no formal representations about Ms Siddique have yet been made.

  Sustainable Development
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the sustainability strategy is for his Department; and if he will make a statement on how it has changed since the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg. [83500]

  Mr. Rammell
  The FCO has a long-standing commitment in promoting international sustainable development based on the outcome of the earth summit held in Rio in 1992. The FCO has been very actively involved in the WSSD process and is now working intensively with our international partners to ensure that the impressive range of commitments agreed at the summit are effectively implemented. WSSD outcomes and first views on follow-up will be reflected in the annual report on UK progress on sustainable development for 2002.

  The FCO is focused on achieving high levels of sustainability in its own operations. It has had a programme in place for some time that is designed to respond to the sustainable development challenges confirmed at WSSD. The FCO is therefore committed to meeting the targets being set out in the "Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate". This framework is designed to ensure Government operations contribute positively to the UK's sustainable development headline indicators. These targets are being applied to the whole of the FCO's UK estate, although timescales may vary depending upon the location and nature of the site. We have a specific SDA target of achieving efficiencies from the existing energy target of reducing carbon emissions by an ongoing 1 per cent, per annum.
  646W
  Our overseas posts are required to apply the framework targets as far as possible in their individual circumstances.

  The FCO raises awareness of operational sustainable development issues using both informal methods eg Intranet discussion group, and formal training.

  Turkmenistan
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions his Department has had with(a) the Russian Government, (b) the Turkish Government and (c) the United States Government, regarding restrictive regulations on registration of religious groups and religious persecution in Turkmenistan; [84553]

  (2)what reports his Department have received regarding harassment and persecution of religious groups in Turkmenistan; and if he will make a statement; [84550]

  (3)what steps he has taken to ensure that goods shipped from the UK under UK and EU export control regulations to Turkmenistan (a) have not been and (b) will not be used for internal repression or torture; [84580]

  (4)what representations his Department has made to the Government of Turkmenistan regarding (a) restrictive regulations on the registration of religious groups in the country and (b) harassment of religious groups and repression of religious activity; [84551]

  (5)what UK delegations to Turkmenistan are planned; and if he will make a statement; [84552]

  (6)if he will raise the issue of restrictions on religious groups and their harassment and persecution in Turkmenistan at the tenth OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Portugal; and if he will make a statement. [84549]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: We are concerned at Turkmen Government actions aimed at restricting the activities of religious groups. We regularly monitor reports from Turkmenistan and meet representatives of religious groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, to discuss the situation in the country.

  Senior UK officials have discussed the repression of human rights in central Asia with representatives from other countries (including Russia and Turkey). Together with EU and US colleagues, we use every opportunity to raise cases of religious persecution with the Turkmen Government, and we believe our representations helped to secure the release of the Baptist, Atakov. Most recently, our Ambassador wrote to the Turkmen Foreign Minister on 1 November requesting the release of religious and other prisoners.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Welfare of Animals (Circuses)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent
  647W
  representations she has made to owners of circuses on the welfare of animals. [82732]

  Mr. Morley
  The welfare of animals in circuses is an issue that is currently being reviewed in the light of the recent consultation on the proposed Animal Welfare Bill. A number of suggestions have been made concerning the better regulation of performing animals and as part of the series of stakeholder meetings on the Bill, my officials have met representatives of the performing animals industry and organisations concerned with the welfare of performing animals. In the light of these discussions I shall give further thought to what changes need to be made the existing legislation on circus animals.

  Quite separately, the Association of Circus Proprietors has drawn up a code of practice to help circus operators and those responsible for animal welfare enforcement.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs why the Chairman of the Agricultural Wages Board has resigned. [84236]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The Chairman of the Agricultural Wages Board, Professor John Andrews, has indicated his wish not to serve a further term for personal reasons. The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales have reluctantly accepted Professor Andrew's decision and thanked him for his valuable work during the last three years.

  Professor Andrews has agreed to continue in post until a successor has been appointed. The post has been advertised and it is hoped that an appointment can be made before Easter.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the relevant qualifications are of the two new independent board members of the Agricultural Wages Board. [84237]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Independent members of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales are not required to hold any specific qualifications. However when new members are appointed we do try to ensure that collectively, the independent members have experience of as many areas of expertise relevant to the Board's work as possible. These include EU and UK employment legislation, EU and UK social policy, arbitration and conciliation, human resource management, tribunal work, accountancy and economic issues.

  Gillian Morris is a Professor of Law at Brunei University and since 2000 has been Deputy Chairman of the Central Arbitration Committee. Derek Evans served with ACAS from 1974, becoming acting chief executive in May 2000 until his retirement last year.

  Beef Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on the decision by the European Commission not to fine France for imposing an illegal ban on British beef and beef products. [81829]
  648W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what efforts she has made to recover the costs to the British beef industry of the refusal of the French Government to lift its British beef import ban. [81944]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Government are gratified that France has at last complied with EU law and lifted its ban on British beef. Working through EU institutions was the best way to resolve this difficult issue although I regret the decision by the European Commission not to pursue the case seeking financial penalties against France. Compensation for losses must be sought by those directly affected. The UK Government intervened to support the NFU's current case to rule the ban illegal in the French courts and will support those who wish subsequently to pursue any claims.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning the decision of the European Commission not to fine the French Government for the illegal imposition of a ban on the sale of British beef in France; what measures she proposes to take to seek compensation from the French Government for the losses incurred by British farmers for the period of the illegal ban; and what other redress she proposes to make to British farmers for the damage suffered by their business for the period of the illegal ban. [82915]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government has received a number of representations on this matter.

  The UK Government is gratified that France has at last complied with EU law and lifted its ban on British beef. Working through EU institutions was the best way to resolve this difficult issue although the UK Government regrets the decision by the European Commission not to pursue the case seeking penalties against France. The UK has supported the Commission throughout and believes that pressing this case would have sent a firm message to member states that no one country can avoid its obligations and responsibilities.

  Compensation for losses must be sought by those directly affected. The UK Government intervened in the European Court of Justice to support the NFU's current case to rule the ban illegal in the French Courts and will support those who wish subsequently to pursue any claims.

  Biomass
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets she has set in relation to the creation of energy by the use of biomass. [84197]

  Mr. Meacher
  Targets in respect of the Government's support for biomass are generally linked to the potential to contribute to climate change savings and the implications for the rural economy. In the energy crops scheme, part of the England Rural Development Programme, we have funding of £29 million which could see around 20,000 hectares of crops planted. Each hectare of biomass crops yielding the equivalent of 8 tonnes per annum will save 2 tonnes of carbon per annum. Purpose grown energy crops and other biomass will provide feedstocks for the projects developed under
  649W
  the bio-energy capital grants scheme from which we expect electricity generation of up to 120MW in addition to the development of combined heat and power and heat only projects.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what vaccines exist for inoculating cattle against TB; what use is made of such vaccines; what advice she gives to farmers about the use of these vaccines; and if she will make a statement. [84858]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 December 20002]: Developing a bovine TB vaccine is a long-term aim. The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISO) has cautioned that such a vaccine is a potential policy option only in the longer term and has set up, this year, a Vaccine Scoping Study. A report is expected to be submitted to Ministers early in 2003 on the feasibility of pursuing a vaccination strategy.

  A test which is able to distinguish vaccinated from infected cattle would be a great asset in the development of a vaccination strategy. Development of such a test is part of our wide-ranging research programme. Once a test has been developed we would need to approach the European Union to seek its acceptance of the new test as showing cattle to be free from the disease. This would require a change to European law.

  Any new vaccine would need to meet the EU criteria of safety, quality and efficacy for the authorisation of veterinary medicinal products.

  The BCG vaccine is being used a starting point for much of the current research. We are looking at how BCG protects animals and what environmental factors affect this. Some of the possible new vaccines under development are mutated or altered forms of BCG.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Andrew Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much(a) direct and (b) indirect Government financial support was given to the combined heat and power industry in each year since 1990. [82798]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: Estimated direct financial support to the CHP industry, in the form of spend on research, demonstration and development, since 1990 is:

  £ million

  1990–91

  0.3

  1991–92

  0.3

  1992–93

  0.3

  1993–94

  0.4

  1994–95

  0.5

  1995–96

  0.5

  1996–97

  0.7

  1997–98

  1.0

  1998–99

  1.3

  1999–2000

  1.9

  2000–01

  2.5

  2001–02

  2.8

  650W
  The 2001–02 figure includes around £0.4 million in development grants from the new Community Energy programme, most of which benefits CHP. In the current financial year, £3.3 million of capital grants from the programme have been approved to date.

  In addition, the Carbon Trust receives around £50 million per annum in total from which it provides direct support for CHP through its ActionEnergy Scheme and for research, development and demonstration of CHP through the Low Carbon Innovation Programme.

  Several indirect measures of support for the CHP industry were also introduced in 2001–02. Of those that can be enumerated, climate change levy exemption on fuel inputs to Good Quality CHP and Good Quality CHP electricity outputs were valued at up to £90 million, while eligibility for Enhanced Capital Allowances is worth in the region of £10 million per annum to the industry. In addition, CHP is one of the measures that operators who are participants in Climate Change Agreements are encouraged to use to meet their targets and therefore qualify for the 80 per cent, reduction in Climate Change Levy.

  Dairy Herds (Somerset)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average size of the dairy herd in Somerset was in each of the last five years. [82608]

  Mr. Morley
  The tables show the number of holdings, number of cows in the dairy herd and average number of these dairy cattle on holdings in the county of Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset and North Somerset Unitary Authorities.

  County of Somerset

  Year

  Holdings

  Dairy cows

  Average herd size

  1997

  1,371

  118,572

  86.5

  1998

  1,326

  113,221

  85.4

  1999

  1,289

  115,126

  89.3

  2000

  1,229

  109,498

  89.1

  2001

  1,190

  111,379

  93.6

  Bath and North East Somerset Unitary Authority

  Year

  Holdings

  Dairy cows

  Average herd size

  1997

  108

  8,680

  80.4

  1998

  108

  8,920

  82.6

  1999

  109

  9,098

  83.5

  2000

  102

  8,546

  83.8

  2001

  104

  9,453

  90.9

  North Somerset Unitary Authority

  Year

  Holdings

  Dairy cows

  Average herd size

  1997

  135

  10,337

  76.6

  1998

  132

  9,799

  74.2

  1999

  133

  10,165

  76.4

  2000

  113

  9,408

  83.3

  2001

  107

  9,296

  86.9

  Notes:

  1. These figures show the old county of Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset Unitary Authority and North Somerset Unitary Authority. These now comprise the area covered by Somerset.
  651W
  2. Years 2000 and 2001 refer to main and minor holdings. 1997–99 refer to main holdings only.

  3. A dairy cow is denned as a cow or heifer in the dairy herd that has calved.

  Source:

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Elephant Ivory
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the EU decision to abstain in respect of the vote at the CITES meeting in Santiago, relating to whether to allow elephant ivory stockpile sales by Namibia, Botswana and South Africa, reflected the position the UK Government advocated in its discussions with EU partners prior to the vote. [83382]

  Mr Morley
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: At the meeting of the Environment Council on 17 October member states agreed that the Community was unwilling to agree to a resumption in commercial ivory trade unless it was satisfied, following consultation with all range states, that there would be no resulting increase in illegal killing of elephants and no unfavourable impact on the conservation of elephant populations. The Community would continue to support the cooperation of range states to this effect.

  In Santiago the UK supported the EU view that the initial set of proposals put forward by the range states did not meet these criteria for a resumption in commercial ivory trade. Following a meeting between representatives of range states and the EU, a revised set of proposals was prepared which sought only a one-off sale, subject to strict conditions which must be fulfilled before the sale could go ahead.

  On these, the EU agreed to abstain because it was clear that there was no prospect of achieving an agreed view, even on qualified majority voting, to support or oppose the revised proposal. The UK does not believe that the necessary conditions are currently in place, even for a one-off sale. However, if the strict requirements of the agreement (which include a minimum 18-month delay, strict control of the market, stringent monitoring requirements and a condition that the proceeds of any sale are used solely for the benefit of elephant conservation) are met in full and verified, we believe that this agreement strikes the right balance between meeting the legitimate expectations of the southern African states that they should be able to engage in sustainable utilisation of their natural resources, whilst establishing strict controls to secure the conservation of wider elephant populations, as envisaged in the Environment Council decision.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Andrew Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how much Government financial support has been made available for energy efficiency measures in each year since 1990; [82804]

  (2) how much Government financial support has been made available to (a) the Energy Savings Trust, (b) the Carbon Trust and (c) other organisations concerned with energy efficiency measures in each year since 1990. [82805]
  652W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: Since 1996 the Government have provided funding to the Energy Saving Trust (Defra funding currently about £24 million) to encourage the sustainable use of energy in the domestic and small business sectors. The Energy Saving Trust also receives funding from the Scottish Executive, Department for Transport and Department of Trade and Industry.

  Government funding for the Carbon Trust by my Department and the Devolved Administrations since April 2001 is a little under £50 million a year funded from Climate Change Levy receipts and the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme.

  The funding made available by my Department and its predecessors to support and promote efficiency measures in each year since 1990 (including the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust) is of the scale set out:

  £ million

  1990–91

  18.4

  1991–92

  39.3

  1992–93

  49.4

  1993–94

  60.3

  1994–95

  102.7

  1995–96

  128.5

  1996–97

  116.0

  1997–98

  110.5

  1998–99

  109.0

  1999–2000

  112.0

  2000–01

  119

  2001–02

  approximately 1253

  1Subject to final audit

  These figures include the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, support for the Energy Saving Trust (from 1996), Fuel Poverty and for the Carbon Trust (from 1 April 2001). Energy Saving Trust funding for Scotland was devolved from 1 July 1999. Between 1991–99, the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme covered the whole of Great Britain. Funding was devolved to Scotland in July 1999 and to Wales in April 2000. The new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (now marketed as the Warm Front Team) was launched in England in June 2000.

  EU Agriculture Regulations
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many EU regulations have been introduced in each year since 1997 relating to agriculture. [82686]

  Mr. Morley
  A table showing council regulations agreed in the years 1997–02 relating to agriculture is available in the Library of the House. A number of regulations agreed during this time have since expired— these are not included. The list has been trawled from a variety of sources and it is possible that a small number of regulations may have fallen through the net. Regulations have a direct effect in the laws of member states and do not usually require Governments to take action to implement them, the table does not show commission regulations. Details of all regulations adopted can be found on the Eur-Lex database available on the European Union's website.

  Insurance (Flooding)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the insurance industry about continuing flood cover. [84186]

  Mr. Morley
  There have been many discussions with the insurance industry, involving myself, my officials and officials from Treasury, culminating in the Association of British Insurers' announcement in September that they would continue provision of flood insurance for the vast majority of homes situated on the floodplain. Discussions continue as we have agreed to review the situation on a regular basis.

  Farming
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) land-owning farmers and (b) tenant farmers have left the industry in each of the last 10 years. [82894]

  Mr. Morley
  The information for farmers is not available. Figures from the agricultural census on the number of holdings by tenure in England 1991–2000 indicate the following.

  Holdings wholly owned/ 50 per cent, or more owned

  Holdings wholly rented/ 50 per cent, or more rented

  1991

  112,383

  38,583

  1992

  113,698

  38,020

  1993

  115,956

  37,466

  1994

  117,086

  36,340

  1995

  111,877

  34,235

  1996

  112,164

  33,474

  1997

  111,594

  33,183

  1998

  112,369

  32,724

  1999

  115,148

  32,072

  2000

  114,841

  31,506

  Notes:

  1. Data refers to main holdings only.

  2. It is not possible to show the number of farmers, only the number of holdings.

  Some farmers may have more than one holding.

  3. The figures show only the number of holdings on the census day in June each

  year. They therefore do not reflect gains or losses during the year.

  Source:

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Horticulture (Employment Statistics)
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were employed in horticulture in(a) 1972, (b) 1980, (c) 1990, (d) 1995, (e) 2000 and (f) 2001, broken down by (i) contractual and (ii) full time workers. [84238]

  Mr Morley
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Figures on the Labour force on Horticulture Holdings in England is provided as follows It is not possible to provide figures for 1980 and figures on contractual workers.
  654W

  1990

  1995

  2000

  2001

  Farmers, partners, Directors full-time (including spouses in 2000 and 2001)

  8,920

  7,474

  7,557

  7,532

  Farmers, partners, directors part-time (including spouses in 2000 and 2001)

  3,483

  3,198

  8,005

  8,605

  Spouses of farmers partners and directors full and part-time

  4,287

  3,427

  1—

  1—

  Salaried managers:

  Part-time

  N/a

  N/a

  1,876

  2,190

  Full-time

  N/a

  N/a

  231

  338

  Total

  1,338

  1,265

  2,107

  2,528

  Full-time workers

  1,5012

  12,601

  12,404

  126,96

  Part-time workers

  9,259

  7,706

  6,991

  6,440

  Casual labour

  16,761

  14,888

  12,938

  13,358

  Total labour

  59,060

  50,559

  50.002

  51,156

  1 Including above.

  Notes:

  (a)A horticultural holding is one where horticulture is the predominant activity.

  (b)Spouses are included only if they are working on the holding.

  (c)Figures for 1990 and 1995 represent main holdings only.

  (d)In 1998 fundamental changes were introduced to the labour questions on the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census in England. It appears that this change in questions may have led to the recording of additional labour not previously included in the returns.

  (e)As a result of a register improvement exercise the figures from June 2000 and June 2001 are not directly comparable.

  Source:

  June Agricultural and Horticultural Census.

  Live Sheep Exports
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on (a) 13 November and (b) 14 November; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey (i) during inspection for health certification purposes and (ii) at Dover docks; to where those sheep were taken; and what the address was of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [82072]

  (2)how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on 16 November; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey (a) during inspection for health certification purposes and (b) at Dover docks, and to where those sheep were taken; and what the address was of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [82768]

  (3)how many live sheep were exported from Dover to continental Europe on 19 November; when and where health certification was carried out in respect of the sheep; how many of the sheep were rejected as unfit for the intended journey (a) during inspection for health certification purposes and (b) at Dover docks, and to where those sheep were taken; and what the address was of the final destination given on the route plan for each of the consignments. [82996]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows.
  655W

  November 2002

  Total animals

  Where consignments were certified

  Animals rejected at certification

  Animals rejected at Dover docks

  Destination

  13

  2,809

  England, Scotland and Wales

  37

  0

  France

  14

  2,330

  Wales

  33

  0

  France and Germany

  16

  3,265

  England and Wales

  60

  0

  France

  16

  405

  Wales

  6

  0

  Germany

  19

  2,889

  England, Scotland and Wales

  10

  0

  France

  The sheep for the consignments listed were certified within 48 hours prior to export. These consignments went to approved slaughterhouses apart from the sailings on 13 November and 19 November which were fattening animals transported to holdings. The animals which were rejected at certification remained in Great Britain.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the operational effectiveness of the 20 day rule. [84164]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers and officials are in regular contact with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations about a number of animal health matters, including the 20 day standstill.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many representations she has received on the effects of the 20 day standstill rule in relation to the movement of animals; and if she will make a statement. [84188]

  Mr. Morley
  Industry organisations, veterinary associations, individual farmers and others have made numerous and varied representations about the effects of the 20 day standstill.

  Modification (Public Consultation)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the process which will apply in respect of the public consultation exercise on modification. [84727]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government is sponsoring a public dialogue on genetic modification (GM) technology and this will focus on issues and concerns raised by the public. This consists of three strands:

  A public debate organised independently of the Government, overseen by an independent steering board chaired by Professor Malcolm Grant, chair of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC).

  A review of the science surrounding GM issues, led by Professor David King (the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser) working with Professor Howard Dalton (the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).
  656W
  An expert Science Review Panel, chaired by Professor King, will review and summarise the state of scientific knowledge, concerns and areas of uncertainty over GM science issues

  The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit is carrying out a study into the overall costs and benefits of GM crops, including their effect on conventional and organic farming interests.

  The Strategy Unit study, along with the science review, will feed into the public debate. The overall process is now underway and will continue until June next year.

  Pesticide Residues
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many food samples tested for pesticide, veterinary and other residues in each of the last 10 years were assessed to contain(a) residue above the maximum residue level for the (i) UK and (ii) EU, (b) a residue not approved for use on UK crops and (c) a residue in organic samples. [84159]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The results of analysis for pesticide residues are presented in Table 1. All the samples were assessed for Maximum Residue Level1 (MRL) exceedances (where MRLs had been set) and UK non-approved uses for the UK samples only. Organic samples are not specifically targeted in the surveys. They are tested as part of the monitoring programme as they are available for consumers to buy. Table 1 therefore includes the number of samples tested for pesticide residues which were found to contain MRL exceedances (which may be either UK, EU or Codex Alimentarius Commission MRLs). It also includes the number of non-approved uses found in UK produce only, and the number of organic samples that were found to contain residues.

  The detailed results of the Pesticide Residues Committee's (PRC's) monitoring (and its predecessor the Working Party on Pesticide Residues (WPPR) (including the commodities tested) have been published and can be viewed on the relevant websites:
  www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc.htm (PRC results)
  www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/WPPR/wppr.htm (WPPR results)

  These electronic results go back as far as 1996. Hard copies going back to 1992 are available in the House Library.
  657W

  Table 1: Samples tested for pesticide residues from 1993–2002 which were found to contain an MRL exceedance, non-approved UK use or organic samples containing residence

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Number of samples tested

  3,177

  3,371

  3,742

  3,230

  3.449

  2,648

  2,187

  2,374

  2,304

  4,003

  Number of samples containing MRL exceedances

  28

  46

  23

  32

  27

  15

  29

  38

  25

  29

  (0.88%)

  (1.36%)

  (0.61%)

  (0.99%)

  (0.78%)

  (0.57%)

  (1.33%)

  (1.60%)

  (1.09%)

  (0.72%)

  Number of UK samples containing non-approved pesticides

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  12

  5

  8

  9

  Number of organic samples containing residues

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  1 The PRC plan to test 4,000 samples during 2002, however, the full results are not available

  2Data are not available

  The results of analysis for veterinary medicine residues are presented in Table 2. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) of DEFRA runs two surveillance schemes that look for residues of authorised veterinary medicines and banned substances in UK produced and imported foods. Samples of organic produce are included in the surveillance, but the results have not been kept separately. The Maximum Residue Limits1 (MRLs) for residues of veterinary medicines are set on an EU-wide basis. Substances not authorised for use will not have an MRL. For such compounds and also for approved substances without an MRL for a particular tissue, an 'Action Level' is applied; this is normally that any confirmed residue is reported.

  All of the results, highlighting any exceedances of MRLs and Action Levels, are published quarterly in the VMD's newsletter. They have been published annually

  Table 2: Number of samples tested under the VMD's statutory and non-statutory surveillance programmes that were above approved limits for each of the last 10 years

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  7996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Total samples (1000s)

  48

  49

  47

  50

  42

  44

  40

  41

  39

  40

  Veterinary authorized1

  207

  60

  80

  101

  129

  78

  73

  59

  80

  75

  Non-authorised2

  15

  0

  69

  57

  66

  34

  50

  15

  32

  34

  Other3

  57

  108

  101

  69

  101

  376

  16

  44

  18

  46

  1 This includes where MRLs were exceeded or a residue of an authorised substance has been found where no MRL was set (in this case an 'Action Level' is applied—this is normally that any confirmed residue is reported as an exceedance).

  2 Non-authorised substances may not have an MRL. Some of the reported cases will be of hormones, where the action level may be exceeded by the natural fluctuations of the hormone within the animal.

  3 Certain substances, such as PCBs, pesticides, dyes and heavy metals are included in the VMD surveillance programmes, as they are a requirement under Council Directive 96/23EC.

  Note:

  The definition of MRLs for pesticide residues and veterinary residues is not the same; they have different meanings.

  For pesticide residues, MRLs are maximum residue levels. These are intended primarily as a check that pesticides are being used correctly and to assist international trade in treated produce. Maximum residue levels for pesticide residues are not safety limits, and exposure to pesticide residues in excess of a maximum residue level does not necessarily imply a risk to health.

  For veterinary residues, MRLs are maximum residue limits. For veterinary medicines, they are statutory limits-if any tissue from an animal presented for slaughter is found to contain a residue above the maximum residue limit, an offence may have been committed. In Europe, the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP), part of the European Medicines Evaluation Agency, sets MRLs. Because of
  658W
  in the VMD's annual report and accounts up to 1994, in a dedicated VMD report on surveillance for veterinary residues between 1995 and 2000, and in the veterinary residues committee's annual report on surveillance for veterinary residues in 2001. Copies of the annual reports are available in the House Library or the VMD's website www.vmd.gov.uk

  A variety of factors which influence the pattern of results—such as compounds sought or analytical capability—have changed in both programmes over time. Data for different years may, therefore, not be directly comparable. The detailed published reports for the programmes covering these years should be consulted for further information.

  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for pesticide residues and veterinary medicines residues. Other food residues are a matter for the Food Standards Agency.

  the way veterinary MRLs are set, exposure to a residue over the MRL is in itself not necessarily a cause for concern. The VMD take toxicological advice from the Food Standards Agency where residues over the relevant MRL or actions levels are detected.

  Pet Passport Scheme
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will reassess the risks of the reintroduction of rabies via the pet passport scheme. [84242]

  Mr. Morley
  We carried out such an assessment before deciding to extend the pet travel scheme to the USA and Canada. The risk of importing rabies into the UK, from qualifying countries under the pet travel scheme, remains low.

  Timber Procurement
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the countries from which timber was obtained for the refurbishment of Nobel House; and what steps she has taken to ensure that the timber used was derived from legal and sustainable sources. [84732]

  Alun Michael
  The most recent refurbishment work in Nobel House was to the Ministerial Suite completed in 1997. At that time no records were kept of the source of timber and as the contractor has gone into bankruptcy I am advised that it is not possible to pursue the matter through company records.

  Refurbishment in the adjoining building, 9 Millbank, was completed in September 2002. Limed oak was obtained from a renewable, legal source in Germany for that project.

  Waste-Based Fishing Quotas
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she has received representations about the possibility of waste- based fishing quotas. [83898]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: No but I am pleased to note that the Commission has recently produced an action plan to address the practice of discarding of unwanted fish. One of the many points for discussion is the possibility of reducing discards due to exhausted quotas by establishing by-catch quotas or setting multi-species TACs. We have not yet taken a view on this but look forward to detailed consideration and discussion of this and other novel ideas in the action plan.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Security
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the report on airport security by Sir John Wheeler; and if he will make a statement. [82875]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend announced on 30 October, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins),Official Report, columns 861–62W, that the Government had considered carefully the findings and recommendations in Sir John Wheeler's report, and was happy to accept in principle all of them. The Department for Transport and the Home Office are now working closely together on implementation, involving as appropriate, the police and other control agencies, and the airport industry.

  10-year Plan
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to reply to Mr. Peter Tucker of Burton Sea's letter of 1 July regarding liquid petroleum gas. [83354]
  660W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I apologise that the hon. Member's constituent has not received a reply to his letter. My Department has received a further copy of the letter, to which officials are replying. I will ensure a copy is sent to the hon. Member for information.

  Air Routes
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on the establishment of public service obligations on air routes serving peripheral or development regions where no subsidy is involved. [84868]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are prepared to consider the establishment of Public Service Obligations where the criteria laid down in Regulation 2408/92 are met.

  Air Transport Consultation Process
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who will(a) analyse and (b) collate the responses to the air transport consultation; and whether they or their employees have previously been employees of airlines or airport operators. [84560]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The analysis of the consultation responses will be carried out by a team comprising civil servants and retained consultants with expertise in a range of relevant areas including aviation, surface access, safety and environmental issues. It will be for officials to prepare and submit advice to Ministers.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the current timetable for the air transport consultation process for the south east will be affected by the high court ruling on 26 November regarding the omission of Gatwick airport from the air transport consultation document; and if he will make a statement. [85020]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement given to Parliament on 28 November by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Airports Consultation
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what he estimates to be the total costs to public funds of contesting the action brought by Essex county council, Kent county council and Medway district council in respect of the Airports Consultation. [85220]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's own costs and Counsel's fees have not yet been calculated.

  The amount of each claimant's costs will have to be assessed by the Court in due course if it cannot be agreed.

  Birmingham International Airport
  Mrs. Spelman: Mrs. Caroline Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will(a) rescind his previous intention to issue a white paper on potential expansion of Birmingham International Airport and (b) substitute a green paper. [83549]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It remains our intention to issue a white paper setting out our policies on both aviation and airports.
  661W
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will allow(a) the period of consultation to be extended and a second round of consultation to be organized and (b) additional time for (i) preparation and publication of detailed Birmingham International Airport proposal and the documentary evidence to support such a proposal and its concomitant business care and (ii) public scrutiny and response. [83550]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As the Secretary of State has announced in his written Statement of 27 November 2002,Official Report, columns 35–36WS and his Oral Statement to the House on 28 November, we have decided to extend the consultation. It will now close four months after the publication of a further consultation document for South East England.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what account he will take of representations about the proposed expansion of Birmingham international airport which are not in the form of responses to the official questionnaire; and whether he will receive representations after 30 November; [83945]

  (2) whether he will examine the proposal for expansion of Birmingham international airport put forward by the airport management. [83946]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All written responses to the consultation will be considered. Details of how to respond are set out in the consultation document.

  British Midland
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on operations between British Midland from Heathrow to the USA. [84059]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Bermuda II agreement allows the UK to designate only two airlines to operate from Heathrow to the US, and British Airways and Virgin Atlantic are the designated UK airlines. We have put proposals to the US for the full liberalisation of the UK-US aviation market, but these have not been accepted. More recently, we put proposals to the US Government for a partial liberalisation of the market, which would have allowed bmi British Midland to operate a limited number of Heathrow-US services, but the US felt unable to accept them either. We are currently considering whether a further proposal should be made.

  Containers
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received on the development of container handling capacity in the UK; [84116]

  (2)what appraisal his Department has made of the likely demand in container handling facilities in UK ports over the next 25 years; [84115]

  (3)what appraisal his Department has made of the need for hub port development in the UK; [84114]

  (4)what recent representations he has received on the development of hub ports in the UK. [84113]
  662W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A paper, "Recent Developments at UK Container Ports" was published by the Department in July 2001. Copies of this paper were placed in the Library in response to a question from the hon. Member for Reading West on 7 November 2001,Official Report, columns 296–97W. This paper was based on extensive consultation with port and shipping interests. Representations received in relation to the development of hub ports have related predominantly to specific schemes and have been made as part of the formal planning process in which the schemes are at various stages. A few have related to other possible projects on which no formal proposals have been submitted.

  Croxley Rail Link
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions on the Croxley rail link project. [83822]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The scheme is currently being considered in our preparations for this year's local transport settlement; an announcement on which will be made shortly.

  Cycle Facilities (Railway Stations)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of railway stations in England with cycle-friendly facilities; how many have(a) gulleys for taking bikes up stairs and (b) cycle parks; and what measures he has taken to encourage cycle-friendly facilities at railway stations. [83797]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not held centrally. The Strategic Rail Authority encourages all train operators to provide appropriate facilities at stations for the safe and secure storage of cycles.

  Detrunked Roads Programme
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what method the detrunked roads programme will be incorporated into the local government finance system; and when he expects the integration programme to be(a) started and (b) completed. [84512]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Transfers of revenue to local authorities in respect of detrunked roads are provided by special grant under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The timing and method of the integration of the Special Grant into Formula Spending Shares (previously Standard Spending Assessments) is currently under consideration.

  Government Sponsorship
  Ms Shipley: Ms Debra Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his sponsorship of(a) the New Government Building, Leeds and (b) the Highway Agency's Stonehenge improvement entails. [83351]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The new Government Building, Leeds and the Highways Agency's Stonehenge improvement are two Departmental projects selected by the former DTLR for inclusion in the Better Public Building Initiative.
  663W
  The Highways Agency is the largest and the leading partner in a project to co-locate five departments in a single new office at Leeds. The design of the new office is being developed with input from the Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment (CABE).

  The project is a Private Finance Initiative scheme and is at a stage where five outline proposals have been submitted by developers. It aims to provide a combination of a pleasant working environment for staff with high quality exterior design which enhances the local environment and meets government targets on sustainability.

  The Highways Agency's A303 Stonehenge Improvement is a central component of the Stonehenge Project, which will help to restore the setting of the scheduled monument within the Stonehenge World Heritage Site. The Project brings together a number of government and non-government agencies and other organisations in partnership. Detailed development work is currently being undertaken by the Agency.

  The principal feature of the improvement will be a tunnel past the Stones. High quality design will be essential for all parts of the scheme that have an impact on the World Heritage Site. CABE is already involved in assessing the detail of the proposals.

  Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the grants funded by his Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; and if he will make a statement as to(a) the total of such funding in the last financial year, (b) the total number of awards and (c) their administrative costs. [82198]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Total funding and number of awards for grants funded by my Department, for which individual members of the public and organisations may have applied in the last financial year, are set out in the table. The administration of grant programmes is carried out by a number of different units within the Department to which a range of staff make a contribution. It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of those costs centrally.

  Grants

  Total funding in 2001–02 (£000)

  Awards in 2001–02

  Bus Service Operator's Grant

  304.300

  1,800

  Rail Freight Grant

  32.800

  23

  Track Access Grant

  24.200

  21

  Powershift

  3.998

  4,491

  Clean Up

  3.455

  2,424

  CleanUp Haulage

  1.255

  341

  Road Safety Grants

  0.334

  9

  Mobility Grants

  0.620

  12

  Water Freight Grant

  16.981

  13

  HGV Licences
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the valid heavy goods vehicle operator licences in effect in(a) Wychavon, (b) Cotswold, and (c) Stratford-upon-Avon district council areas. [84911]
  664W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Traffic Area Network electronic database of HGV and PSV operator licences can be accessed through their website on www.tan.gov.uk Data can be extracted by post-code area, but not by local authority district, and by operator name. There are more than 100 operators in the areas.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make it his policy to require the Transport Commissioners to notify local councils of applications for heavy goods vehicle operator licenses within their council area; [84914]

  (2) if he will list those bodies and individuals the Traffic Commissioners are obliged to consult before issuing operators licences; and what plans he has to add bodies and individuals to this list; [84920]

  (3)why the responsibility to advertise an application for a heavy goods vehicle operator licence rests with the applicant. [84915]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An applicant for a heavy goods vehicle operating licence must advertise the details of the application in a local newspaper circulating in the locality of a proposed operating centre and send a copy of the advertisement to the Traffic Commissioner. A Traffic Commissioner must satisfy himself that this meets the requirements. If not, he must refuse the application. Independent verification by the Traffic Commissioner provides a better safeguard for local residents than if he were responsible for advertising applications.

  The Traffic Commissioner has the responsibility for publishing applications received, other than minor variations, and for notifying those bodies with a statutory right to object to the grant of a licence. The bodies a Traffic Commissioner is obliged to consult are: prescribed trade unions; a chief officer of police; a local authority; a planning authority. There are no plans to add to this list. Local residents affected may make representations.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the need for the Traffic Commissioners to take account of environmental issues when granting operator licences for the use of heavy goods vehicles; [84921]

  (2) what account the Transport Commissioners are required to take of local road safety congestion and the amenity of local committees when granting a heavy goods vehicle operator licence; [84912]

  (3) what steps the Traffic Commissioners take to ensure an applicant for a heavy goods vehicle operator licence is a bona fide business and otherwise suitably qualified individual; [84917]

  (4) if he will make it his policy to require the Transport Commissioners to satisfy themselves that an appropriate planning permission exists on a site for which an application for a heavy goods vehicle operator licence has been made before granting any such licence; [84913]

  (5) for what reason the independent Traffic Commissioners are limited in what they may consider when deciding an operator's licence application; [84916]
  665W
  (6) what account the Traffic Commissioners take of practicability of (a) gaining access to and (b) manoeuvring vehicles on a site before granting an operator licence for heavy goods vehicles; [84919]

  (7) what steps the Traffic Commissioners take to ensure that a site on which a heavy goods vehicle operator licence is applied for has the appropriate planning permission. [84918]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 determines the matters which a Traffic Commissioner takes into account in granting an application for a goods vehicle operating licence. These relate to the suitability of:(a) a site for use as an operating centre for heavy goods vehicles, including parking; safety of access to a public road; and impact on the local environment; and
  (b) an operator in terms of good repute; financial standing; and professional competence.

  Traffic Commissioners are responsible for deciding whether the criteria have been met. It follows that Traffic Commissioners do not have the power to take into account other matters such as the absence of planning permission for an operating centre or its impact on road congestion. These are the responsibility of the local planning authority and the local highway authority respectively.

  Highways Agency
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers a Traffic Manager will have; what plans he has to change the role of the Highways Agency; and what discussions he has had with the insurance industry on the implications of removing vehicles soon after an accident. [84244]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have recently completed a comprehensive review of police and Agency roles for network operation. The review investigated how greater co-operation could improve the effective operation of the network and the way in which incidents and the effects of incidents could be jointly managed.

  Implementation will be carefully managed and carried out in partnership with the police. There will be detailed consultation with internal and external stakeholders.

  Illegal Parking
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will introduce adoptive powers to make it an offence to allow vehicles to be parked on verges and footpaths; [85170]

  (2) if he will bring into force section 19a of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to make it an offence for motor vehicles, other than heavy commercial vehicles, to park on verges and footways or the land between carriageways on any urban road. [85171]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Section 19A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was repealed by the Road Traffic Act 1991.
  666W
  We are not in favour of a national ban on pavement parking for the reasons given in our response to recommendation [e viii] of the Walking in Towns and Cities report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee (Cm 5277). Parking on pavements and verges is a problem that should be tackled at local level using traffic regulation orders.

  Jet Skis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from(a) individuals, (b) manufacturers and (c) user groups about the need to regulate the use of jet-skis and make them subject to registration and insurance; and if he will make a statement. [83261]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department receives communications from time to time from individuals seeking advice. We continue to take the view that education and training are preferable to compulsory registration. My Department also liaises with manufacturers and user groups on a regular basis to produce safety guidelines and advice to encourage training and better awareness of the users' responsibilities.

  Additionally my Department supports a national system, fully sponsored by manufacturers, users, and local authorities, covering voluntary training, insurance and registration.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on how money received as light dues may be spent. [83570]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The provisions of section 211(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 define how monies paid into the General Lighthouse Fund (GLF) are spent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has responsibility for the management of the fund and sanctions all expenditure by the General Lighthouse Authorities.

  Modes of Travel
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passenger miles were travelled in journeys by(a) train, (b) car, (c) bus, (d) aeroplane and (e) ship in the last year for which information is available. [85089]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  Passenger kilometres by mode: Great Britain 2001

  Mode of transport

  billion

  Rail

  47

  Car, vans and taxis

  624

  Bus and coach

  46

  Air

  8

  Water

  0.5

  All modes

  1734

  1 Includes 9 billion passenger kilometres by pedal cycle or motor cycle.

  667W
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent in support of(a) road, (b) rail, (c) air and (d) sea transport in the last year for which information is available. [85090]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For 2001–02, the last year for which full information is available, total public expenditure was: £1,639 million on national roads; £2,080 million on railways; £92 million on aviation; and £9 million on maritime programmes.

  In addition, local authorities are responsible for local roads and highways. In 1999–2000, the last year for which information on actual spending is available, gross revenue spending by English local authorities on highways was £1,994 million, with capital spending on roads of £930 million.

  Motorway Congestion
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he plans to take to reduce congestion on motorways; and what research he has conducted into the change in the speed of motorway traffic since 1998. [84243]

  Mr. Jamieson
  "Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan" sets out our vision for a fairer and more effective transport system, while the Highways Agency's "Strategic Roads 2010" sets out the framework for delivering the strategic road network elements of the plan, which includes reducing congestion across the strategic motorway and trunk road network. This needs to be considered in the context of measures to improve other forms of transport, which will also contribute to delivery of the congestion target.

  Pilot studies to actively manage the traffic and make better use of the existing road space will be undertaken, and where necessary, programmes of works such as the Targeted Programme of Improvements and the recently announced 92 priority junction schemes will be delivered. Both will provide increased capacity and improve conditions on the network.

  To help deliver the reduction in congestion, the Highways Agency is also developing its role as a traffic manager to help motorists deal with congestion on motorways and other strategic routes, and has appointed a director whose prime purpose is to take this role forward. A number of initiatives are being pursued. These include the Traffic Control Centre project that will provide advice to motorists about travel conditions on the trunk road network, allowing them to plan their journeys more effectively to avoid congestion. In conjunction with the Police and other emergency services, the Agency is improving the way it deals with accidents and incidents on the network so that they are dealt with more effectively, reducing the time roads are disrupted to minimise congestion.

  The Department for Transport has monitored trunk road and motorway speeds in 1995, 1998 and 2001. Surveys show that while, in general, overall speeds have fallen since 1995, average speeds on motorways were 2.5 mph faster in 2001 in the morning peak period when compared to the equivalent speeds in the 1998 survey. In the evening peak, they were 3.3 mph faster.

  Motorways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the cost per mile of using a noise absorbing surface on motorways. [83904]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Mathews to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Ginny Clarke to Mr. Prentice, dated 3 December 2002:

  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the cost per mile of using a noise—absorbing surface on motoways. I am replying in the absence of Tim Mathews the Chief Executive who is currently away on Highways Agency business.

  The cost varies considerably depending on site specific issues such as:

  the overall size of the contract,

  wheather the existing surface is to be planed out and to what depth, or overlaid,

  the thickness of the material to be laid and the number of layers,

  whether the work is to be carried out during the day or at night, re-opening the carriageway during the day,

  the complexity and duration of the traffic management necessary and,

  whether it is necessary to resurface the hard shoulders or carry out adjustments to other road items.

  The cost per mile for surfacing laid on both carriageways of a dual three—lane motorway would be expected to range between £200,000 and £450,000. These costs are for the quieter surfacings currently being used on the trunk road network in line with Government policy. They do not include the cost of porous asphalt for which no recent prices are available. Based on past experience however, this would be considerably more expensive; we estimate perhaps £600,000 to £700,000 per mile.

  If it would be helpful, John Williams in our pavement engineering team, would be pleased to discuss the quieter surfacings in current use on the trunk road network with you. His telephone number is 01234 796116.

  Multi-Modal Studies
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the costs so far have been of the Multi-Modal Studies; and what the total estimated cost is. [85160]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Expenditure to 31 October 2002 on the Multi-Modal Studies has been approximately £27 million (excluding VAT). The estimated cost of the studies to completion of the programme is £32 million (excluding VAT).

  New Trains (Glasgow-Euston)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when new trains will be introduced on the Glasgow-Preston-London Euston route. [84057]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A phased introduction of new Pendolino trains will begin early in 2003, initially between London and Manchester. Introduction of trains north of Crewe is dependent upon fleet delivery and ongoing route clearance and upgrade works.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total expenditure of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies was on official travel in 2001–02. [84798]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total expenditure on official travel for the predecessor Department, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in 2001–02 was £6,623,138.81. This total includes the travel, accommodation and subsistence costs. Expenditure on official travel for its agencies is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Since 1999, the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published, on an annual basis, the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 was published on 24 July 2002, Official Report, columns 1374–75W. The cost of Ministers' visits overseas for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House. All travel by officials in my Department is undertaken in accordance with the principles set out in chapter 8 of the Civil Service Management Code (available on the net at: http://www.cabinet-office. gov. uk/civilservice/managementcode/csmc. rtf

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total budget of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84933]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The budget for travel and subsistence is included in the high level allocation to Divisional Managers for administration costs. Divisional Managers decide on the allocation to each area of costs.

  Oil Tankers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what help the UK Government have made available to(a) the Spanish and (b) the Portuguese authorities to help tackle the environmental repercussions of the Prestige oil disaster. [84740]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) received a request on 13 November from the Spanish embassy via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for offers of assistance for an at-sea clean-up operation, following an oil spill from M/V Prestige.

  An offer of immediate salvage and counter pollution advice and equipment was passed to the Spanish embassy. This request was repeated on 14 November by the European Commission's Civil Protection and Environmental Accidents Unit, which was assessing availability of equipment for collective help to Spain.

  On 14 November the MCA offered Spain a range of equipment and expertise, outlining the elements of the UK's own oil spill response capability that could be
  670W
  utilised in this incident. This offer was enhanced on the 19th with information about an oil spill recovery vessel—the Sefton Supporter owned by Gulf Offshore that operates in the Irish Sea.

  On 21 November the MCA received a further request from the European Commission's Civil Protection Co-operation Mechanism, on behalf of Spain and Portugal, for information on the availability, costs/hire charges and mobilisation time of specialised equipment for the recovery of heavy oil. On 24 November MCA's offer of assistance was accepted and, after discussion with the Spanish Authorities, three Artie lorries with specialist equipment and one flat bed lorry equipped with a 10ft crane was sent by ferry, due to arrive in La Coruna 28 November. The MCA are also sending five trained personnel to operate and help deploy this equipment.

  Additionally an aerial surveillance capability was requested by Spain on 27 November and this is being deployed by 3 December.

  The Spanish Authorities also contacted Gulf Offshore directly requesting the services of the Sefton Supporter, which arrived in La Coruna on 27 November.Defra's Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science has also contacted the scientists working on impact assessment and offered any technical assistance they may find helpful.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will press the European Commission to bring forward the date on which the use of EU waters by single hull oil tankers will be forbidden. [84741]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The recent amendment to the MARPOL Convention agreed in the International Maritime Organization, and implemented within the EU by regulation No. 417/2002, has just come into effect. Single hull tankers having no additional protection, such as the Prestige, must be phased out in order of age between 2003 and 2007. Single hull tankers fitted with partial protection must be phased out in order of age between 2003 and 2015. Each category of single hull tanker will have to satisfy an additional requirement for a rigorous condition assessment survey to be able to operate after 2005 and 2010 respectively. The use of waters of EU member states is regulated in accordance with compliance with the United Conventions on the Law of the Sea.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will press the EU to set a maximum size for oil tankers allowed in EU waters. [84742]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no evidence that reducing the size of oil tankers would lead to an overall improvement in safety. The implication of using smaller tankers is that more voyages would be needed to carry the same volume of oil and related cargoes.

  Public Service Obligation
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with(a) EU transport ministers, (b) Commission officials and (c) the Council of Ministers, on the common application of public service obligations across Europe. [84866]
  671W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We have already indicated to the Commission and other member states in Council working groups on the Commission's proposals for amending Regulation 95/93 that we believe that there is a case for amending Regulation 2408/92 on public service obligations.

  Rail Network
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new rail passenger line, exluding refurbishment of existing lines, have been opened in each year since 1972; and how many miles have been closed in each of the corresponding years. [81586]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]: This information is not held in the form requested. The route kms open for traffic each year are as follows:

  (km)

  Year

  Route open for traffic

  1972–73

  18,417

  1973–74

  18,227

  1974–75

  18,168

  1975–76

  18,118

  1976–77

  18,007

  1977–78

  17,973

  1978–79

  17,901

  1979–80

  17,735

  1980–81

  17,645

  1981–82

  17,431

  1982–83

  17,229

  1983–84

  16,964

  1984–85

  16,816

  1985–86

  16,752

  1986–87

  16,670

  1987–88

  16,633

  1988–89

  16,599

  1989–90

  16,587

  1990–91

  16,584

  1991–92

  16,558

  1992–93

  16,528

  1993–94

  16,536

  1994–95

  16,542

  1995–96

  16,666

  1996–97

  16,666

  1997–98

  16,656

  1998–99

  16,659

  1999–2000

  16,649

  2000–01

  16,652

  2001–02

  16,652

  Road Accidents (A12)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) injury and (b) non-injury road accidents have been reported since 1990 on the A12 road in Essex between Witham and Marks Tey. [84656]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to reply to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Alan Hurst, dated 3 December 2002:

  David Jamieson has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many injury and non-injury road accidents have been reported since 1990 on the A12 between Witham and Marks Tey.
  672W
  There have been 291 injury accidents since 1994 between Lynfields Interchange at the southern end of the Witham Bypass and the A12/A120 Marks Tey Interchange. Of these, 10 were fatal, 57 were serious and 224 were slight injuries. Statistics for non-injury accidents are not available as there is no requirement to report this type of accident.

  I regret that records for injury accidents prior to 1994 are not readily accessible and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Road Accidents (Insurer Liability)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government will oppose proposed measures by the EU to make motorists' insurers liable, without regard to fault, in all cases of accidents involving motorists and cyclists. [83396]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 4 November 2002,Official Report, column 6W. We will decide our position when the proposal becomes clearer.

  Road Fund Licences
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of individuals failing to pay road fund licences in the UK in the last year for which figures are available. [84588]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The national roadside survey of vehicle excise duty evasion which took place in June 1999 showed the level of evasion as 3.9 per cent, of revenue due which equated to £191 million in 2001–2002. This was offset by £110 million recovered through enforcement activities.

  Road Traffic Fatalities
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road traffic fatalities there were in Lancashire in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [84974]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures for fatalities in Lancashire in the years 1996, 1997 and 2001 are as shown:

  Year

  Fatalities

  1996

  87

  1997

  79

  2001

  76

  Roadworks
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications for roadworks were received by each English local authority from utility companies in each year from 1995–96 to 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [83148]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: This information is not held centrally. However streetworks are a serious growing problem and I believe that the current legislation needs to be improved. My Department is currently considering the options.

  Secretary of State Representative
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken in pursuit of the recommendations to appoint a Secretary of State Representative, made in Lord Donaldson's Report of March 1999 on Command and Control, a Review of Salvage and Intervention. [84241]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The appointment was made on 4 October 1999.

  Speed Cameras
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fixed site speed cameras are in operation. [84594]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Speed Limits
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines he has issued to local authorities regarding suitable speed limits on roads adjoining school premises. [84583]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Guidance to local authorities on the setting of local speed limits exists in the form of Circular Roads 1/93. Additionally, legislation and guidance exists that allows local authorities to introduce 20 mph zones and 20 mph speed limits. Traffic calmed 20 mph zones have been particularly successful in urban areas, including around schools as they ensure compliance with the speed limit thereby substantially reducing the risk of accidents.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much(a) the staffing and (b) the overall budget of the SRA has changed in each year since its inception. [84271]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For staffing, I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 500W.

  The budget for 2001–02 at the start of the year was £ 1,280,619,000. During the financial year, the budget increased to £ 1,871,992,000. The budget for 2002–03 at the start of the year was £ 2,166,535,000. That total was recently increased to £ 2,351,535,000. These increases reflect increases in the scope of SRA expenditure.

  Sustainability Strategy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the sustainability strategy is for his Department; and if he will make a statement on how it has changed since the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. [83503]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is committed to the objectives set out in the Government's overall strategy for sustainable development, "A Better Quality of Life" (Cm 4345), published in May 1999.

  Our policies, including those set out in the Integrated Transport White Paper (Cm 3950) of July 1998; the associated policy statements, such as the Sustainable Distribution Strategy of March 1999; the 10 Year Plan
  674W
  for Transport published in July 2000, which sets out an investment programme to 2010; and the on-going Powering Future Vehicles initiative; will help to deliver not only the UK's sustainable transport priorities, but also the transport outcomes of the World Summit for Sustainable Development.

  WSSD outcomes and first views on follow-up will be reflected in the Government's annual report on UK progress on sustainable development for 2002.

  Traffic Accidents (Lancashire)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many traffic accidents resulted in a fatality in Lancashire in each of the last five years. [85342]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figures for road fatalities in Lancashire for 2001 and the five preceding years are shown in the table.

  The first column shows the number of accidents in which fatalities occurred, and the second column gives the total number of people killed as a result of those accidents.

  Number of fatal accidents

  Number of fatal casualties

  1996

  81

  87

  1997

  75

  79

  1998

  81

  84

  1999

  70

  79

  2000

  60

  65

  2001

  74

  76

  Transport 10-year Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what expenditure is allocated under the Strategic Rail Authority's 10-year plan for(a) multi-modal studies and (b) projects relating to access to airports; and if he will make a statement. [83666]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan does not break down proposed expenditure on this basis. Proposals for funding of all rail schemes are assessed and taken forward according to their affordability and value for money.

  Trinitas Services Ltd.
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the proposal on the level of interest rate to be charged on the loan to Trinitas Services Ltd. after the third year of the loan being drawn down was referred to the Treasury for instructions on the terms to be applied to the loan; and, how this transaction is governed by Government fiscal policy; [83577]

  (2) whether the decision to provide an interest-free loan from the General Lighthouse Fund to Trinitas Services Ltd. was put to the (a) Lights Finance Committee and (b) Lights Advisory Committee for approval. [83523]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As the General Lighthouse Fund provided the loan to Trinitas Services Ltd., the Treasury was not consulted on the terms of the loan. No public funding was included.
  675W
  The loan was submitted to the Lights Advisory Committee for approval but not to the Lights Finance Committee.

  Unregistered Vehicles
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what power(a) the Mayor of London, (b) the Greater London Authority and (c) other local authorities have to pick up and crush unregistered vehicles; what restrictions there are upon them taking that action; and if he will make a statement. [84065]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are not aware of a particular problem (e.g. of abandonment) in respect of the very small number of unregistered vehicles in the UK. However, we are aware of the considerable problem of unlicensed vehicles.

  Local authorities have various powers to deal with abandoned vehicles. Among these will be a number that are also unlicensed and in determining whether a vehicle is abandoned, the absence of a tax disc may be a significant, but not the only factor. Section 4 of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 Act provides that a local authority may destroy a vehicle immediately which is in their custody and on which no current vehicle excise licence (tax disc) was displayed at the time of its removal.

  Although local authorities have however, no general power to deal with unlicensed vehicles as such, powers now exist for the Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) to devolve its powers of enforcement in dealing with unlicensed vehicles to local authorities wishing to use them. To date six local authorities have been given devolved powers to clamp and impound unlicensed vehicles on behalf of the Secretary of State. These are the London Boroughs of Croydon, Lewisham, Newham and Wandsworth, together with Hastings and Southend-on-Sea borough councils.

  These councils seek authorisation from DVLA to clamp any unlicensed vehicles. If the vehicle is not claimed after 24 hours it is removed to a secure vehicle compound. The vehicles are kept in the compound for a minimum of 7 days to allow DVLA to write to the registered keeper informing them of the whereabouts of the vehicle and what steps they will need to take to reclaim the vehicle. If the vehicle still remains unclaimed, DVLA will give authorisation for the vehicle to be disposed of, this is usually by crushing.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains(a) arrive at and (b) depart from Preston station each day. [85325]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is contained in the National Rail Timetable.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council pursuant to his reply, 19 November 2002,Official
  676W
  Report, column 44W, on pre-legislative scrutiny, when decisions will be made on the form of scrutiny to which a number of bills will be subject. [83808]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  A decision will be made on the form of scrutiny to which a draft bill will be subject once the timetable for its publication is firmly established.

TREASURY

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the amount of exports from the manufacturing sector in the North West in the last three years. [84081]

  John Healey
  The estimates for manufacturing exports from companies in the North West are shown as follows, for 1999–2001 and 2002 year to date, together with corresponding estimates for the UK as a whole.

  Manufacturing exports from the North West have averaged 1.69 billion per year over the period 1999–2001. This compares to £ 21.9 billion per year average for UK manufacturing exports (North West being 7.7 per cent, of the UK figure).

  For 2002 year to date, the North West figure of £1.23 billion is 7.4 per cent, of the UK figure of £16.6 billion (January to September)

  Year

  Exports from North West

  Exports from UK

  1999

  1.67

  20.3

  2000

  1.71

  22.6

  2001

  1.69

  22.8

  20021

  1.23

  16.6

  1 Year to date.

  Ordnance Exports
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arms, munitions, and military equipment were exported for sale from Great Britain to the Government of Israel in 2001–02; and what the total value of such exports was. [83888]

  John Healey
  Information in the format requested would enable individual businesses to be identified and cannot be disclosed. Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (third party commercial confidences) applies. However, information on the value of strategic exports to Israel for 2001 can be found in Appendix C of the Strategic Export Controls Annual Report, which is available in the Library.

  "The Threat to Enterprise Britain"
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take in response to the report of the Quoted Companies Alliance, The Threat to Enterprise Britain. [85202]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government recognise the economic contribution of smaller quoted companies (SQCs) and continueto monitor developments in all capital markets, including those serving the SQC sector. For example, the Government are implementing the
  677W
  recommendations of the Myners review of institutional investment, to reduce impediments to rational, well-informed and undistorted investment decisions.

  Barristers' Fees (VAT Liability)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the scheme which allows VAT liability on barristers' fees only to become due to be paid by the barrister after those fees are paid and received by the barrister and not at the time of provision of the services of the barrister or delivery of the fee note to the barrister's customer. [84582]

  John Healey
  VAT law governing the time at which VAT is to be accounted for (the "tax point") provides a number of special tax point regimes that are tailored to meet the needs of specific categories of supply. There are no current plans to review this aspect of the law as it applies to the VAT liability on barristers' fees.

  Carbon Trust
  Sue Doughty
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total annual budget of the Carbon Trust Low Innovations programme is in(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2004–05. [83541]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Carbon Trust was launched in April 2001 to support UK business and the public sector in reducing their Carbon emissions while maintaining competitiveness. The Carbon Trust is a private non-profit company that receives funding of around £50 million per annum from Defra and the Devolved Administrations. About two-thirds of its current funding comes from recycled receipts from the Climate Change Levy. As a private company the management of its programmes, including its Low Carbon Innovation Programme, and decisions on the allocation of funding, are a matter for the Carbon Trust Board.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will recycle a rising percentage of receipts from the Climate Change Levy directly into the Carbon Trust rather than through National Insurance Payments. [83542]

  John Healey
  Government have recycled revenue from the Climate Change Levy back to business through the 0.3 per cent. National Insurance contributions cut, Enhanced Capital Allowances for investments in energy-saving technologies, and funding for renewables and energy efficiency, principally through the Carbon Trust. The Government set out their spending plans in relation to energy efficiency in Spending Review 2002.

  CITES
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many customs officials have(a) had training in respect of and (b) been allocated to the detection of illegal imports of (i) bushmeat and (ii) species and material listed under CITES. [80869]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]: As part of their normal frontier enforcement activity, customs detection staff undertake work to detect imports which are illegal under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
  678W
  They are supported by a specialist team. Customs detection staff also support the lead agencies (local and port health authorities and Defra) in detecting illegal bushmeat imports not covered by CITES restrictions.

  Training in CITES-related issues is part of the standard training of the approximately 3,800 customs detection staff and others whose work involves CITES issues.

  With customs currently not having the lead role in bushmeat detection no specific training is currently provided to customs officials on this.

  A recent Cabinet Office study has recommended a future transfer of responsibility to customs for detection of smuggled imports of animals, fish, plants and their products, and foodstuffs (including meat). Work on arrangements to effect this transfer has begun.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what evaluation he has carried out into the operation of the climate change levy, with specific reference to(a) manufacturing, (b) the service sector and (c) small and medium sized enterprises; [84810]

  (2) if he will make an assessment of the financial cost to the British manufacturing industry of the climate change levy. [84813]

  John Healey
  All industries face the same general challenges and opportunities from the climate change levy.

  All revenue from the levy is recycled back to business through reductions to employer national insurance contributions (NICs) and support for energy efficiency. While the levy package is broadly revenue neutral to business as a whole, the effects on any specific sector will depend on a number of factors, including:
  the future energy consumption of firms in the sector and the use they make of levy funded energy efficiency support;
  employment levels in those sectors and the benefits received from the levy funded NICs cuts;
  what use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy-exempt renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power; and
  use made of the 80 per cent, discount where this is available via voluntary agreements with energy-intensive sectors.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current status of discounts allowable under the climate change levy. [84811]

  John Healey
  Sectors of industry which are covered by the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations Part A are eligible for an 80 per cent, discount in the rate of levy, provided they enter into an agreement with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to meet energy efficiency targets. The Government have also given a five year 50 per cent, discount to protect the competitiveness of horticulture.
  679W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the CBI on the issue of the climate change levy. [84814]

  John Healey
  As part of the normal process of contact with business, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Treasury Ministers have met a variety of businesses and business organisations and have heard a range of representations. As the Chancellor said in his answer of 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 114–115W, inline with previous Administrations, it is not this Government's practice to provide details of the meetings they routinely have with a wide range of organisations.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he is giving to manufacturers who wish to reduce the impact of the climate change levy by introducing combined heat and power. [84815]

  John Healey
  Currently, all supplies of taxable commodities for use in producing any outputs from good quality combined heat and power (GQCHP) are exempt from the levy. Also, all GQCHP electricity supplies sold direct to customers are free from the levy.

  In Budget 2002, the Government announced that exemption would be extended to include all supplies of electricity from GQCHP. The exemption will be introduced after it has received state aid clearance from the European Commission.

  Energy Saving Material (VAT)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on recent changes to his policy on VAT on energy saving material with special reference to the impact of the judgment in Case 416/85 in the Court of Justice of the European Communities. [84660]

  John Healey
  On 1 June 2002 the Government extended the scope of the 5 per cent, reduced rate on energy-saving materials to the grant-funded installation of factory-insulated hot water tanks, micro-combined heat and power units, and renewable energy heating systems, in the homes of less well-off people. Case 416/85 in the Court of Justice of the European Communities examined the scope of the UK's zero rates and has no bearing on this change.

  European Court of Auditors
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government have taken to mark the 25th Anniversary of the European Court of Auditors. [84819]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government value the work of the European Court of Auditors highly and will today have an opportunity to offer congratulations at the ECOFIN Council, when the President of the Court presents its 25th Annual Report.

  Lloyds
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations Her Majesty's Government has made to the European Commission in respect of the audit system in place at Lloyds of London between 1978 to 1988; [84993]
  680W
  (2) what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the European Commission in respect of its supervision of Lloyds between 1978 and 1988; and if he will make a statement. [84995]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Commission sent a formal letter to the Government on 21 December 2001, raising questions about the implementation of obligations imposed on the UK by EC legislation in respect of the Lloyd's insurance market. The Government replied in full on 30 April 2002. The Commission are still considering this reply. The Government is firmly convinced that we have fulfilled our obligations under Community Law. Correspondence of this sort between the Commission and Member States is regarded as confidential. These arrangements in practice enable cases to be taken forward in the most expeditious manner.

  Motor Vehicle Seizures
  Barbara Follett
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) of 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 64W, when information relating to vehicle seizures by Customs and Excise in 2001–02 will be published. [85431]

  John Healey
  Information relating to vehicle seizures by Customs and Excise for 2001–02 will be published in Customs' Annual Report, which had been expected to be published at the end of November and will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates is the annual cost to the Exchequer of(a) under-payment of NICs by those regarded as self- employed and (b) the avoidance of self-employment tax status. [84581]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The amount lost to the exchequer as a result of a failure by individuals correctly to declare their business profits can only be estimated. Lord Grabiner in his report "The Informal Economy" concluded that it was impractical to arrive at a precise figure but assumed that 'billions of pounds' of income was a realistic figure.

  No specific figures are available as to the amounts lost in respect of either tax or national insurance contributions. However, the Inland Revenue annual report for the year ended 31 March 2001 showed that compliance activity by the Inland Revenue had identified additional tax and National Insurance liability of just under £4.5 billion.

  Self-assessment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many self-assessment tax returns were(a) issued, (b) received, (c) waiting to be processed and (d) processed in each month since 1st July 2001; and if he will make a statement. [84162]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The statistical data requested is detailed in the table.
  681W

  Date

  SA ITRs issued

  SA ITRs received

  SA ITRs processed

  SA ITRs waiting to be processed

  Tax year 2000–01

  1 July 2001

  8,940,513

  1,323,115

  864,497

  458,618

  29 July 2001

  8,990,292

  1,943,901

  1,350,597

  593,304

  2 September 2001

  8,989,043

  2,798,153

  1,966,795

  831,358

  30 September 2001

  9,152,255

  4,241,952

  2,677,145

  1,564,807

  4 November 2001

  8,842,560

  4,682,767

  3,421,658

  1,261,109

  2 December 2001

  9,360,099

  5,383,846

  4,436,261

  947,585

  30 December 2001

  9,299,623

  5,745,572

  4,839,285

  906,287

  3 February 2002

  9,552,433

  8,362,361

  5,848,319

  2,514,042

  3 March 2002

  9,610,787

  8,732,139

  6,892,084

  1,840,055

  31 March 2002

  9,644,313

  8,805,949

  8,009,457

  796,492

  Tax year 2001–02

  5 May 2002

  8,984,089

  287,223

  74,244

  212,979

  2 June 2002

  9,081,002

  751,541

  323.265

  428,276

  7 July 2002

  9.167.807

  1,397,759

  709.556

  688,203

  4 August 2002

  9,232,637

  2,020,483

  1,135,313

  885,170

  1 September 2002

  9,300,825

  2,717,767

  1,591,565

  1,126,202

  6 October 2002

  9,394,724

  4,475,890

  2,438,405

  2,037,485

  3 November 2002

  9,463,002

  4,948,989

  3,300,392

  1,648,597

  24 November 2002

  9,511,670

  5,280.197

  4,008.768

  1,271,429

  Sustainability Strategy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the sustainability strategy is for his Department; and how it has changed since the Earth Summit in Johannesburg. [83442]

  John Healey
  HM Treasury, Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue contribute to the delivery of the objectives in the Government's Sustainable Development Strategy through a variety of mechanisms, including regular reporting on sustainable development issues and the incorporation of sustainable development into key processes such as Spending Review 2002.

  The outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the Government's initial views on delivering them will be set out in the forthcoming Annual Report on Sustainable Development.

  Trust Posts
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Office for National Statistics decided to classify certain major trust posts as public bodies requiring their financial transactions to be included in the PSBR; and what reasons were given for the decision. [85123]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Chope, dated 3 December 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the classification of major trust ports. I am replying in his absence. (85123)

  The decision was taken on 26 October 2000.

  Classification decisions are made by applying international standards for National Accounts. These are the 1995 European System of Accounts (Eurostat) and the 1993 System of National Accounts (United Nations, IMF, OECD etc). The classification of corporations to either the private or the public sector is determined by control. The public sector has control over the major trust ports, usually through both appointment rights and powers contained in the Ports Act 1991.
  682W

  Young People (Business Start-ups)
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what incentives he is introducing to encourage young people in deprived areas to start businesses. [85185]

  John Healey
  We have allocated 60million by 2005–06 to ensure that all pupils in England have five days of enterprise experience before they leave school. This gives effect to the recommendations of the Davies Review of Enterprise and the Economy in Education.

  The Department for Education and Skills will be running pilots to test possible approaches in 2003–04 and 2004–05 at a cost of 5 million and £ 10 million respectively. This initiative will provide young people in all areas of England, including deprived areas, with experience of enterprise, and encourage them to consider starting their own businesses in the future. Young people wishing to start their own businesses in deprived areas will also benefit from our measures to support enterprise and tackle market failures in these areas more generally. These measures include designating 2,000 Enterprise Areas in the most deprived areas in the UK, where policies to support businesses are now being concentrated. Businesses in these areas already benefit from an exemption from stamp duty on property transfers between 60,000 and 150,000. We have announced that we will remove stamp duty on all commercial transactions in those areas, introduce a more flexible planning regime and a tax credit to encourage community investment, and offer greater support from the Small Business Service and the Inland Revenue.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Solicitor General what the policy is of her Department in relation to the reimbursement of Central London road user charges incurred by its employees. [81849]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: In relation to the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, employees travel by public transport. Should the use of a private car be essential for work, rather than personal, reasons, the Department would bear the cost of the charge. It is not expected that any such occasion should arise.

  The policy of the Treasury Solicitor's Department is to encourage its employees not to use private vehicles on official business and to encourage them to use public transport. The Department will, however, pay road tolls, including the central London road user charge, where use of a private vehicle is essential or where the journey remains cost effective in comparison to the use of public transport.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has not yet published a policy in relation to the reimbursement of the central London road user charges.
  683W
  The Serious Fraud Office does not intend to amend its terms and conditions to include reimbursement of central London road user charges incurred by its employees for travelling to work.

  In respect of HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, it is Departmental travel policy that employees should not use cars to commute to and from work in London. Where the use of a car in London is essential for work, not personal, reasons, charges will be reimbursed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Procurement Directive
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what scope EU contracting authorities will have under the proposed new EU public procurement directive to make choices between bids at the award stage, based on environmental criteria; and if she will make a statement. [83930]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  At the award stage, the proposed new directive makes it clear that contracting authorities are able to use environmental criteria where these are justified by the subject of the contract and provide a benefit to the contracting authority. Such criteria can include whole life cost factors, such as energy usage, disposal costs, and recyclability, as well as those related to qualitative aspects of the product. However, it will often be more appropriate and sensible to take environmental issues into account earlier on in the procurement process, in defining the subject of the contract and the specification. There is much scope to do this, provided that such specifications do not discriminate against suppliers across the Community, and that buyers respect the rules in the directives on technical specifications. Contracting authorities can, for example, specify green production processes (eg timber from sustainable sources, recycled paper, green electricity etc) and can refer to relevant eco-label criteria. Contracting authorities can also define one or more variants to the standard specification to allow, for example, bids to be submitted which offer a higher environmental performance.

  Broadband
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 26 November 2002,Official Report, column 228W, on priority areas, if she will place in the Library the broadband strategy that SEEDA is implementing; and what discussions SEEDA has had with BT to upgrade their exchange on the Isle of Sheppey so broadband can be delivered there. [85001]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand that the Chief Executive of SEEDA has written to my hon. Friend proposing they meet to discuss SEEDA's approach to the promotion of broadband availability in the region. The process for upgrading exchanges for the delivery of broadband involves the setting by BT of registration thresholds, which can be viewed on the BT website. Through its discussions with SEEDA, BT has confirmed that exchanges on Sheppey which are awaiting upgrade to 684W
  broadband are subject to the same registration process as that which applies to all other exchanges in the region.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the publications produced by her Department that refer people to the Citizens Advice Bureau Service for advice and assistance; and whether Citizens Advice Scotland is made aware of such referrals prior to publication. [84155]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) Service in England and Wales, and in Scotland is a valuable source of independent advice and information on a wide range of issues that affect and concern the citizen. The very positive findings of the Quinquennial Review of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) and Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) which I announced on 23 July 2002, Official Report, column 943W, and 4 November 2002, Official Report, column 829 respectively confirmed and emphasised this point. Given the CAB Service's knowledge and expertise and the fact that it has a national network of advice centres, Government frequently mentions CABx as a further source of advice and information in its publications as well as in other media such as websites, press notices and in its replies to correspondence from a number of interested parties.

  DTI and other Departments have a good working relationship with both NACAB and CAS. Regular meetings are held at both ministerial and official level to inform each other of developments and any other issues that might impact on the Service in both England and Wales and Scotland.

  Dungeness
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what emergency measures are in place to deal with a release of radioactive material from the nuclear facilities at Dungeness. [84745]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are well tried and tested emergency plans to deal with a release of radioactive material from Dungeness nuclear facilities. These plans are maintained under the license condition arrangements for all such sites and have been reviewed and tested at regular intervals over many years. The revised off-site emergency plan, prepared by Kent county council in consultation with the emergency services and power stations, has just been published in accordance with the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001. The plan covers procedures, facilities and equipment. The last off-site emergency exercise for Dungeness was the major national exercise for 2001–02, and took place on 27 March 2002. It involved relevant local and national agencies.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals she has to introduce targeting of programmes and aid to promote energy efficiency. [84812]
  685W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are currently caring out a review of future energy policy with a view to issuing a White Paper early in the new year. As a part of this review it is considering mechanisms for the promotion of energy efficiency.

  Export Licence OIEL No.45
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the(a) type, (b) quantity and (c) total value of components supplied to India under Export Licence OIEL No.45 of 6 September 2001; and if she will make a statement. [83531]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 53W.

  Leg-irons and Cuffs
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications have been(a) made and (b) granted for export licences for (i) leg-irons and (ii) over-sized cuffs in each year since 1997. [82940]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: The export of leg-irons, over-sized handcuffs and individual cuffs are controlled under entry PL5001 in Part III of Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended, to ensure as far as possible, full compliance by the UK on the embargo on instruments of torture.

  The number of Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) applications and Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) applications that have been made and granted, for the proposed export of over-sized handcuffs, is set out in the table below:

  Over-sized handcuffs

  SIEL applications received

  SIELs issued

  OIEL applications received

  OIELs issued

  2 May 1997–31 December

  1997

  4

  3

  0

  0

  1998

  10

  10

  0

  0

  1999

  7

  6

  0

  0

  2000

  9

  5

  1

  0

  2001

  6

  4

  0

  0

  1 January 2002—

  15 November 2002

  5

  6

  0

  0

  During the same period, no SIEL applications or OIEL applications were made or granted for the proposed export of leg-irons or over-sized individual cuffs.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–871.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average payment made to 686W
  ex-miners in compensation for respiratory disease was in (a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001; and how many claims were settled in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001, in each constituency. [84314]

  Mr. Wilson
  The average payment made to ex-miners for respiratory disease as of 24 November 2002 is £6,421. It is not possible to give the average figure for 1999, 2000, and 2001 in the time available or to provide the number of claims settled in each year for each constituency. However, I would like to refer the hon. Member to the Department's coal health claims website which contains regularly updated breakdowns of statistics for coal health claims for each constituency and has a profile of payments made.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims by ex-miners for compensation for respiratory disease were settled using the fast-track procedure; and what the average payment was under the fast track procedure in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [84315]

  Mr. Wilson
  The figures are as follows.

  Number of expedited payments

  Average value of expedited payment (£)

  1999

  806

  5,739

  2000

  3,675

  5,013

  2001

  6,574

  4,564

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Ministers whose responsibilities have included the payment of miners compensation have been in post since 1997. [84316]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since 1997 there have been four energy Ministers whose responsibilities have included the payment of miners compensation: my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Mr. Battle), my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mr. Liddell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) and myself.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many medical examination centres are operational for examining ex-miners who have lodged applications for compensation for respiratory disease; and how many there were in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [84317]

  Mr. Wilson
  As of 28 November 2002 there are 29 operational medical testing centres for examining ex-miners who have lodged applications for compensation for respiratory disease. Eight of these are operating at double capacity and one is operating as a triple centre. In addition to these medical testing centres there are two mobile testing units.

  There were no testing centres opened at the end of 1999, as the medical contract with Healthcall was just signed at the end of October 1999. As of the end of 2000 there were 27 fully operational medical testing centres, two of which were double centres.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met representatives of the mining unions to discuss issues relating to the payment of miners' compensation claims. [84319]
  687W
  Mr. Wilson
  Representatives of mining unions are on the various ministerial monitoring groups which advise the Department on the compensation schemes. I last met the National Monitoring Group on 12 November and have meetings every 3 to 4 months. I regularly meet with union representatives in the open meetings I have been holding in mining areas.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial commitments she has made towards research into Generation IV nuclear energy systems; and if she will make a statement. [83877]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK with eight other countries signed the Charter of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) in July 2001. The initiative foresaw a need for advanced nuclear energy systems in the future to help meet growing international demands for carbon free energy; and that to meet public concerns, future systems must meet exceptionally high standards of safety, sustainability and proliferation resistance, while operating economically in liberalised markets. The aim is to develop a framework for collaborative R&D to facilitate the deployment of such advanced reactor systems from 2030 and beyond. The GIF meeting in Tokyo in September 2002 agreed a "Roadmap" for R&D development based on six systems selected as best satisfying these goals. Further information is available from the following website -http://energY.gov/ HOPress/releases02/scppr/GIFupdate.pdf

  UK participation in the Charter is without commitment to a specific nuclear proportion of UK electricity generation sources. The involvement of representatives from DTI, HSE and the industry ensures our nuclear technology and regulatory experience is shared internationally.

  The framework for international research agreement under the Generation IV initiative has yet to be put in place and the extent of any UK financial commitment to research has yet to be decided.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the(a) UK's role within the Generation IV International Forum and (b) agreement reached on Generation IV nuclear energy systems in Japan in September. [83878]

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the level of BNFL- funded nuclear waste decommissioning and radioactive remediation liabilities. [84267]

  Mr. Wilson
  The recent DTI White Paper, Managing the Nuclear Legacy—a strategy for action, estimated that public sector civil nuclear liabilities stood at £47.9 billion undiscounted as at 31 March 2002; BNFL's share of those liabilities stood at £27.2 billion at that time.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what timescale has been put in place for regional government offices to deal with planning 688W
  applications called in for (a) small developments, (b) major planning applications and (c) for applications dealing with tree preservation orders; [84078]

  (2) what guidelines govern the time taken to make decisions on planning applications called in by the Government. [84077]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following proposals in the Planning Green Paper, a new Planning Central Casework Division has been established in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to deal with decisions on planning applications called in by my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister.

  The Central Casework Division has a shared target with the Planning Inspectorate to decide 80 per cent, of my right, hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister's cases (this includes both called in applications and recovered appeals), from close of Inquiry to decision, within 16 weeks by March 2004.

  Applications dealing with tree preservation are not called in. The Government Offices for the Regions deal with appeals against local authority decisions under tree preservation orders. They have a target to decide 80 per cent, of such appeals within eight weeks of receiving the Inspecting Officer's report.

  Power Cuts
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many homes in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire were without power after the storms in October; and for how long in each case. [85132]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been advised by LE Group that the numbers of customers without electricity due to the storm in Chesham and Amersham on the following days were:

  Day

  Numbers of customers

  27 October 2002

  1.977

  28 October 2002

  150

  29 October 2002

  88

  30 October 2002

  55

  31 October 2002

  43

  1 November 2002

  0

  With regard to your question (b), LE Group and Scottish and Southern Energy (S&S) company area boundaries divide Buckinghamshire. The companies have informed me that the number of customers without electricity was as follows:

  Number of customers

  Day

  S&S

  LE Group

  Total

  27 October 2002

  7,190

  7,112

  14,302

  28 October 2002

  1,387

  3,597

  4,984

  29 October 2002

  222

  997

  1,219

  30 October 2002

  0

  761

  761

  31 October 2002

  0

  686

  686

  1 November 2002

  0

  50

  50

  No accurate figures are available for 2 November 2002 from LE Group: however, all LE Group customers were restored by midnight on 3 November 2002.
  689W

  Regional Energy Policy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's regional energy strategy. [85111]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are currently carrying out a review of future energy policy with a view to issuing a White Paper in the new year. As a part of this review, it is considering the role of the regions.

  Renewable Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in the UK are employed in the renewable energy industry. [85104]

  Mr. Wilson
  At present, there are no authoritative figures on the number of people employed in the renewable energy sector. Renewables UK plans to undertake a collaborative study of the renewable supply chain covering all technologies for publication in the second half of 2003. One aim of this study is to detail how many people are employed across the whole renewable energy sector.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of licensed electricity suppliers fulfilled all of their obligations under the Renewables Obligation through the purchase of green certificates in 2001. [85319]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Renewables Obligation only came into effect on 1 April 2002, so electricity suppliers were not under any obligation in 2001. The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority are required by the Renewables Obligation Order to maintain a register holding specific information on the Renewables Obligation Certificates and to publish an annual report on the performance of the Obligation.

  The first such report will cover the financial year 2002–03.

  Renewable Energy Goods
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent initiatives there have been to encourage entrepreneurs to(a) develop and (b) export renewable energy goods and services. [84192]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Renewables Obligation, which the Government introduced on 1 April 2002, is being backed by over £250 million of direct support measures to bring forward newer renewable energy technologies. This provides a substantial incentive to renewable energy generation in the UK, and creates a favourable climate, too, for the expansion of renewable energy goods and services.

  Accordingly, the Government set up in April a new unit, Renewables UK, to encourage the renewable energy sector to take advantage of the opportunities created by the Renewables Obligation, and to increase the UK industry content of renewable energy projects.

  To foster innovative research and development activity, the Government have increased provision for the New and Renewable Energy Programme to £19 million per year. The programme includes an
  690W
  export promotion arm, for which Renewables UK is responsible, which provides specific, targeted support to UK companies in the renewables sector.

  Renewables UK chairs an inter-governmental committee, the Sustainable Energy Exports Committee, which brings together all Departments and Government agencies supporting renewable energy exports activity to work together for the benefit of UK companies.

  The Export Credit Guarantee Department makes available cover for up to £50 million of exports each year for projects in the renewable energy sector.

  Renewable Energy Targets
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what renewable energy targets have been set for local authorities. [85113]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government have not set renewable energy targets for local authorities. However, the regional resource assessments, which indicate the level of renewable generation necessary for the UK to achieve the 10 per cent, target by 2010, have now been completed. The assessments take into account each region's potential renewable resource and have been made available to inform local decision taking.

  The findings from the regional resource assessments can be found in the Regional Renewable Energy Assessments report, which can be accessed at the following web address: http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/oxera—report.pdf

  Solar Photovoltaics Industry
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in improving the UK's competitive position in the solar photovoltaics industry; and if she will make a statement. [84482]

  Mr. Wilson
  Renewables UK is planning to undertake a collaborative study of the renewable supply chain covering all technologies, including photovoltaics, during 2003. This will identify strengths and weaknesses of the industry, and identify opportunities for UK companies.

  In the meantime, there is evidence that the UK PV industry is gearing up to meet the challenge of the £20 million first phase of the major PV demonstration programme. For example, after the first six months of the programme there are 28 installation companies provisionally accredited, and several companies are developing roofing and cladding products for the UK market, which could also be marketed overseas.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military commitments have been made to the Afghan Government to assist in developing a stable democracy in that country; and if he will make a statement. [84194]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since the installation of the Afghan Interim Authority on 22 December 2001, we have deployed a range of land, air and sea forces to
  691W
  Afghanistan. We were the first Lead Nation of the International Security Assistance Force deployed in Kabul in support of the Bonn Agreement that will lead to democratic elections. We remain a major troop contributor to the ISAF with some 300 troops now in Kabul. ISAF continues to help Afghan authorities maintain stability within Kabul, an essential component to the success of the Transitional Authority.

  Cadet Forces
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment his Department has made of the implications of funding the sea cadets on the same basis as the army cadets and air training corps; [83774]

  (2) on what basis his Department funds (a) the sea cadets, (b) the army cadets and (c) the air training corps; and if he will fund the sea cadets on an equal basis to the army and air training corps. [83775]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Army Cadets and the Air Training Corps are voluntary youth organisations sponsored by the MOD and are funded appropriate to the way they are organised. The Sea Cadet Corps is an independent youth organisation which is neither owned nor managed by the Ministry of Defence. However, it is jointly sponsored by the MOD and Sea Cadet Association (SCA). The Ministry of Defence supports the Sea Cadets in the form of financial assistance, material and limited manpower resources.

  The Ministry of Defence has made no formal assessment of the implications of funding the Sea Cadets on the same basis as the Army Cadets and the Air Training Corps, and has no plans to do so.

  Chinook
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the HK2 Chinook helicopters were sold back to the USA Government; whether the helicopters have been purchased outright; what the initial cost was of the helicopters; at what price they were resold to the US Government; whether there are plans to replace them; and what impact the sale of the helicopters has had on British forces' operational ability. [84572]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have not sold any of our Mark 2 Chinook helicopters to the USA Government. However, we have received an approach from US Department of Defence officials to purchase their new MH47'G' model Chinook in return for our UK Mark 3 model. However, no formal proposal has yet been made, and no decision will be made until such a proposal is presented and has been given full consideration.

  Contingencies Funding
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what contingencies extra money has been allocated to his Department, as referred to by the Chancellor in his statement on the pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [85122]

  Mr. Ingrain
  The £1 billion special reserve allocation is being made available to cover costs of military and overseas operations to ensure that the United Kingdom can continue to play a leading role in the global war 692W
  against terror. No assumptions have been made at this time as to the scope and nature of any operations that may be required.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will write to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South regarding his answer of 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 472W, concerning service personnel accommodation. [84075]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is still being collated. I will write to the hon. Member once it is available and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Decontamination Training
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) military units in active service, (b) reserve military units and (c) Territorial Army units have specialised CBW decontamination training. [83530]

  Mr. Ingram
  All United Kingdom service personnel are trained to decontaminate themselves, their personal equipment and in some cases the equipment they operate. In addition, on Royal Navy ships and at Royal Air Force bases, teams can be formed to undertake decontamination as required to sustain operations. The Joint Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Regiment maintains three decontamination troops whose primary role is to decontaminate the regiment's equipment but who could also provide a capability for other units. Two of these troops are drawn from the Royal Yeomanry, a Territorial Army unit.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent he monitors the performance of the Defence Export Services Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [83863]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Export Services Organisation is an integral part of the Ministry of Defence. Support to United Kingdom defence exports is an Additional Target in the Public Service Agreement 2000 and MOD's performance is formally monitored via the performance reporting system. The Head of Defence Export Services and his staff report frequently to Defence Ministers, who are often involved personally in supporting UK defence exporters in their overseas markets.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which defence contracts the Defence Export Services Organisation has been successful in achieving for British companies in the Middle East in the past three years. [83864]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the Middle East, between 1999 and 2001, United Kingdom defence industry secured business worth over £5.5 billion. The results of a survey of UK industry, completed in 1999, showed that they assessed that the Defence Export Services Organisation played a major role in securing some 75 per cent, of their successes.
  693W
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often he meets the head of Defence Export Services to discuss the performance of DESO in assisting British companies. [83865]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Head of Defence Export Services meets Defence Ministers frequently to discuss the work of the Defence Export Services Organisation, including its support for British defence exports.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the most senior 50 employees of the Defence Export Services Organisation have a military background. [83866]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently 14 serving or retired military officers employed at Assistant Director level or above in the Defence Export Services Organisation.

  Emergency Planning Centres (Somerset)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the emergency planning centres are in Somerset. [83392]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Ministry of Defence has no emergency planning centres in Somerset.

  Planning for emergencies at the local level is the responsibility of a range of organisations, including local authorities and the emergency services. This ensures the degree of operational flexibility necessary for local services to respond to such emergencies, taking account of specific local needs. These organisations act within a framework of well established guidelines produced by central Government and professional bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, in order to ensure effective co-ordination and consistency of approach.

  Eurofighter Typhoon
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the second tranche of orders for the Eurofighter Typhoon. [84082]

  Dr. Moonie
  The order for the second tranche of Typhoons, of which 89 will be for the Royal Air Force, is planned to be placed by the four participating nations during 2003.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what working definition of Gulf War Syndrome he used in order to assess whether such a condition existed. [85003]

  Dr. Moonie
  Each medical syndrome comprises a set of physical signs and/or symptoms that distinguishes it from other medical conditions. As a group, Gulf veterans have reported more ill-health than other comparable groups. The pattern of their ill- health is not unique but they have reported symptoms with greater frequency and of more severity than those in comparable groups. Some Gulf veterans have recognised medical conditions, but a large number of non-specific, multi-system, medically unexplained symptoms have also been reported. The consensus of the 694W
  international scientific and medical community is that this diversity of symptoms means that ill-health among Gulf veterans cannot be characterised as a unique Gulf related illness or syndrome. The Ministry of Defence's approach must be guided by medical science and so does not recognise "Gulf War Syndrome" as a medical condition and has no working definition of such a syndrome.

  Headline Goal
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with European colleagues regarding the use of Russian assets to achieve the Headline Goal. [84846]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Nice European Council agreed that Russia, Ukraine, other European states with which the Union maintains political dialogue and other interested states could be invited to participate in EU-led operations. However, the Headline Goal is a target for EU member states. However, the ECAP panel on outsized transport aircraft is considering, along with other options, whether developing existing arrangements for chartering Russian transport aircraft might be part of an interim solution to the shortfall of airlift assets until A400M is delivered. Implementing solutions identified by the panel will be a matter for member states.

  HMS Nottingham
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about the future of HMS Nottingham. [84372]

  (2) what measures he is taking to redistribute to other warships duties formerly allocated to HMS Nottingham. [84374]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the written Ministerial Statement made today.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason HMS Sheffield has not been retained in service following the damage to HMS Nottingham. [84373]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the Ministerial Statement made today. This decision was taken as part of the process of ensuring that the best use of the capability available is made to meet operational commitments. HMS Sheffield, an anti submarine warfare frigate, is not required to meet these commitments.

  Homeland Defence and Security
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with agencies and other Government Departments on homeland defence and security coordination and centralisation. [84843]

  Mr. Ingram
  Issues concerning homeland defence and security, including organisational matters, are addressed in a series of ministerial and official committees which meet regularly. The Government's position on coordination and centralisation was laid out most recently in its response to the Defence Select Committee's Sixth Report of Session 2001–02, 'Defence and Security in the UK'.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of(a) preparing tanks for desert conditions, (b) enhancing medical support to improve hygiene conditions in field hospitals, (c) speeding up the purchase of temporary disposable accommodation, (d) improving military ambulances, (e) extra training in service and (f) communications and call up of reservists, in the event of war with Iraq. [84133]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am withholding the information requested under Exemption 1 (defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about(a) preparations for and (b) the sustainability of a Royal Naval task force for possible operations against Iraq. [84361]

  Mr. Hoon
  Exercise Saif Sareea II, in Oman towards the end of last year, fully demonstrated our ability to deploy forces to the Middle East and sustain them there. As I have already assured the House, we shall continue to take the appropriate steps to ensure that our armed forces are ready to take whatever action might be asked of them should Iraq fail to comply with UN Resolution 1441. It would be inappropriate to comment on the detail of any specific preparations at this stage.

  Medical Reservists
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army are(a) medical officers, (b) nurses and (c) combat medical technicians. [83404]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following table shows the numbers of Doctors, Nurses and Combat Medical Technicians (CMTs) in Army Medical Services TA units (Field Ambulances, Medical Squadrons, Specialist Units, Ambulance Regiments and Field Hospitals), as at 29 November 2002:

  Number

  Doctors

  405

  Nurses

  1,213

  Combat Medical Technicians

  1,463

  In addition, other units throughout the TA are established for medical officers and CMTs. Information on which of these posts are filled is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Deployments
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military forces are allocated to(a) NATO duties and exercises, (b) the EU Rapid Reaction force and (c) SEATO. [84844]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom is a significant contributor to NATO and the majority of UK armed forces can be made available for NATO deployments. There is no standing EU Rapid Reaction Force: nations' forces would come together for specific EU-led crisis management operations, for which it is envisaged that 696W
  the maximum UK contribution would be up to 12,500 personnel. The South-east Asian Treaty Organisation ceased to exist in 1977.

  Monte Bello Islands
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussion his Department has had with the Australian Government concerning cancer risk among the civilian population surrounding the British nuclear testing in the Monte Bello Islands in the 1950s; and if he will make a statement. [85172]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been no recent discussions of this type.

  Nuclear Weapons Tests
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has conducted into the levels of internal radiological contamination of British service personnel and medical auxiliaries who were present at atmospheric British nuclear tests; and if he will arrange for the relevant documents to be posted on his departmental website. [84269]

  Dr. Moonie
  Stringent safety precautions were in place during the atmospheric nuclear tests and environmental monitoring was carried out at the time. Two comprehensive and independent epidemiological studies were carried out on the Ministry of Defence's behalf by the National Radiological Protection Board, in conjunction with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. The studies showed that participation in the test programme has had no detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases. Copies of both these reports, respectively NRPB reports R214 and R266, are available in the Library of the House. The results of a third study will be published next year.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) what the total expenditure of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies was on official travelling in 2001–02; [84795]

  (2) what the total budget of (a) his Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84936]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 was published on 24 July 2002 Official Report, column 1374–75W). The cost of Ministers' visits overseas for 2002–2003 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Police (Salisbury Plain)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to locate a regional headquarters of the Ministry of Defence Police on Salisbury Plain; and if he will make a statement. [84614]

  Dr. Moonie
  Consideration is being given to establish a western regional police headquarters at Bulford, Salisbury Plain, to cover the South West, Wales and the West Midlands. If this goes forward a new joint Ministry of Defence Police/Royal Military Police facility will be provided under Project Allenby/Connaught, which is the provision of new accommodation at the Aldershot and Salisbury Plain sites. The provisional time scale for completion is 2008–10.

  The western headquarters will initially be located at the existing Operational Command Unit Headquarters at MOD Foxhill in Bath until the completion of the new accommodation.

  Service Deaths
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the dates and circumstances were of the deaths of each serviceman and woman(a) from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 and (b) from 1 January 2002 to 1 November 2002. [84871]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information relating to the causes of death of Service personnel in 2001 is contained in tables 2.25 and 4.2 of publication "UK Defence Statistics 2002" available in the House of Commons Library and on the DASA web site (www.dasa.mod.uk) Information for 2002 is not yet available.

  Southern Africa
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what logistical support his Department has offered to address the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa. [85080]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department for International Development (DFID) is the lead Department for humanitarian assistance by Her Majesty's Government. The Ministry of Defence has not received any requests to provide logistical support to those providing humanitarian assistance in southern Africa, but officials are in touch with those in DFID. The Ministry of Defence would naturally consider any requests for military assistance.

  Submarines
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the order for the batch 2 Astute class submarines will be placed. [84376]

  Dr. Moonie
  A decision on the timing of future submarine orders is not expected before the first half of 2003.

  Sustainability Strategy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the sustainability strategy is for his Department; and if he will make a statement on how it has changed since the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. [83498]
  698W
  Dr. Moonie
  Work is continuing on the development of a Ministry of Defence sustainable development strategy based on the Government's model, as set out in "A Better Quality of Life". The Strategy, which is to be taken forward by a Steering Group, chaired by Defence Estates, draws together a wide range of existing departmental activities into a single sustainability framework, comprising four separate but inter-related workstreams. These will address indicator development, appraisal tool development, training and awareness raising, and reporting.

  Outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and first views on follow-up will be reflected in the annual report on United Kingdom progress on sustainable development for 2002. Our strategy will take account of these outcomes, where they are appropriate to, or impact on the activities of, the Ministry of Defence.

  More information on our strategy is contained in the Sustainable Development in Government First Annual Report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Vehicle Mounted Active Denials Systems
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for British forces to use Vehicle Mounted Active Denial Systems. [84005]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans for British forces to use the Vehicle Mounted Active Denial System, although we continue to assess the developments in this field of technology.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Sellers' Packs
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the pilot carried out in Bristol on seller's packs for house sales. [84380]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Bristol Pilot Scheme provided valuable information in the development of our proposals for sellers' packs. The pilot was set up to test how easily packs could be assembled and how the information in the pack would be received and used. The results showed that packs can be assembled quickly. They also confirmed consumer support for the pack, demonstrated the tangible benefits that the pack can bring to the home buying and selling process and identified areas where further work needed to be done.

  Census Forms
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people have been prosecuted for not filling in their census forms(a) in Derby, North and (b) in the UK. [85079]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Pullinger to Mr. Bob Laxton, dated 3 December 2002:
  699W
  The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people have been prosecuted for not filling in their census forms in (a) Derby North and (b) in the UK. I am replying in his absence. (85079)

  In England and Wales there were 38 prosecutions for refusal to complete and return a census form. There were no prosecutions in the Derby North constituency. Scotland and Northern Ireland conducted their own Censuses and the prosecution for refusal to complete and return a census form was the responsibility of the respective Registrars General.

  The Office for National Statistics followed a policy of only prosecuting in cases where it had obtained clear and sufficient documentary evidence of a refusal to return a completed Census form. Particular attention was given to those reported cases where refusals were accompanied by acts of intimidation towards field staff.

  Coalfield Regeneration
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what additional resources will be made available to increase the capacity of former coalfield communities to develop projects and bid for funds under the coalfield regeneration programme administered through English Partnerships; [83911]

  (2) what the criteria are by which coalfield regeneration funding will be applied to coalfield communities adjacent to a designated site. [83910]

  Mr. McNulty
  The National Coalfield Programme, managed by English Partnerships, has an agreed budget of £385m to remediate up 98 coalfield sites and to bring positive change by encouraging new business and job creation. The programme also creates public open space, as well as leisure and social facilities.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has agreed new flexibility within the programme allowing English Partnerships to invest in projects outside of the immediate site boundaries where this approach offers greater benefit to that coalfield community. In these cases basic remediation of the programme site will still be carried out.

  There is no system of bidding for projects under the programme. However, English Partnerships work closely with other stakeholders including local authorities, regional development agencies, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and community groups in formulating proposals under the flexibility agreement.

  Projects to enhance community capacity are supported separately by the coalfield regeneration trust, including the recent appointment of a second midlands regeneration manager to help develop the capacity of community groups.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will increase the level of subsidy provided to local authorities for pensioners bus passes. [84600]

  Mr. Leslie
  The provisional local government finance settlement will include £50 million announced by the Department for Transport on 27 February 2002 in respect of the cost to local authorities of equalisation of bus pass eligibility at age 60 for men and women. Resources for bus passes are not separately identified within the system.

  Fire Cover Task Group
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects the Fire Cover Task Group to make recommendations to the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council following the Pathfinder trials; and if he will make a statement. [82453]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Fire Cover Review Task Group agreed the text of its final report at the end of September 2002. The central Fire Brigades Advisory Council will consider the report at a future meeting.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost is of the benefits that apply to a new entrant to the Fire Service; what financial and demographic assumptions are used to make this estimate; and when the mortality assumption for pensioners was last reviewed. [84905]

  Mr. Raynsford
  For the Review of the Fire Service Pensions published in 1998, the cost of the benefits under the Firefighters Pension Scheme was assessed at 34.75 per cent, of pensionable pay.The financial and demographic assumptions were based on the probabilities of firefighters leaving the service through various causes, their salary progression throughout their careers and their mortality rates once in receipt of benefits. The mortality assumption for pensioners was last reviewed in 1991.

  Fire Service (Retirements)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the reasons for the incidence of retirement on ill health grounds in the fire service; and if he will make a statement. [84663]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The reasons for ill health retirements are collected and reviewed regularly. Figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 showing the percentages in the main categories:

  Percentage

  Reason

  Due to service (29.7per cent.) of which:

  Not due to service (70.3per cent.) of which:

  Muscular skeletal

  60.43

  37.44

  Hearing

  1.30

  7.34

  Cardiovascular

  0.43

  7.89

  Respiratory

  0.86

  4.77

  Eye/vision

  0.43

  0.91

  Neurological

  0.86

  3.67

  Psychological

  18.69

  20

  Other

  17.00

  17.98

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library e-mails containing advice given by his officials to the Fire Services Employers since the beginning of 2002 regarding the pay dispute with the Fire Brigades Union. [82687]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Officials at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are in regular contact with the Fire Service Employers on a variety of issues. There are no
  701W
  records of any e-mails sent from officials on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to the Fire Service specifically containing advice on the pay dispute with the Fire Brigades Union.

  Housing
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authority homes have been sold under right

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  Local authority sales of stock under RTB

  41,330

  40,270

  54,250

  52,380

  51,970

  240,200

  New build by Las

  320

  190

  100

  390

  110

  1,110

  New build by RSLs

  21,400

  18,920

  17,360

  16,610

  14,370

  88,660

  Homeless households accepted as eligible, unintentionally homeless and in priority need by LAs

  102,650

  104,150

  106,130

  114,350

  118,360

  545,640

  Notes:

  Homeless decisions made under the 1996 Housing Act, plus any residual 1985 Housing Act cases, reflect households accepted as eligible,

  unintentionally homeless and in priority need.

  Sources:

  RTB: DTLR/ODPM housing activity return P1B (quarterly).

  New build: DTLR/ODPM housing activity return P2 (monthly).

  Homelessness: DTLR/ODPM housing activity return PIE (quarterly).

  Mr. Eric Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what effect the abolition of section 24(3) of the Housing Act 1985 as it relates to England will have on the level of public sector and regulated rents; what the Government's rent restructuring policy is; and what the effect will be on the landlord's ability to repair property subject to regulated rent where rent increases are held below the rate of inflation; [84431]

  (2) whether the Government plans to set up a rent restructuring authority; [84429]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact that the changes proposed to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, relating to the rent rebate subsidy limitation on those local authorities where housing rents are above a certain level as described on page 41 of the explanatory memorandum of the Local Government Bill; and based on the present criteria, how many more affordable houses could potentially be built if all rents were allowed to rise to market levels; [84430]

  (4) what reason the Government is seeking to repeal subsection 7 of section 140B of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to give him additional powers to determine the level of rent rebate subsidy, rent allowance subsidy and council tax benefit subsidy; and whether local authorities will be required to provide information on these subsidies to the (a) ODPM and (b) Department of Work and Pensions. [84432]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government's rent restructuring policy aims to achieve a more coherent and fairer structure of social rents, while keeping rents affordable and well below market levels. Over the next ten years, social landlords are being encouraged to move their rents towards a common rents formula, which links rents to relative property values, local manual earnings levels, and property sizes.

  We believe that the arrangements are fair both to landlords and tenants. We shall be reviewing the implementation of rent restructuring after three years. We have no proposals for a rent restructuring authority.
  702W
  to buy in the last five years; how many new homes have been built by (a) local authorities and (b) registered social landlords in the last five years; and how many people were classified as homeless in each of the last five years. [83867]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information collected is not in the form requested. Available information in respect of activity in England is presented in the table.

  The level of social sector rents is a matter for local authorities and registered social landlords, taking account of rent restructuring policies.

  The effective repeal of Section 24(3) of the Housing Act 1985 in England is not expected to have any significant effect on the level of public sector rents. Section 24(3) applies only to local authorities and requires them to have regard, when setting their rents, to the pattern of private sector rents. This might, towards the end of the ten year rent restructuring period, have impacted marginally on an authority's ability to set rents in line with the rents formula.

  The changes proposed in the Local Government Bill to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 will not affect the policy of rent rebate subsidy limitation, which will continue to operate in line with our rent restructuring policy as now.

  The repeal to subsection 7 of section 1406 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 would not confer any additional powers on my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. This subsection made unclear the true extent of my rt. hon Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's powers in relation to determining subsidies and we believe it should be repealed. Authorities will be required to provide information to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) in relation to rent allowance subsidy and council tax subsidy. In relation to rent rebate subsidy, and in particular rent rebate subsidy limitation, authorities may be required to submit information to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in England (ODPM), or the National Assembly in Wales (NAW), who could pass this information to the DWP along with representations as to the form of rent rebate subsidy limitation formulae. This would be possible as an alternative to requiring authorities to send that information directly to the DWP. It is not intended that authorities should have to provide the same information to both the DWP and the ODPM/ NAW.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the relationship between local authorities and tenant management organisations with specific reference to those local authorities seeking to pursue a large scale voluntary transfer of their stocks; [84816]

  (2) if he will make a statement on advice he is offering to local authorities on the issue of tenant management organisations, with specific reference to those which are choosing to pursue large scale voluntary transfer; and whether this advice has changed following the case of Westminster City Council-Pimlico Village Housing Co-operative. [84817]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Housing Transfer Guidance 2002 Programme required that all existing and developing Tenant Management Organisations should be fully consulted at an early stage of the local authorities' investment appraisal process.

  This guidance is not affected by the difficulties between Westminster City Council and Pimlico Village Housing Co-operative.

  Local Authority Sheltered Accommodation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the impact on rents in sheltered accommodation owned by local authorities of its introduction of Supporting People;. [84942]

  (2) how the assumed inflation rate following the introduction of Supporting People will impact upon rent levels and service charges for local authority sheltered accommodation if its actual rate of inflation is greater. [84944]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authority rents are set in accordance with the Government's policy on rent re-structuring. From April 2003 any costs in respect of support services will require to be separately identified and will not be eligible for Housing Benefit. Authorities are being awarded Supporting People grant on the basis of relevant expenditure at 31 March 2003, uplifted by funding stream specific inflation factors.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the split between housing revenue account and supporting people budget, with specific reference to local authority sheltered accommodation from April 2003 onwards. [84943]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under proposals contained in the consultation paper "A New Financial Framework for Local Authority Housing: Resource Accounting in the Housing Revenue Account", the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sought views on the options of accounting for the new Supporting People grant in either the housing revenue account or in the general fund. We will publish the outcome of that consultation very soon.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how transitional housing benefit will operate in the case of local authority sheltered accommodation with specific reference to those authorities that have previously used rate fund moneys. [84945]
  704W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Supporting People programme will transfer transitional housing benefit and a number of other housing related funding streams to a new grant. Rate fund moneys are not among these funding streams.

  Local Education Authority Grants
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will increase grant payments to local education authorities to take account of the EU benchmarks. [83205]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  The structure and organisation of national education systems is the responsibility of individual EL) member states. There are no education benchmarks at EU level that we are required to meet.

  Local Government
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the new housing strategy which will be prepared for each local authority under the Local Government Bill will be required to consider the aims and objectives contained in the existing homelessness strategies; what arrangements will be made for(a) the public, (b) registered social landlords, (c) the private sector and (d) other non governmental bodies involved in housing to participate in the preparation of the strategy; and what estimate he has made of the compliance cost. [84412]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local housing authorities have produced housing strategies for a number of years although they are currently non-statutory.

  Existing guidance emphasises the need for authorities to demonstrate robust links with relevant strategies such as Homelessness Strategies. The new framework for housing-related plans will give councils the flexibility to combine their housing and homelessness strategies and other related strategies in a single document, where this suits local circumstances. The Local Government Bill does not change the provisions in the 2002 Act which relate to the objectives which may be included in an authority's homelessness strategy.

  Existing guidance also stresses the importance of involving stakeholders in the development of the strategy, including residents, partner organisations and members. However it is up to local authorities to decide the appropriate arrangements according to their local circumstances. Of course, if the authority chooses to incorporate the homelessness strategy in the broader housing strategy the duties under the Homelessness Act relating to consultation and involvement of other bodies would still apply.

  The Bill does not place a new burden on authorities. No estimate has therefore been made of the cost to authorities of complying with this requirement.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how an empty home will be defined under the provisions of the Local Government Bill; what steps he took to ensure that evidence collected during the course of investigations to determine whether a home is empty is compatible with an individual's right to privacy under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement. [84413]
  705W
  Mr. McNulty
  Clause 75 of the Bill will allow billing authorities in England to reduce or end council tax discounts for classes of dwellings prescribed in regulations. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to produce a draft of regulations defining such a class of long term empty homes in time for the Commons' Committee consideration of this clause. The precise wording has still to be decided. We intend, however, to define empty homes as vacant dwellings which are not exempt from council tax. A dwelling is vacant if no-one lives in it and it is substantially unfurnished.

  The provisions contained in the Local Government Bill will not impose any additional checks to those which local authorities already have to undertake to establish whether a domestic property is empty or not for the purposes of the existing 50 per cent, council tax discount for long term empty homes, or for the council tax exemptions for empty homes. Just as billing authorities will have to act compatibly with the Convention rights in investigating whether a dwelling is vacant for the purposes of the council tax, they will have to act compatibly with Convention rights in making any further use of the data as will be permitted by clause 85.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will list those authorities where the shortfall from handling stock transfer has resulted in an overhanging debt payment from his Department; and how much each of those payments amounted to; [84416]

  (2) how much money his Department has set aside under clauses 40 and 41 of the draft Local Government Bill in each of the next three years to meet future payments of overhanging debt payable to (a) public works loans commissioners and (b) other lenders; and what the criteria will be for deciding whether such payments should be made. [84417]

  Mr. McNulty
  To date, seven one-off payments have been made. In 1999–2000 £20.99 million was paid to Burnley. In 2000–01 payments were made to Coventry (£111.68 million) Calderdale (£64.59 million) and Blackburn with Darwen (£78.9 million). In 2002–03 payments have been made to St. Helens (£87.2 million), Redcar and Cleveland (£25.4 million) and Knowsley (£126.13 million).

  Resources required by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to meet commitments arising under clause 40 and 41 of the draft Local Government Bill will depend on the local authorities seeking to transfer their housing in any particular year. The resources are classified as Annually Managed Expenditure and as such are drawn down on an annual basis. Provision for 2003–04 is currently £616 million, and all payments would go to the Public Works Loans Commissioners. Provision for future years will relate to the 2003 transfer programme onward, for which applications from local authorities have yet to be invited. A local authority will be eligible where it has been accepted onto the housing transfer programme and where on disposal of its stock the receipt it will receive will be less than its housing attributable debt.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the arrangements will be for transferring subsidies from those authorities with 706W
  surplus housing revenue accounts to those authorities in deficit under the proposals in the Local Government Bill; what proportion of that surplus will be affected; whether it will be varied on an annual basis; and what effect this transfer will have on the ability of those surplus authorities to deliver their own housing strategies; [84419]

  (2) what criteria will be contained in the new formula for calculating housing revenue account subsidies under the Local Government Bill; how much his Department has allocated over the next three years for this; and whether authorities receiving central Government subsidy will be debarred from receiving subsidies from those authorities that have surplus housing revenue accounts; [84411]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect that the combined policies of pooling capital receipts, transferring surplus housing revenue accounts and resource equalisation will have on the ability of those authorities affected to deliver the existing range of services to the public; and how much will be redistributed in any one year under each of these three mechanisms. [84420]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under the arrangements proposed in the Local Government Bill, authorities with an assumed surplus on their Housing Revenue Account (HRA) will be asked to pay the whole of that assumed surplus to central Government. The surpluses, together with a contribution from the Exchequer, will be redistributed to those authorities whose assumed expenditure on their housing stock exceeds their rental income. This will not involve direct transfer between authorities.

  This redistributive mechanism operates already at present, as an authority's assumed HRA surplus is netted off against the rent rebate subsidy due to them in the HRA subsidy calculation, thus providing the national resources to pay subsidy to deficit authorities. However, that will not be possible once rent rebates are removed from the HRA and subsidised separately; hence the need for the new mechanism in the Bill. As surpluses are effectively captured at present, this proposal will not, therefore, have any effect on the financial position of most councils, or their ability to deliver their housing strategies.

  The assumed surpluses and deficits will continue to be determined annually as now. Authorities will be consulted on the formulae proposed each year in the normal way.

  The pooling of a proportion of housing capital receipts will also ensure that resources are targeted to those areas where housing need is greatest so that all authorities can meet national housing priorities.

  As with HRA surpluses, it is proposed that pooled receipts should be redistributed in full. The amount of pooled receipts will depend on levels of Right to Buy sales at the time.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact changes in the local government formula grant will have on public services in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire. [85130]
  707W
  Mr. Leslie
  We will announce the new system for distributing Formula Grant, including detailed grant allocations for individual authorities, at the time of the provisional local government finance settlement which will be on the 5 December, subject to parliamentary business. Once the Government has allocated its grant, decisions about budgets and services are primarily for local councils to make. However, we have already guaranteed that we will use grant "floors" to ensure that no authority will face a cut in grant next year on a like for like basis, and we hope to do better than that when we announce the actual floors and ceilings scheme as part of the provisional settlement.

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2002–02

  2002–03

  Buckinghamshire county council1

  Revenue funding

  Revenue support grant

  166,086

  157,855

  102,116

  1102,324

  101,215

  95,891

  111,397

  91,977

  Redistributed business rates

  118,192

  134,972

  91,922

  96,628

  105,481

  119,630

  117,618

  128,319

  Capital funding

  Basic credit approvals issued2

  10,987

  12,585

  7,976

  7,082

  6,080

  5,134

  764

  15,171

  Chiltern district council

  Revenue funding

  Revenue support grant

  834

  571

  730

  309

  160

  0

  188

  0

  Redistributed business rates

  3,037

  3,234

  2,934

  2,968

  3,230

  3,568

  3,527

  3,935

  Capital funding

  Basic credit approvals issued3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  50

  1 The area covered by Buckinghamshire county council decreased on 1 April 1997 when Milton Keynes became a unitary authority

  2 In 2002–03 Buckinghamshire county council had a large transport annual capital guideline amounting to £12.3 million compared to a zero transport annual capital guideline in the previous year

  3 Chiltern received zero basic credit approvals between 1995–96 and 2001–02 due to high levels of capital receipts. In 2002–03 a discretionary element was introduced

  I will write to the hon. Member shortly with information on funding provided to the authorities from other Office of the Deputy Prime Minister programmes.

  No funding has been provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to Amersham Town council or Chesham Town council in any year since 1 January 1996.

  Chesham Town council will, however, benefit from the grant of £30,000 per year towards best value costs that we announced in the local government White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services". The Local Government Bill contains clauses to enable the Secretary of State to pay such a grant and, in advance of legislation, the Audit Commission has consulted on a proposal to provide about £10,000 of support to each best value parish and town council in 2002–03 by the waiving and reimbursing of recent audit fees. The outcome of the consultation exercise will be announced later this month.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total expenditure of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies was on official travel in 2001–02. [84787]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each
  708W
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much central funding has been given by his Department to(a) Buckinghamshire county council, (b) Chiltern district council, (c) Amersham Town council and (d) Chesham Town council in each year since 1 January 1996. [85131]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on funding provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister under the main local government revenue and capital finance systems to Buckinghamshire county council and Chiltern district council are given in the following table.

  financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Minister's visits overseas. Details of travel during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 was published on 24 July 2002, Official Report, columns 1374–75W. Copies of the list are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister only came into existence in June this year following Machinery of Government changes. The former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions expenditure on official travel was £6.6 million. For agencies now sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, total expenditure was £4.1 million.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total budget of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84927]

  Mr. Leslie
  The cost of Ministers' visits overseas for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year.

  For 2002–03, the Office's official travel budget is included in the overall administration resource budget. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's agencies budgets for official travel in 2002–03 is £4.4 million.
  709W

  Rates
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason the proposal in the draft Local Government Bill to merge new domestic rates and rates support grant has been dropped in the published Bill. [84418]

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposed merger of the rate support grant and national non-domestic rates. [85226]

  Mr. Leslie
  The draft Bill proposed the merger of Revenue Support Grant (RSG) and redistributed national non-domestic rates (NNDR) into a single grant stream. The intended purpose was to simplify the grant distribution mechanism by paying the combined total of central government unhypothecated grant support for local authorities and the amount of support raised via business rates using a single basis of distribution. The Government believed that this change would make the grant system more transparent and easier for stakeholders to understand.

  A number of local authority responses to the consultation on the draft Bill agreed that the proposed changes would simplify the grant distribution system. However the overwhelming majority of consultation responses argued that the two funding streams should not be merged. The Select Committee also recommend against the proposed merger.

  Having considered carefully all the consultation responses and the views of the Select Committee, the Government decided to not to proceed with the merger because it evidently did not achieve the desired objective of improving the clarity of the grant distribution system.

  Standards Board
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many complaints have been received about the Standards Board since it was set up; and how many of these were upheld. [84423]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received a small number of representations about various aspects of the work done by the Standards Board. Having recently met the chairman of the Standards Board I have full confidence in the board and in the actions it is taking as a wholly independent body to fulfil the role which it was given by the Local Government Act 2000 of promoting high standards of conduct in local authorities.

  Starter Home Initiative
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the categories and numbers of key workers to be helped in the starter home initiative were set; and if he will make a statement. [83817]

  Mr. McNulty
  The priorities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for assistance under the Starter Home Initiative are teachers, police, nurses and other essential health workers. This reflects the importance which the Government attaches to addressing recruitment and retention problems in the key public services of health, education and policing. The number of key workers being helped in each of these groups was informed by the overall number of key workers in each 710W
  group, the scale of shortages and the ability of individuals in each group to access home ownership. A few other groups of key workers are also receiving assistance through the Initiative in the light of bids received.

  Thames Gateway
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average residential density was of housing developments in the London part of the Thames Gateway that received planning permission in the last two years; and what estimate he has made of the average residential density of new housing developments in the London part of the Thames Gateway which will be needed to secure 50,000 new dwelling units within that area over the next 15 years. [83948]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The average density of developments completed between 1997 and 2000 in the boroughs that make up the London part of the Thames Gateway, as defined by RPG9a, are:

  Borough

  Dwellings per hectare

  Greenwich:

  47

  Newham:

  54

  Barking and Dagenham

  43

  Bexley:

  30

  Havering:

  34

  Tower Hamlets:

  107

  Lewisham:

  56

  These figures are borough wide averages. Not all of the boroughs listed above are entirely within Thames Gateway.

  Guidance on future levels of housing provision for these boroughs, up to 2016, is set out in the emerging London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy). The London Plan, once finalised, will provide the strategic planning framework for London.

  The draft London Plan also contains policies directed at maximising the potential of sites. The emerging strategic policy framework for residential density is that in urban and central areas, densities of between 50 and 275 units per hectare should be provided. For suburban areas the density range should be between 30 and 65 units per hectare.

PRIME MINISTER

  No. 10 Downing Street (Tea Party)
  Mr. Christopher Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many hon. Members have been invited to bring children from their constituencies to a tea party at 10 Downing Street; how many have accepted; and what criteria are applied to choosing invitees; [85124]

  (2) how many hon. Members have been invited to nominate adults from their constituency to tour the main State Rooms and Cabinet Room at 10 Downing Street and the State Room at 11 Downing Street; how many have accepted; and what criteria are applied to choosing invitees. [85125]
  711W
  The Prime Minister
  Hon. Members from all parties are invited on a rolling programme to nominate and accompany a small group of children from their constituencies to have tea at 10 Downing Street and a small group of adults from their constituencies to come for a tour of the House. The criteria applied are that selection is made by the hon. Member in a fair and open way for children and adults with a particular interest in visiting 10 Downing Street. Since 1998 approximately 340 MPs have accepted invitations for children to come for tea and 95 MPs have accepted invitations for tours of the House.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Christopher Chope
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what the total budget of his Office is for official travel in 2002–2003 [84926]

  (2) what the total expenditure of (a) his Department and (b) its agencies was on official travel in 2001–02. [84788]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 was published on 24 July 2002,Official Report, columns 1374–75W. The cost of Ministers' visits overseas for 2002–2003 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  For information about members of my office, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) on Thursday 20 June 2002, Official Report, columns 462–3W.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Air Passenger Processing
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with advanced passenger processing on incoming flights to the UK. [83845]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to the modernisation of public services. Advance Passenger Processing is the framework for a modernised immigration control. It will comprise a range of operational and analytical initiatives which will provide a balance between expediting clearance of genuine passengers and targeting those passengers who present an immigration or security threat. Over the last few years, we have been building a platform of legislation to support this strategy: the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000; the Immigration (Passenger Information) Order 2000; and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
  712W
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), with. private sector partners, have recently completed a three month feasibility study to examine whether a system of advance passenger processing, akin to the electronic travel authority which operates in Australia, might be applicable to the United Kingdom. The initial conclusions are positive and IND are currently engaged in an evaluation of the study, which is being conducted in consultation with key stakeholders. It is expected that the evaluation will be completed by Spring 2003 and we will then consider the best way forward.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Turkish citizens applied for asylum in the UK in 2001; and how many were successful in their application. [83890]

  Beverley Hughes
  3,700 Turkish citizens applied for asylum in the United Kingdom in 2001 (excluding dependants). In 2001 there were 7,660 initial decisions made on asylum applications from Turkish nationals, 195 grants of asylum, 275 grants of exceptional leave to remain (ELR), and 7,190 refusals. Data on initial decisions are independent of applications data, and do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  During 2001, 1,840 appeals against Home Office decisions on Turkish asylum claims were determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority. Of these, 485 granted either refugee status or ELR, 1,295 were dismissed and 60 cases were withdrawn. Appeal outcomes in any given time period do not necessarily relate to initial decisions made in the same period. The figures exclude any further appeals (Immigration Appeals Tribunal, Court of Appeal, judicial review, House of Lords).

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government is taking to combat the illegal entry of Pakistani Pathan asylum seekers. [83891]

  Beverley Hughes
  A four tier screening process is in place for all new asylum applicants. Those holding documentation establishing their identity and nationality undergo the first level of screening, which is photographing, fingerprinting and taking personal details. In all other cases, more in-depth screening is undertaken to ascertain nationality and identity along with the route taken to the United Kingdom. The highest level of screening is used in cases where prosecution is a possibility and these interviews are conducted under caution by specially trained officers. Country information is available to immigration officers to assist in establishing nationality.

  A pilot project took place at the Asylum Screening Unit in Croydon exploring ways of identifying nationality by the use of language analysis experts. Samples of conversations were forwarded to language experts to establish if the asylum applicant's language and dialect were consistent with his nationality. The results of this project are still being assessed.

  Flights identified as potentially 'high risk' for carrying passengers who destroy their documents en route to the United Kingdom are met by specially designated and

  713W
  trained immigration officers who escort them to the immigration control for further examination. On a number of occasions full document checks are carried out on arriving flights to ascertain that passengers have the appropriate travel documentation.

  In addition specialist expertise and advice on passport and visa documentation is readily available from the British High Commission in Pakistan and this resource is used by the airlines when denying boarding to inadequately documented passengers.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contractual relationship exists between his Department and Clearsprings Ltd., with regard to the(a) processing and (b) housing of asylum seekers. [84175]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: There is no contractual agreement between Clearsprings Management Ltd. and the Immigration Nationality Directorate on the processing of asylum seekers. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) does have a contract with Clearsprings Management Ltd. to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers.

  Asylum Seekers (Somalia)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to return failed asylum seekers to Somalia; and if he will make a statement. [84041]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum seekers from Somalia who are found not to be in need of international protection following proper consideration of their claim have the option to return voluntarily to Somalia by way of a voluntary assisted returns programme.

  If they choose not to return voluntarily they will be subject to removal to Somalia as soon as it is possible to conclude negotiations with the relevant authorities.

  Criminal Records Board
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct Capita to deal first with the backlog of claims for the Criminal Records Board which have been waiting for adjudication for more than six months. [82073]

  Hilary Benn
  It is the agency's policy to process disclosure applications in the order that they are received, however, some may complete each stage of the process quicker than others. Some applications become delayed due to missing information from applicants or registered bodies.

  Capita, the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Agency and local police forces work in partnership throughout the CRB disclosure process.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will write to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam regarding the Criminal Records Bureau. [84809]

  Hilary Benn
  I will write as soon as possible.

  Cyclists (Pavements)
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there were in 2001 of cyclists riding on pavements, in each police authority; and if he will make it his policy to place these figures in the Library in subsequent years. [83440]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Statistics will be available once Criminal Statistics 2001 is published. This Command Paper is due to be published before the end of 2002.

  Drugs Courts
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are being used to assess the success of the drugs courts pilot schemes. [82884]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Drug courts are not presently being piloted in England and Wales, but the STEP Project, a court based treatment initiative, ran in Wakefield and Pontefract from summer 1998 to autumn 2000. The nearest comparison now is with the court review process of the drug treatment and testing order (DTTO), which shares with drug courts in other jurisdictions sentencer review of the progress of offenders.

  The Government believe that getting drug misusing offenders into treatment through court-based interventions can be effective in reducing drug misuse and crime, and officials are currently developing proposals for piloting drug courts drawing upon the good practice of dedicated DTTO review courts.

  Ex-prisoners
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on resettlement of ex-prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [82087]

  Hilary Benn
  The Home Office is working to develop an action plan on a National Rehabilitation Strategy. The plan will respond. to issues highlighted in the recent Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) and Sentencing Enforcement Unit (SEU) reports and will draw on the experience and skills of a range of Departments and agencies working with vulnerable and excluded groups. Partnership between the prison service and national probation service will be important in the joint delivery of support to offenders both during and after custody and helping them to reintegrate successfully into the community on release.

  The National Probation Directorate (NPD) provides funding to several voluntary sector organisations, including the Society of Voluntary Associates (SOVA) and the National Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO). Both NPD and the Prison Service work closely with partner agencies in the voluntary and not for profit sector to address offenders resettlement needs. Partnerships typically deliver services supporting offenders to access housing, prepare for and obtain employment and enter basic skills learning.

  Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the grants funded by his
  715W
  Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; and if he will make a statement as to (a) the total of such funding in the last financial year, (b) the total number of awards and (c) their administrative costs. [82186]

  Description of grant

  Expenditure (£)

  Refugee community development fund, 66 organisations awarded

  350,000

  Refugee integration challenge fund, 20 projects

  500,000

  European refugee fund (in calendar year 2000), approximately

  5,400,000

  (For funding: voluntary return measures, reception of asylum seekers, and integration of refugees)

  500,000

  44 projects awarded in 2002. Purposeful activity for asylum seekers 35 awards

  Active Community Units

  Capital modernisation grants (1 year only) 42 awards

  7.800,000

  (To voluntary organisations for information technology and building projects; relocation or co-location (i.e. bringing various organisations under one roof) Mentoring project grants (£3.5 million over three years)) 38 awards

  1,160,000

  Mentoring capital grants (one year only) 30 awards

  500,000

  Active community grants (£5.1 million over three years) 34 awards

  1,700,000

  Family support grant 90 grants

  5,300,000

  The recovered assets fund, 2 awards

  250,000

  Race Equality Unit

  Connecting communities, 75 awards

  4,151,467

  Easter schemes (community cohesion activity schemes), 9 awards

  267,107

  Reduction of racial disadvantage grants, 12 awards

  572,473

  Summer schemes (community cohesion activity schemes) 208 awards

  7,000,000

  Drugs prevention advisory service, 155 awards

  1,721,937

  Total costs

  37,172,984

  Information about associated administration costs is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the average time it will take to determine applications for leave to remain in the UK on the basis of marriage for non-fast track cases for applications made in October; and what the average time taken was in each of the last five years. [83772]

  Beverley Hughes
  At present those marriage applications that cannot be dealt with on initial consideration can take approximately 12 months to decide. It is not possible to provide waiting times over the last five years, as records have not been kept. There have been exceptionally high numbers of applications throughout 2001 and continuing this year.

  Efforts are being made to reduce the 12 months taken to decide all applications (including marriage cases) and we are confident that the delays will be reduced to nine months in the New Year. This will be achieved by making use of additional resources in Sheffield where we have trained up to 40 caseworkers to decide marriage applications.

  Immigration Removal and Detention
  Mr. Humfrey Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received during the last 12 months from the Chief Inspector of Prisons about immigration removal and detention centres; when he intends to respond to them; and if he will publish the reports and his responses. [85030]
  716W
  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office has funded grants in 2001–02 for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply as follows:

  Beverley Hughes
  We have not received any reports during the last 12 months from the Chief Inspector of Prisons about immigration removal centres.

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP) has, over the last few months, visited a number of immigration removal centres. However, no reports of these visits have yet been published or received.

  Leave to Remain Applicants
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice applicants for leave to remain in the UK on the basis of marriage whose applications cannot be fast-tracked are given on how long their cases will take to determine; and what the basis is for this advice. [84091]

  Beverley Hughes
  A letter is sent to all applicants whose applications cannot be decided on initial consideration. It gives an estimate of how long they can expect to wait for a decision. This is based on the current waiting time for such cases and an estimate of what it is expected to be in future.

  Offences on Bail
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences have been committed by defendants on(a) police bail and (b) bail from the court in each of the last three years. [82089]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Passport Agency/Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to allow the same person to be, at the same time, the chief executive of the Passport Agency and of the Criminal Records Bureau. [83899]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: On the 15 February 1999 the then Home Secretary (Mr. Straw), stated, in answer to a parliamentary question, that the Criminal Records Bureau would be established in Merseyside under the management of the United Kingdom Passport Agency.

  On 30 March 2001 the then Home Secretary confirmed, in answer to a further parliamentary question, that the combined organisation was to be established as the Passport and Records Agency and the new agency framework document was placed in the Library.

  Police Training
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of new recruits who started the training course at the Hendon Police Training School completed that course satisfactorily in 2001; how many are still serving police officers one year after completion and what the figures were in 1997. [82491]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: The Commissioner for the Metropolitan police informs me that the proportion of new recruits who satisfactorily completed their training at Hendon in 2001 was 90 per cent.; (a) of 1,625 officers who were recruited in 2001, 1,465 completed their training and 1,386 are still serving; (b) in 1997 the number of officers recruited was 1,035, of which 992 officers completed one years service.

  Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has for the construction of new prisons over the next seven years, with reference to the latest population projection; [84305]

  (2) how many prisoners are held in police cells; and what action is being taken to reduce this number. [84298]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The numbers held in police cells (under Operation Safeguard) peaked at 448 on the night of 29 October 2002. Since then, new prison accommodation has been brought into use and this, combined with a fall in prisoner numbers during November 2002, has enabled the Prison Service to reduce its use of police cells. By the night of 26 November 2002, the number of prisoners being held in police cells had fallen to 160.

  The Government have recently approved Prison Service plans for two new prisons, which will provide 1,290 places by 2004–05. The first is scheduled to open in the summer of 2004 at Ashford (near Heathrow), and will be a female prison of 450 places. An 840-place prison for 360 female and 480 male prisoners is scheduled to open at Peterborough in Cambridgeshire in the summer of 2005.
  718W
  In addition, the Government have recently announced that £60 million will be made available to provide 740 prison places at existing prisons by March 2004. This is in addition to funding from the 2002 Budget to provide an extra 2,320 places within existing prisons by the end of this financial year.

  Probation
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation service areas will(a) receive an increase in real terms in their budget for the next financial year, (b) receive the same budget as this year and (c) receive a reduction in their budget. [84304]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: All 24 Local Probation Boards will receive an increase in real terms in their budget for the next financial year.

  Sussex Police
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of the total Sussex police force are from ethnic minorities working as(a) working time equivalents and (b) civilian support staff; and what plans he has to increase this number. [83313]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: On 31 March 2002, the latest date for which figures are available there were 30 minority ethnic police officers in Sussex police. This represents 1.0 per cent, of the force's officer strength.

  On the same date there were 27 minority ethnic civilian support staff, 1.3 per cent, of support staff strength.

  Under the dismantling barriers initiative, each police force has a 10-year target indicating the size of the minority ethnic communities in their area and setting a figure for the overall increase in representation required given the current size of the force in order that the force is representative of the community it serves. The target for Sussex police by 2009 is 2.4 per cent.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many teaching staff in each of the prisons in the juvenile estate have qualifications in special needs education. [83831]

  Hilary Benn
  There are 50 members of staff in juvenile establishments who have special needs qualifications. Others have received in-service training in various aspects of special educational needs, including recent training for Basic Skills teachers teaching students with learning difficulties. Funding has been allocated to all establishments in the juvenile estate to employ a Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (SENCO), who assess the needs of learners and guide teachers and learning support assistants.

  The information is contained in the table.

  719W

  Establishment

  SENCO

  SEN qualified staff

  Onley

  To appoint

  0

  Bulwood Hall

  No

  0

  Wetherby

  Yes

  2

  Brinsford

  Yes

  0

  Ashfield

  Yes

  4

  Huntercombe

  Yes

  4

  Warren Hill

  Yes

  3

  New Hall1

  Yes

  4

  Castington

  Yes

  3

  Stoke Heath

  Yes

  22

  Werrington

  Yes

  1

  Lancaster Farms

  Yes>

  1

  Hindley2

  Yes

  5

  Feltham

  Yes

  1

  Total

  12

  50

  1 Few juveniles

  2Very recently received juveniles

  (a) GCSEs

  GCSE grades

  young offender institutions

  GCSE candidates

  Total achieved

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  Onley

  5

  11

  —

  4

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bulwood Hall

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wetherby

  94

  30

  —

  —

  4

  10

  8

  5

  —

  Brinsford

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ashfield

  7

  9

  —

  1

  3

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Huntercombe

  87

  130

  1

  9

  34

  37

  28

  24

  —

  Warren Hill

  26

  90

  3

  4

  21

  26

  12

  5

  —

  New Hall

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Castington

  28

  79

  4

  7

  20

  25

  9

  9

  5

  Stoke Heath

  3

  8

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Werrington

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancaster Farms

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hindley (recently received juveniles)

  1

  4

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Feltham

  28

  36

  1

  7

  11

  6

  6

  3

  2

  Total

  279

  397

  9

  34

  171

  111

  64

  49

  8

  (b) AS levels

  AS level grades

  young offender institutions

  AS level candidates

  Total achieved

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  Warren Hill

  10

  12

  —

  1

  2

  5

  4

  —

  —

  Total

  10

  12

  —

  1

  2

  5

  4

  —

  —

  (c) A levels

  A level grades

  young offender institutions

  A level candidates

  Total achieved

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  Onley

  1

  3

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Castington

  2

  4

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  3

  7

  —

  2

  2

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been locked out of prisons overnight in the last 12 months; at which prisons; and at which police stations they were held. [83827]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is not held centrally and I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend when it is available.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is a limit to the time a child can be held on a basic regime in prison. [83832]
  720W
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have attained(a) GCSEs,(b)AS levels and (c) A levels at each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000; how many qualifications they were each awarded; and at what grade. [83830]

  Hilary Benn
  Since April 2000, in juvenile establishments:(a) 279 candidates achieved 397 GSCE qualifications; (b) 10 candidates achieved 12 A/S level qualifications; and (c) three candidates achieved seven A level qualifications.

  The information in set out in the tables.

  Hilary Benn
  The Operational Manager for the Juvenile Estate has made it clear to Governors of juvenile establishments that the basic regime must be used constructively as an incentive to responsible behaviour. Governors are expected to keep a juvenile on the basic regime for the shortest period possible, and normally not for longer than one week, at which time the case must be reviewed.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) section 17 assessments and (b) section 47 investigations under the Children Act 1989 have been carried out on children in each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000. [83837]
  721W
  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not held centrally and I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend when it is available.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young prisoners have been subjected to restraint under rule 52 of the Rules for Young Offenders Institutions since April 2000. [83825]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is not held centrally and I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend when it is available.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times unfurnished cells have been used in each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000. [83826]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is not held centrally and I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend when it is available.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times control and restraint was used in each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000. [83833]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is not held centrally and I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend when it is available.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time was that children in each of the prisons in the juvenile estate spent out of doors every day in 2001–02. [83834]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is not held centrally and I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend when it is available.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been transferred to HMP and YOI Castington from Feltham YOI in each of the last 12 months; and what their(a) ethnicity, (b) age and (c) home area in each case was. [83835]

  Hilary Benn
  In the last 12 months 28 young people have been transferred from Feltham young offender institution to Castington prison and young offender institution. The breakdown of these figures is as follows:

  April 2002

  Age

  Home Area

  Ethnicity

  15

  Sutton

  White English

  16

  West Sussex

  Black Caribbean

  17

  Waltham Forest

  Black Caribbean

  17

  Harringey

  White English

  17

  Bexley

  White English

  17

  Wandsworth

  White English

  17

  Lemington Spa

  White English

  18

  Essex

  Pakistani

  Total number transferred =8

  July 2002

  Age

  Home Area

  Ethnicity

  16

  Haringey

  Black Caribbean

  17

  Kent

  White English

  18

  Chingford

  White English

  722W

  Age

  Home Area

  Ethnicity

  18

  Uxbridge

  White English

  18

  Kensington

  Black African

  18

  East Sussex

  White English

  Total number transferred = 6

  August 2002

  Age

  Home Area

  Ethnicity

  15

  Not available

  White English

  16

  Haringey

  Black Caribbean

  17

  Crawley

  White English

  18

  West Sussex

  Black African

  Total number transferred = 4

  October 2002

  Age

  Home Area

  Ethnicity

  17

  Brent

  Black African

  17

  Haringey

  Black African

  17

  London

  Black Other

  17

  Barnet

  White English

  18

  Enfield

  White Irish

  18

  Southwark

  Black African

  18

  Newham

  Black Caribbean

  18

  Surrey

  White English

  18

  Enfield

  White English

  18

  Thameside

  Other ethnic group

  Total number transferred = 10

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Academic Staff (Assessment)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the data from the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise relating to individual academic staff. [81504]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available data from the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise have been published by the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE), and can be obtained from the Higher Education and Research Opportunities website at
  www.hero.ac.uk/rae/.

  Cost Saving
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what assessment he has made of the cost savings that could be achieved by allowing private institutions to run courses leading to an award or a degree. [84144]

  Margaret Hodge
  There has been no such assessment. There are currently around 125 private organisations already running courses leading to a degree awarded by a recommended UK degree awarding body.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when further guidance will be issued to registered bodies about the postponement of Criminal Records Bureau checks. [84607]
  723W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: My Department wrote to local education authorities last week about the need to manage demand for CRB Disclosures. The letter advised authorities that, for the time being, CRB checks should not be sought for school governors.

  It also provided further advice about checking school volunteers and confirmed that the arrangements we put in place in September to enable staff and volunteers in schools to start work in advance of receiving a CRB Disclosure at the discretion of the head teacher will continue until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the CRB is reliably providing a service that meets the needs of the education service.

  Parallel guidance is being sent to all schools next week.

  Degrees
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to allow private organisations to award degrees. [83873]

  Margaret Hodge
  Section 76 of the FHE Act 1992 allows the Privy Council to specify any institution offering higher education as competent to grant degrees. Institutions are required to meet specific criteria, as set out by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, before degree awarding powers are granted. Any institution which believes it fulfils the relevant criteria is eligible to apply to the Privy Council, including private organisations. There are currently two private institutions that have secured degree-awarding powers: University of Buckingham and Henley Management College.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what reasons underlay the change in the number of staff employed by his Department between(a) 1996 and 1997 and (b) 2001 and 2002; and if he will make a statement. [81724]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]: The merger of the Department for Education and the Employment Department Group to form the Department for Education and Employment in 1995 led to substantial savings in support service jobs as the new departmental structure rolled out over the following two years. Between April 1996 and March 1997 the Department managed the voluntary early release of 542 staff.

  Machinery of Government changes following the General Election in 2001 transferred responsibility for the employment portfolio away from the newly created Department for Education and Skills. As a result some 700 staff moved to one of the four Departments which now share that responsibility: the Department for Work and Pensions, Home Office, the Department for Trade and Industry and Cabinet Office.

  Education Provision (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money was spent in 724W
  (a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire through the Standards Fund in 2001–02 on class size reduction. [85129]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2001–02 Buckinghamshire local education authority was allocated £2.3 million revenue and £0.8 million capital, to reduce infant class sizes for 5, 6 and 7-year-olds to 30 or fewer. In the constituency of Chesham and Amersham £0.2 million was allocated to schools to meet the limit. I should point out that not all schools have received funding to meet the pledge.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of classroom teachers are on the top of the main scale or have progressed through the upper pay spine in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire. [85127]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the latest available teacher data for Buckinghamshire. It is too early to provide data on teachers progressing to point two of the upper pay scale. The information is only available at LEA level.

  Percentage1 of qualified classroom teachers on point nine of the main pay scale and the post-threshold scale as at 31 March 2001 (provisional)2— Maintained schools sector

  Buckinghamshire

  Main scale point 9

  24.8

  Upper pay scale

  35.2

  Not known3

  4.9

  1Percentage is based on all classroom teachers including advanced skills teachers

  2The data are provisional and may understate the percentage of teachers who had passed through to the upper pay scales

  3Following changes to the pay system in September 2000, an unusually high number of teachers were shown with a spine point of 'not known'. The majority of these teachers are expected to be on either spine point nine or the post-threshold scale

  Exclusion Units
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local education authorities have established total exclusion units to take pupils who have been permanently excluded from their schools. [84978]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Currently, 139 of the 150 local education authorities, including Barnsley LEA, have Pupil Referral Units, which are used in the education of permanently excluded pupils.

  Further Education Lecturers.
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average salary of further education lecturers on permanent contract was, and what the average hourly rate of pay to sessional staff was, in each of the past five years. [84121]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The Department does not collect pay information disaggregated by the contract status of further education (FE) lecturers or about the average hourly rate of sessional staff. Figures for the average salary of full-time lecturers over the last five years for which we have published information are given in the table.
  725W

  (£)

  March 1996

  March 1997

  March 1998

  March 1999

  March 2000

  23,240

  23,720

  24,160

  24,940

  25,760

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether there is a guaranteed minimum wage level for lecturers of further education or higher education courses; and what proportions of lecturers are employed on the bottom of the pay scale. [84293]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Individual FE colleges and HE institutions determine, within the context of current employment legislation, their own pay rates according to local needs and priorities.

  The Association of Colleges, the Sixth Form Colleges' Employers' Forum and the Universities' and Colleges' Employers' Association publish recommended pay awards and pay scales for further and higher education lecturers following annual negotiations with their representative trade union bodies.

  The Department does not collect information about the proportion of lecturers in FE or HE who are employed on the bottom of the pay scales.

  Geographical Knowledge
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on geographical knowledge among schoolchildren; and what measures are planned to improve this. [85051]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  As part of the National Curriculum, all pupils aged five to 14 are required to study geography.

  Pupils are taught geographical enquiry skills, leading to the development of knowledge and understanding of places, patterns and processes, both in the UK and the wider world. They develop an understanding of maps, atlases and globes and how to use them effectively.

  Graduate Incomes
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the total taxation paid over the average working life of(a) graduates and (b) non-graduates. [82774]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer reply 25 November 2002]: Using earnings data from the Labour Force Survey over the four quarters autumn 2000 to summer 2001, we estimate that graduates whose highest qualification is a first degree could pay on average around £200,000 in income tax over a working life. This figure relates to Great Britain. The equivalent figure for graduates and non-graduates, collectively, is around £120,000. Lifetime income taxation for only non-graduates would be significantly lower than this figure.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the average income of graduates over their working lives 726W
  compared to the average income this same group would have earned had they not obtained a higher education qualification. [82776]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer reply 25 November 2002]: The information requested is not available.

  Numerous academic studies have attempted to estimate the average percentage increase in hourly or weekly earnings attributable to having various higher education qualifications. These studies control for a range of factors that affect earnings, other than having a HE qualification— such as age, gender, prior educational attainment—although they do vary in the extent to which other influential factors are taken into account. The studies do not tell us exactly what a particular graduate would have earned had they not have obtained a higher education qualification. We can only observe one reality for any individual— i.e. their actual earnings given that they did get a HE qualification. However, they do provide the closest estimates that we can get of the earnings they could have had.

  There is, unsurprisingly, some variation in the results of these studies, indicating that the increase in earnings from having a first degree compared to two or more A-levels is in the range of around 20–30 per cent.

  Graduates
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the results of cost-benefit studies undertaken by his Department in the last five years which show the value of its graduate labour force. [83894]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The cost-benefit studies we have undertaken relate to the private and social rates of return to a degree. Private rates of return compare the costs and benefits of higher education to individuals, including their contribution towards course costs and post-tax earnings benefits. Social rates of return include these private costs and benefits, but also take into account the costs and benefits to society as a whole. Social rates of return estimate the value to the economy of investment in higher education by, broadly, expressing the net increase in national output relative to the resource cost of the higher education courses. The increase in national output is proxied by the difference in graduates' pre-tax earnings compared to those with only two or more A levels, after taking into account non-wage labour costs, which also reflect the value associated with employing a graduate.

  The table provides the results of the studies undertaken in the last five or so years. They show that social rates of return have held up, with current estimates around 8–10 per cent.

  Private rates of return to a first degree are higher than social rates. This is primarily because individuals contribute only partially to the costs, but also because social rates are likely to be under-estimates because they exclude social benefits that are difficult to quantify in financial terms, such as health benefits, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality and reduced crime.
  727W

  Private and social rates of return to a first degree

  Percentage

  Current estimates: social

  Dearing estimates: social

  Dearing estimates: private

  Entrants aged 18

  Men and women

  9–11

  1—

  1—

  Men

  8–10

  7–9

  11–13

  Women

  10–12

  1–

  1–

  Entrants all ages

  Men and women

  8–10

  7–9

  11–14

  Men

  6–8

  6–8

  9–11

  Women

  9–12

  8–10

  14–17

  1Not estimated

  Notes:

  1. Dearing estimates are based on General Household Survey data for 1989–1995.

  2. Current estimates are based on Labour Force Survey data for 1998.

  3. The lower figures in each cell assume that only 60 per cent, of the difference in graduate and A level earnings is specifically attributable to having a degree, and the higher figures assume 80 per cent.— the remaining proportion assumed to be attributable to other factors, such as innate ability.

  Higher Education Entrants
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children whose fathers are coal miners or former coal miners entered higher education in each year since 1997; and how this compares with the national average. [82249]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information, showing participation by young people in higher education for each of the standard social class categories, is shown in the following table. Participation rates for individual occupations within these categories are not held centrally. There was an increase in entrant numbers in 1997 related partly to the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998 before the entry rates started to increase again in 1999.

  The Government is committed to raising the participation rates for people from less affluent family backgrounds, and has introduced Excellence Challenge, including the AimHigher campaign, which is targeted at raising attainment and aspirations among young people who traditionally would not consider going to university.

  Age Participation Index (API)1 by social class Great Britain

  Per cen.t entering HE in academic year beginning Social class

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  I Professional

  79

  72

  73

  76

  II Intermediate

  48

  45

  45

  48

  IIIN Skilled non manual

  31

  29

  30

  33

  HIM Skilled Manual

  19

  18

  18

  19

  IV Partly skilled

  18

  17

  17

  19

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  City of London

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Camden

  12

  2

  21

  8

  17

  13

  Greenwich

  31

  22

  52

  9

  16

  14

  Hackney

  51

  9

  38

  30

  47

  22

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  35

  12

  15

  8

  14

  8

  Islington

  27

  15

  10

  3

  20

  11

  Kensington and Chelsea

  17

  3

  3

  6

  3

  2

  Lambeth

  6

  6

  46

  12

  36

  12

  728W

  Age Participation Index (API) 1 by social class Great Britain

  Per cen.t entering HE in academic year beginning Social class

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  V Unskilled

  14

  13

  13

  14

  I—IIIN

  48

  45

  45

  48

  HIM—V

  18

  17

  17

  18

  All classes

  33

  31

  32

  33

  1The API is defined as the number of GB domiciled initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate HEaged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19 year olds in the population.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Derek Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many units there are to deal with excluded pupils aged under 11 in(a) Kent, (b) East Kent education division, (c) Sittingbourne and (d) Sheppey; and if he will make a statement. [85000]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Currently, in Kent there is one Dedicated Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) for Key Stage 1 and 2, and five others with provision for Key Stage 1 and 2. These include 1 PRU in East Kent with provision for Key Stages 1 and 2. There are no PRUs with such provision in either Sittingbourne or Sheppey.

  The Department is aware of the challenging circumstances in East Kent, and is liaising closely with the Authority to ensure that every excluded child receives an education. Kent has indicated to the Department that every permanently excluded child is currently receiving a suitable, full time education.

  School Federations
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many expressions of interest in forming school federations have been received by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [84230]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: We have received 42 expressions of interest to date. Federations have been discussed at a series of conferences across England running from October to December 2002, to which all secondary heads have been invited. The response from these conferences has been very positive.

  Teaching Vacancies
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching vacancies there were in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each of the past five years in each London borough. [84120]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The table shows the numbers of vacancies1 in maintained schools in London as at January of each year.
  729W

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Lewisham

  31

  18

  21

  8

  18

  20

  Southwark

  54

  6

  47

  14

  42

  30

  Tower Hamlets

  52

  13

  80

  12

  71

  26

  Wandsworth

  29

  5

  17

  12

  13

  10

  City of Westminster

  13

  4

  14

  11

  15

  14

  Barking and Dagenham

  10

  7

  12

  3

  8

  9

  Barnet

  8

  14

  11

  21

  29

  20

  Bexley

  1

  5

  0

  7

  13

  16

  Brent

  20

  8

  13

  17

  5

  5

  Bromley

  11

  4

  6

  7

  9

  3

  Croydon

  8

  5

  25

  11

  8

  28

  Ealing

  17

  30

  32

  22

  14

  18

  Enfield

  11

  6

  19

  9

  13

  15

  Haringey

  20

  10

  20

  13

  19

  14

  Harrow

  9

  2

  12

  5

  24

  14

  Havering

  0

  15

  3

  10

  1

  17

  Hillingdon

  15

  13

  8

  19

  9

  14

  Hounslow

  8

  14

  5

  10

  3

  5

  Kingston upon Thames

  5

  1

  6

  3

  1

  7

  Merton

  7

  0

  5

  6

  3

  13

  Newham

  61

  21

  34

  3

  40

  14

  Redbridge

  7

  10

  7

  7

  6

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  2

  1

  2

  2

  3

  12

  Sutton

  4

  5

  2

  5

  0

  1

  Waltham Forest

  43

  4

  2

  5

  0

  4

  2001

  2002

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  30

  27

  13

  16

  Greenwich

  22

  39

  23

  36

  Hackney

  51

  45

  21

  38

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  15

  28

  37

  44

  Islington

  38

  13

  17

  20

  Kensington and Chelsea

  19

  16

  2

  5

  Lambeth

  35

  10

  32

  19

  Lewisham

  33

  35

  36

  23

  Southwark

  62

  33

  13

  8

  Tower Hamlets

  96

  55

  66

  13

  Wandsworth

  22

  25

  18

  24

  City of Westminster

  35

  12

  10

  15

  Barking and Dagenham

  13

  10

  0

  5

  Barnet

  55

  41

  26

  15

  Bexley

  35

  47

  5

  42

  Brent

  8

  15

  21

  27

  Bromley

  26

  35

  10

  19

  Croydon

  29

  46

  13

  28

  Ealing

  13

  53

  21

  19

  Enfield

  29

  33

  27

  33

  Haringey

  22

  19

  30

  26

  Harrow

  32

  24

  29

  23

  Havering

  0

  38

  6

  10

  Hillingdon

  16

  30

  27

  24

  Hounslow

  4

  14

  19

  52

  Kingston upon Thames

  9

  12

  3

  12

  Merton

  2

  11

  7

  6

  Newham

  52

  49

  26

  16

  Redbridge

  9

  31

  4

  6

  Richmond upon Thames

  9

  18

  6

  19

  Sutton

  0

  10

  4

  15

  Waltham Forest

  0

  7

  24

  17

  1 Advertised vacancies for full-time permanent appointments (or appointments of at least one term). Includes vacancies filled on a temporary basis for less than one term.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the cross-subsidy effect top-up fees for higher education would have between high cost degree courses and lower cost degree courses. [84143]
  730W
  Margaret Hodge
  We have announced our intention to publish in January a strategy document setting out our vision for the development and reform of higher education, including the outcome of the review of student support. It would not be right to say now exactly what options we are considering or what analyses we have undertaken.

  University Merger (London)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 96W, whether (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department were consulted about the proposal to merge Imperial College and University College, London. [84469]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Neither Ministers nor officials were consulted. The Provost of University College and the Rector of Imperial College sent me a letter on the day they announced their proposals, informing me of their plans.

WALES

  Business Start-ups
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with colleagues in the National Assembly of Wales on new business start-ups. [81009]

  Peter Hain
  I regularly meet with colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales and discuss a range of issues including new business start-ups.

  Figures from the Welsh Development Agency show that initiatives launched by the National Assembly for Wales are already producing increases in business start ups in Wales. In the first half of the year more than 2,000 new businesses have been created in Wales with WDA assistance, an increase of over 60 per cent, compared with the same period last year. The new lending body "Finance Wales" has already injected £17.8 million into 72 new or expanding companies, and 2002–03 is a record year for RSA offers in Wales. It should bring in £623 million investment from 270 projects and create or safeguard 13,100 jobs.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit Brussels and Strasbourg in an official capacity. [82379]

  Peter Hain
  On present plans, I shall be attending the Convention on the Future of Europe Working Group on External Relations in Brussels on 3–4 December. Subject to my commitments as Secretary of State for Wales, I will attend the plenary sessions of the convention, which are expected to be held twice a month in Brussels until the convention ends in June.

  During these visits to Brussels, I also intend to take every advantage of opportunities to pursue Welsh business.

  I have no plans to visit Strasbourg at present.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  25 Plus New Deal
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants have 732W
  participated on the 25 Plus New Deal on (a) more than one, (b) more than two and (c) more than three occasions. [84499]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: At September 2002, 534,600 people had started on the New Deal 25 plus (402,340 individuals). Of these 102,820 clients (26 per cent, of all individual starters) have entered the programme more than once, 25,830 (6 per cent, of all individual starters) have entered the programme more than twice and 3,500 (1 per cent, of all individual starters) have entered the programme more than three times.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Departmental Training Weekends
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in his Department have taken part in training weekends in the past 12 months; and at what cost(a) in total and (b) per person on average. [85120]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Funerals
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will remove parochial fees from his Department's funeral fund payments and treat the fees for a religious service in line with other disbursements; [83239]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the range of parochial fees charged for funerals. [83696]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are committed to providing a payment for a respectful funeral to people receiving income-related benefits or tax credits who have good reason for organising the funeral.

  Social Fund funeral payments cover in full the cost of certain necessary, specified charges including fees levied by burial authorities and crematoria. Not everyone wishes to use, or is required to pay for, the services of a minister of religion or other religious fees. However, up to £600 is allowed for other funeral expenses, which gives the person arranging the funeral the freedom to select the items or services they consider appropriate. On 27 November, we announced that from next April this amount will rise to £700.

  The Department does not hold information on the range of parochial fees charged for funerals and we have no plans to include fees for a religious service among the charges specified in regulations. However, we will continue to keep the level of support provided for funeral costs under review.

  New Deal
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to improve the effectiveness of the New Deal for Young People in areas with the lowest success rates. [80540]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The New Deal has helped over 380,000 young people move into work throughout the country.
  733W
  We are building on the programme's success, focusing more help on the most disadvantaged unemployed people in the most deprived areas of the country. We are, for example: introducing StepUP pilots in 20 deprived areas to provide transitional jobs for people who remain unemployed after the New Deal; starting to roll out the second phase of progress2work, providing recovering drug misusers with the extra help they need to move into work; running the Minority Ethnic Outreach programme in wards within five areas to strengthen the support available to jobless people from minority ethnic communities; and starting pilots in nine areas giving extra support for other disadvantaged groups such as ex-offenders, alcohol misusers and homeless people.

  In addition, Action Teams for Jobs and Employment Zones are operating in areas with persistently high levels of unemployment, and have so far helped nearly 78,000 people into work. We are currently developing proposals to extend Employment Zone help to other client groups including New Deal returners.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what research his Department has undertaken into the sustainability of employment under the New Deal; and if he will place it in the Library; [84437]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the sustainability of employment under the New Deal. [84438]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The New Deals have already helped nearly three-quarters of a million people move into work, the vast majority of whom have entered sustained jobs. For example, up to September 2002, nearly 80 per cent, of people moving into work through the New Deal for Young People and the New Deal 25 plus entered sustained jobs.

  We have in place a wide-ranging programme of evaluation of the New Deals. This evaluation examines the benefits that the New Deals are providing, including the sustainability of employment. Evaluation reports are placed are placed in the Library as they are published.

  Information on the number of people moving into sustained jobs through the New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus are published quarterly in the Statistical First Release. These are also placed in the Library as they are published.

  New Deal for Lone Parents
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2002, refence 83513, on the New Deal for Lone Parents, (1) how many of the 152,230 lone parents referred to had previously entered the New Deal gateway(a) once, (b) twice and (c) three times or more; [84442]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2002, reference 83513, on the New Deal for Lone Parents, how many lone parents have found work on the New Deal for Lone Parents, disregarding lone parents who had entered the New Deal gateway on a previous occasion. [84443]
  734W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The figure of 152,230 provided in my previous answer is the number of individual lone parents who had found work through the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) by the end of June 2002. 28,310 of these lone parents (18.6 per cent, of those who have found a job) had been on NDLP twice, and 5,550 (3.6 per cent, of those who have found a job) had been on NDLP three or more times. Some of these lone parents have used the programme successfully on a previous occasion, as the total number of jobs obtained through NDLP by June 2002 was 172,460.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out the timetable for the advertising campaign for the Post Office Card Account applications; and if he will make a statement. [83651]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Department for Work and Pensions will be converting people to direct payment over a two-year period, with the first payments going into accounts in April 2003. An information campaign will support the conversion.

  Informing people about the availability of the Post Office card account is part of this campaign rather than a separate advertising initiative. We need to ensure that people are aware of the range of options open to them, and in a position to choose what is appropriate and convenient for them. Our information campaign will take customers through the changes, including getting their money from their account at the Post Office and the availability of the Post Office card account.

  There will be two main elements to our campaign. Customers will be supplied directly with information, which clearly sets out their "account options" and enables them to decide which account is right for them. Customers do not need to take any action until they receive a letter about the change. Until then they can keep their order book or giro.

  In addition, we plan to make more general information available and also undertake some advertising. This activity will be timed to coincide with the build up of the number of people transferring to direct payment into accounts. Again, this activity will include reference to all of the "account options" including the Post Office card account.

  The Government and Post Office Limited are working together to ensure that front-line Post Office staff have all the information they need to answer any questions from customers about banking facilities in Post Office branches.

  The first invitation letters asking for account details started to go out to some Child Benefit customers at the end of October, other customers will be contacted in due course. The Veterans Agency started writing to its customers in early October.

  The Post Office plan to have their card account service available from April 2003. The banks' own basic bank accounts are scheduled to become available through Post Office branches at the same time.
  735W
  Since many people will rely on the card account to collect their benefit, pension or tax credit, it is essential that the systems supporting the card account are reliable and robust. The Post Office are carrying out extensive testing of systems, and also intend to undertake some piloting work in advance of April 2003.

  In line with good practice, and in order to minimise risk, the intention is gradually to build up (starting from April 2003) the number of benefit customers and pensioners that we pay through the Post Office card account. As the system proves itself in live running, we will increase the number of people paid through the card account. And, at an appropriate time, those new tax credit customers who have asked for a Post Office card account will start to have their payment made in this way. In the intervening period, Tax Credit customers opting for a card account will be paid by giro and DWP customers by order book or giro as appropriate.

  Rehabilitation Services
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to improve vocational rehabilitation services; and if he will make a statement. [83855]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Improved vocational rehabilitation services are key to our strategy for enabling people with health problems and disabilities to move into employment, and so become and remain independent.

  Jobcentre Plus, in partnership with the NHS, has already tested work-focused rehabilitation programmes in Salford and Bristol. The programmes provided integrated support to enable people with chronic back pain to return to work. Trials finished in 2001, with many participants finding work as a result.

  Building on this partnership approach, our new Green Paper "Pathways to Work— Helping people into employment", published on 18 November, proposes the establishment of groundbreaking rehabilitation programmes. These will be piloted in six areas across the country starting from late 2003, combining support to find jobs with health-focused rehabilitation.

  The programmes will be complementary to any clinical care already being provided by primary care and community services in pilot areas. Their key focus will be to help those with conditions such as depression, back pain and heart disease understand the impact that their condition has and increase their confidence to work or train and lead as normal a life as possible.

  In addition, the Job Retention and Rehabilitation Pilot Project, a joint initiative with the Department of Health, is currently exploring ways in which we can support people faced with losing their employment through prolonged sickness or disability. The pilot will run from early 2003 to 2005, and will aim to provide robust evidence about the relative impact of three intervention strategies (boosting healthp are, boosting workplace support and a combined approach) in helping people to return to work.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money has been spent on staff training in his Department in the past 12 months; and how many staff took part. [85121]

  Mr. McCartney
  During the 12 month period ending March 2002, the most recent year for which these data are available, the Department spent £97.3 million on staff training and development. This equates to an average of just under £800 for each of the approximately 123,000 staff in the Department.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Websites
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what Government Departments have bought into the new design for departmental websites. [85065]

  Mr. Alexander
  There is no single design for departmental websites. "The Guidelines for UK Government Websites", published in June this year, set out the standards for Government Departments to follow. This document includes 10 design guidelines, ranging from content, usability and delivering services for the citizen.

  Genetic Modification (Scientific Panel)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the membership of the scientific panel established by the Strategy Unit to consider the issue of genetic modification is; and which members have undertaken work for the biotechnology industry. [84726]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Strategy Unit is not responsible for the appointment of the scientific panel that has been asked to consider the science of genetic modification. This is being handled by the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the last census of the Afghan population was; and what discussions are taking place on the question of a new one. [84202]

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

  The most recent estimate of the Afghan population by the World bank in 2001 was 26.6 million with a further 2.2 million refugees in Pakistan and 1.5 million in Iran.

  There has not been a census in Afghanistan since 1963. The UN began work on one in October but it is likely to take five years to complete.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps are being taken to register Afghan adults so as to ensure universal suffrage in future elections. [84203]
  737W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is currently no electoral register of Afghan adults. We are considering ways in which we can work with the UN to assist the Afghan Transitional Administration to prepare for the elections, due in mid-2004.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts (Fines)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many fine defaulters were imprisoned by Inner London magistrates courts in each of the past three years. [83809]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of fine defaulters imprisoned by Inner London magistrates courts was 99 in 1999; 58 in 2000; and 42 in 2001.

  Wasted Costs
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what powers courts have to make a 'wasted costs' order. [82468]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 enables the court, in criminal proceedings, to disallow or order the legal or other representative to meet the whole or any part of the 'wasted costs' incurred by a party as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any representative or his employee.

  In civil proceedings, an equivalent power rests in Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 which provides that the costs of proceedings are in the discretion of the court, subject to any enactment, or rules of court. Rule 44.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides the court with the power to make an order for 'wasted' costs against the party or his legal representative where they have failed to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order or where their conduct at any point in proceedings was unreasonable or improper.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the funding for conducting fair employment cases through the tribunal system will be introduced. [84130]

  Mr. Browne
  The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has powers to provide assistance 1998 to complainants under the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order. Similar powers for the Equality Commission to provide assistance exist in the sex discrimination, race relations and disability legislation. Decisions on whether to assist a particular case are a matter for the Equality Commission.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have approached the Fair Employment Commission in each of the last five years; how many cases were taken on by the Fair Employment Commission in each year; how much compensation was paid out by the Fair Employment Commission in each year; how much money was invested in the construction of the new Fair Employment Commission headquarters; and what assessment he has made of whether the Fair Employment Commission has sufficient funding to fulfil its obligations in the current year. [84450]

  Mr. Browne
  The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland was established on 1 October 1999. It assumed the functions of the former Fair Employment Commission, Equal Opportunities Commission, Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Disability Council. It also has additional functions in relation to disability discrimination and the duties on public authorities under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act.

  The following table provides the number of inquiries made on Fair Employment issues and the number of cases supported by the Fair Employment Commission/ Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

  Inquiries on Fair Employment issues and Cases Supported by the Fair Employment Commission and Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

  Year

  Inquiries

  Cases supported

  1998–99 (FEC)

  1,813

  144

  1999–2000 (FEC and ECNI)

  1,296

  123

  2000–01 (ECNI)

  1,106

  142

  2001–02 (ECNI)

  901

  289

  2002–03(ECNI)

  304

  213

  1 For the period up to end November 2002.

  2 Applications for legal support across all grounds, received between April and July 2002, were not processed pending the development of a revised Legal Enforcement Policy and Assistance Strategy. These cases are now being processed by ECNI.

  Neither the Equality Commission, nor its predecessor, the Fair Employment Commission, is empowered to pay compensation and therefore none was paid. The Equality Commission is a tenant in Equality House. The building is rented under a 10-year
  740W
  lease agreement. The interior fit out of the building cost £1,570,701.98 (excluding VAT) and this cost is rentalised to the Commission over a 10-year period. The Equality Commission's budget for the current financial year was £6.7 million. Resourcing the Commission is kept under review and it has recently been awarded an increase of £113,000 for new activities.

  Fire Service
  Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on how the employers' side of the negotiating machinery for the Fire Service of Northern Ireland (a) is mandated and (b) formulates its negotiating positions at the time of pay and service conditions bargaining. [84474]
  Mr. Browne
  The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland appoints two members to represent it on the National Joint Council (NJC) for local authorities' fire brigades. They take their mandate from the authority, and are subject to reappointment annually.

  The authority formulates its negotiating positions in consultation with the NJC employers' side, which also includes representatives of the fire authorities in England, Scotland, and Wales.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the additional sum which would be required in Northern Ireland to satisfy the pay increase demands of firefighters in the province. [83710]

  Mr. Browne
  To meet the Fire Brigades Union demand for a 40 per cent, rise in pay for firefighters would result in a £14 million increase in the annual pay bill and an immediate increase in pension liability of £40 million for the Fire Service in Northern Ireland.

  Irish Fertiliser Industries
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have taken place between Government departments and the owners of the IFI/ Richardsons Plant in Belfast over the announcement of the plant's closure. [84387]

  Mr. Pearson
  The owners of Irish Fertiliser Industries are ICI and the Irish Government. Since the announcement of the company's closure on 15 October I have exchanged correspondence with Mary Harney TD, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in the Republic of Ireland, and with the Chief Executive of ICI. I also met the ICI Chief Executive and an official representative of the Irish Government in London on 28 November. My objective throughout these contacts has been to stress the need to treat the Belfast employees fairly.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations have been made by the Government to the Government of the Irish Republic in respect of its involvement in the decision to close the IFF Richardsons Plant in Belfast. [84386]
  741W
  Mr. Pearson
  The decision to close Irish Fertiliser Industries was taken by the Irish Government and ICI, the owners of the company. Since the closure announcement on 15 October, I have written to Mary Harney TD, Irish Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, stressing the importance of treating the employees in a fair and equitable manner. I have also met with an official representative of the Irish Government, along with the Chief Executive of ICI, and discussed my concerns with them in detail

  Princess Victoria
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals the Northern Ireland Office has to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the sinking of the Princess Victoria off the coast of County Antrim. [85032]

  Angela Smith
  The Department for Regional Development has agreed outline arrangements for a small commemorative event at Donaghadee Harbour where survivors were landed by the local lifeboat. Ards borough council will erect a memorial plaque adjacent to the RNLI berth and the Department plans to erect a flagpole resembling the foremast of the MV Princess Victoria. These events will complement local church services, the laying of wreaths at sea by the Donaghadee and Campbeltown lifeboats and a commemorative event planned by Lame borough council, Larne being the port to which the MV Princess Victoria was steaming when she sank.

  Social Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many of the new social housing units projected for this financial year have been constructed; and when the rest will be constructed; [80584]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the new build social housing programme for 2002–03. [80583]

  Mr. Browne
  Given that both questions relate to the new build social housing programme, I shall answer them together.

  For the current year, my Department has a programme for Government commitment to fund housing associations to start 1,400 new social houses. However, that target has now been revised to 1,200. The 200 houses that have been deferred will start in the first quarter of the next financial year.

  To date, 266 new homes have started on site. The remaining 934 will start between now and 31 March 2003. The reduction in the number of starts this year can be attributed to:
  the need to allocate additional funding to other housing activity, for example, the Northern Ireland co-ownership scheme which is attracting a higher number of applicants than anticipated;
  the planning moratorium that was in place earlier in the year which has delayed several schemes;
  difficulties in acquiring sites and delays in processing planning applications; and
  trouble at interface areas in Belfast which has had an adverse affect on previously agreed start dates
  742W
  New procedures, to be introduced for 2003–04, will help address some of these problems enabling targets for future programmes to be met.

  Suicides
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the suicide rate in north and west Belfast. [85033]

  Mr. Browne
  I am concerned at the number of suicides in North and West Belfast. The North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust has developed a strategy for positive mental health promotion and suicide prevention which was launched in 1999. The Trust has appointed a suicide awareness co-ordinator who is working with a wide range of community and statutory agencies to provide information, training and support. In addition the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be issuing a mental health promotion strategy and action plan early in the New Year which will include a separate section on suicide prevention.

  Vacant Properties
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to prevent vacant properties in Northern Ireland falling into decay and dereliction. [84998]

  Mr. Browne
  The existence of empty property can be symptomatic of an underlying and complex interaction of wider social problems, including urban and rural decay, unemployment, crime and vandalism, anti-social behaviour etc. Solutions, therefore, are not just about good housing management, but require more complex strategies and inter-agency initiatives. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive, as the comprehensive regional housing authority for Northern Ireland, has put in place a number of measures to address the problem of empty homes in the public and private sectors throughout the province.

  Local strategies have already been implemented to address the range of problems occurring in difficult to let areas. The Housing Executive's existing action plan has been progressed as follows:
  Estate strategies involving improvement, sale and/or selective demolition have been put in place for numerous estates (currently 1,500 public sector properties are scheduled for demolition)
  The general over-supply problems of the 'new towns' growth centres (Craigavon, Antrim, Ballymena) have been systematically addressed and improved although further work is required
  Demolition and environmental improvement works at interfaces where feasible
  Urban renewal programmes in private areas involving improvement, replacement or a combination
  Grant aid including group repair schemes in some private areas exhibiting signs of decline
  Marketing, community safety and anti-blight measures in public sector estates including use of alarm systems, the appointment of neighbourhood wardens and other security measures

  743W
  Improvement or demolition of unpopular, non-traditional housing including decapitation (partial demolition); privatisation and more intensive management eg concierge
  The emergence of a number of locations as existing or potential over-supply areas have been under investigation and individual estate strategies have been and are being brought forward

  In addition, legislation is proposed that will provide for the introduction of a shorthold tenancy, to be managed by the housing associations. This is designed to allow vacant properties to be let for short periods where owners are reluctant to let for longer terms.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of empty dwellings in Northern Ireland(a) in Belfast, (b) in Derry and (c) outside Belfast and Derry, broken down by (i) county and (ii) district council areas. [84999]

  Mr. Browne
  Figures from the Northern Ireland House Condition Survey 2001 are currently being validated and will be published by the Northern Ireland housing executive early in 2003. The survey will provide up-to-date figures on the number of empty dwellings in Northern Ireland across all tenures.

  In relation to the housing executive's own stock the following table sets out the position at August 2002. The figures include properties vested for demolition in urban renewal areas.

  District council area

  Long term1

  Pending demolition2

  Belfast

  379

  1,257

  North Down

  5

  74

  Ards

  3

  41

  Castlereagh

  14

  51

  Lisburn

  0

  45

  Down

  0

  1

  Banbridge

  4

  14

  Newry and Mourne

  24

  58

  Armagh

  46

  12

  Craigavon

  194

  144

  Dungannon

  105

  4

  Fermanagh

  14

  0

  Ballymena

  47

  127

  Treatment modality

  2001 figures (weeks)

  Local 2002 targets (weeks)

  NTA 2002–03 target (weeks)

  NTA 2003–04 target (weeks)

  In-patient detoxification

  12

  7.1

  4

  2

  Specialist prescribing

  14.1

  7.5

  6

  3

  GP prescribing

  5.7

  4.3

  4

  2

  Day care

  6

  3.9

  4

  3

  Residential rehabilitation

  9.1

  6.3

  4

  3

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many state-funded places are available for heroin users on(a) methadone programmes and (b) programmes aimed at overcoming heroin addiction that do not involve the prescription of methadone. [83859]

  Ms Blears
  Up to March 2001, the number of drug users in treatment with drug misuse agencies and general practitioners (GPs) was around 118,500. The majority of those entering treatment are heroin users. Over the two-year period from 1998–99 to 2000–01 there has been a 16 per cent, increase in the numbers of drug users accessing drug treatment services.
  744W

  District council area

  Long term1

  Pending demolition2

  Antrim

  0

  20

  Newtownabbey

  42

  79

  Carrick

  28

  136

  Larne

  135

  92

  Moyle

  1

  5

  Ballymoney

  0

  0

  Coleraine

  85

  93

  Derry

  16

  7

  Limavady

  0

  0

  Magherafelt

  17

  0

  Strabane

  21

  2

  Omagh

  123

  3

  Cookstown

  19

  0

  Total

  1,322

  2,265

  1Long term voids are dwellings which are difficult to let due to lack of demand.

  Included within this category are dwellings which have been secured to prevent vandalism and properties that have been fire damaged.

  2Voids pending demolition are properties located in redevelopment areas or purpose built stock which have received housing executive board approval to be demolished.

HEALTH

  Drug Addiction Programmes
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated on average waiting times for admission to(a) state-supported methadone programmes and (b) state-supported programmes aimed at overcoming heroin addiction that do not involve the prescription of methadone. [83858]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not available in the format requested. The table below provides waiting time figures collected by the national treatment agency in December 2001, along with locally agreed targets for 2002 and the national targets for 2002–03 and 2003–04. The specialist prescribing and general practitioner prescribing treatment modalities below include methadone programmes, and the other figures (with the exception of inpatient detoxification) include non-methadone treatments.

  The specialist prescribing and GP prescribing treatment modalities in the following table include places in methadone programmes, and the other figures (with the exception of in-patient detoxification) include non-methadone treatments.

  Treatment modality

  Number in treatment

  Percentage in treatment

  In-patient detoxification

  2,424

  2

  Specialist prescribing

  103,094

  87

  GP prescribing

  8,180

  7

  Day care

  706

  1

  Residential rehabilitation

  1,902

  2

  745W

  Dentistry
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to review the scale of payment made to dentists undertaking NHS work. [82631]

  Mr. Lammy
  Dentists fees are reviewed annually by the independent Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body on remuneration, who consider evidence submitted by the Government and representatives of the profession. Officials from my Department are working closely with the profession to see how changes can be made to dentists' remuneration to improve the service for patients and the dental team.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of adults are registered with an NHS dentist. [82633]

  Mr. Lammy
  44 per cent, of adults were registered with a General Dental Service (GDS) dentist in England at 30 September 2002, and this rate has remained stable since 1998. Those patients who do not wish to, or are unable to register may be seen on the NHS under occasional treatment arrangements.

  Patients wishing to be treated under the NHS should be able to obtain details of dentists accepting new patients for registration in their area by contacting NHS Direct.

  IT Systems
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on integration of the information technology system in the NHS. [82632]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS is preparing to implement the "Integrated Care Records Service", this will bring together all the health information of a single patient into one record. The record will be computer based and accessible from any point in the NHS.

  Prisoners (Health)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of health provision, with particular reference to mental health, for inmates of HMP Eastwood Park. [82634]

  Jacqui Smith
  Eastwood Park has worked with its local NHS partners to complete a full health needs assessment, including the mental health needs, for its inmates. Eastwood Park was also among the first prisons to join the NHS-funded prison mental health in-reach project in July 2001, providing services within the prison setting.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on borrowing mechanisms for foundation hospitals. [82635]

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the prospectus for Foundation Hospital status bids. [82645]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) earlier today.

  Primary Care
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to consult patients' representatives on the delivery of primary care. [82636]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patient Advocacy and Liaison services and Patients Forums will be established in every PCT to enable patients and the public to contribute to the design, development and delivery of primary care services.

  The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, to be established next year, will promote public involvement in community decision making processes.

  Palliative Care
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the provision of palliative care is a core service. [82637]

  Ms Blears
  The principles of palliative care—holistic, patient-centred care— apply across all conditions and in all settings. Increasingly palliative care is being seen as an integral part of care and we are committed to delivering our pledge in the NHS Cancer Plan to increase support for specialist palliative care by £50 million by 2004.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the extra money allocated to primary care trusts for palliative care will be ringfenced. [84095]

  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health has made available an extra £10 million from central budgets for specialist palliative care for 2002–2003. This money has been allocated for primary care trusts (PCTs). It has been allocated to PCTs with clear instructions that it must be spent on specialist palliative care and that its use should be in line with local strategic plans and agreed by all relevant local partners.

  To make sure this extra money is deployed appropriately, strategic health authorities have been asked to ensure joint National Health service and voluntary sector agreement to its use and to provide investment and out-turn reports showing how it has been spent.

  Children's Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase financial support for services for children with mental health problems and their families. [82638]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 16 October the Secretary of State for Health announced that mental health services for children would receive an additional investment of £140 million over the next three years through grants to local authorities. Together with new national health service investment this will help deliver a comprehensive mental health service for children in every area by 2006

  Osteopaths
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the regulation governing the accreditation of osteopaths. [82639]
  747W
  Mr. Hutton
  I have no current plans to review the regulations governing the accreditation of osteopaths.

  Carson Report
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Carson report. [82640]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government have accepted the conclusions of the Carson Report on the provision of Out of Hours Services and is making progress on its implementation.

  There are now 34 integrated exemplar sites operating across England and covering some 10 million people. These are testing out the model recommended by the Carson Report. Some— such as those in Nottingham, Chesterfield and Folkestone are working exceptionally well. However, experience drawn from all the exemplars will inform future development.

  Prescriptions
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the establishment of NICE on the variations in prescription practice between different areas. [82641]

  Mr. Lammy
  The majority of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance so far is focused on clinical activity by hospital specialists. We do not hold the detailed information required to make a comprehensive assessment in these cases. However, the Institute has commissioned a team from York university to undertake a study to describe and explain the extent and variation of guidance implementation. The study will make recommendations for implementation strategies and is expected to report shortly.

  Dental Health
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to improve dental health in those areas where there is the greatest need for improvement. [82643]

  Mr. Lammy
  In this session of Parliament the Government propose to legislate for far-reaching reform of national health service dental services which will enable Primary Care Trusts to address local oral health needs and will give primary care dentists the opportunity to focus on prevention and health promotion as well as treatment.

  We are seeking to strengthen the evidence base on the fluoridation of water so that health communities wishing to consider this option for reducing dental decay may have fuller information on the effects of fluoride on health. We have also introduced the "Brushing for Life" scheme whereby Health Visitors provide oral health advice to mothers of infants and give them a pack containing a toothbrush and fluoride toothpaste to encourage the early establishment of good oral hygiene habits. The scheme is supported in areas with the highest rates of tooth decay in children.
  748W

  Mental Health Legislation
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the production, formulation and presentation of a new Mental Health Bill. [82644]

  Jacqui Smith
  A draft Mental Health Bill and consultation document was published on 25 June 2002. The consultation exercise closed on 16 September and we are currently considering almost 2,000 replies. We intend to introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Transplant Patients (Sheffield)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the future care of heart and lung transplant patients from the Sheffield area. [82646]

  Mr. Hutton
  I visisted the Northern General Hospital Cardio-Thoracic Unit on 20 June this year.

  I subsequently met the chair, chief executive and medical director of the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust on 11 September 2002. On both occasions I received representations on the future care of heart and lung transplant patients.

  I have also received three letters on this subject from hon. Members.

  PHLS Laboratories
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future funding of PHLS laboratories located in district hospitals. [82647]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) laboratories that are to be transferred to national health service trusts will be transferred with their current level of funding. The details of this funding are currently being discussed by the Department's Health Protection Agency project team with the key staff in the PHLS and the NHS trusts.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason the transfer of management of Public Health Laboratories has been excluded from his regulatory reform proposals. [84254]

  Ms Blears
  The consultation paper "Health Protection: A Consultation Document on creating a health protection agency" made proposals for changes to primary legislation. Responses showed widespread support for creating the agency, and we aim to establish it as a non-departmental public body from 1 April 2004, subject to legislative time being available. At that stage, we intend that it will take responsibility for functions currently performed by the National Radiological Protection Board.

  As an interim step towards this, we intend to establish a special health authority, also to be called the Health Protection Agency, from 1 April 2003. The intention is that this special health authority will be responsible for the functions proposed for the agency under the NHS Act.
  749W
  The transfer of laboratories from the Public Health Laboratory Service to the national health service does not require change to primary legislation. A discussion paper on the transfer process was published in June 2002, and the intention is to complete the transfers by the end of March 2003.

  Child Obesity
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to tackle child obesity. [82648]

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on measures to tackle obesity among young people. [82654]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are committed to tackling the rising trend in childhood obesity and we have put in place cross-Government programmes of work to improve eating habits and increase physical activity levels. As part of the national service framework for coronary heart disease, local programmes of effective policies on overweight and obesity are also in place.

  Care Services (York)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what steps his Department is taking to stimulate an increase in the number of nursing and residential care home beds and the availability of domiciliary care services in York. [82649]

  Jacqui Smith
  York was one of the 55 councils targeted for extra resources as part of the Building Care Capacity Grant. They are receiving nearly £1 million over the two years 2001–03, which they are spending on additional capacity in the independent care sector.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 23 July, we will be providing an extra £1 billion to councils over the next three years. These extra resources can be used to further stabilise the care home sector. It will also ensure that by 2005, there will be twice as many older people receiving the intensive help that they need to live at home than there were in 1995.

  Heart Disease
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he plans to do to prevent early deaths from heart disease in the areas where this is most common. [82650]

  Ms Blears
  The Government place a strong emphasis on reducing inequalities in health. The recently published planning and priorities framework set key targets for the national health service over the next three years. This document requires the NHS to 'contribute to a national reduction in death rates from coronary heart disease (CHD) of at least 25 per cent, in people under 75 by 2005 compared to 1995–97, targeting the 20 per cent. of areas with the highest rates of CHD'.

  A further target, which requires the establishment of practice-based registers to cover the majority of patients at high risk of CHD, will focus the actions of primary care on the prevention of CHD.
  750W
  The national service framework for CHD sets standards for the prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of CHD. This requires primary care trusts (PCTs) to set in place policies to reduce smoking, to promote healthy eating, to promote physical activity and to reduce overweight and obesity. It is through focusing on these areas that PCTS in areas with high rates of CHD will make progress in reducing premature deaths from CHD.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of smallpox vaccine. [82651]

  Mr. Hutton
  Yesterday I gave a written ministerial statement setting out how the national health service would respond to a potential smallpox terrorist attack.

  There are three components to the Department's preparation for response to a possible smallpox emergency: improved vaccine stocks, a plan of action setting out the steps to be taken in the event of an outbreak, and as a first step, immunising staff who could deal safely with any potential smallpox cases.

  Copies of the Department's smallpox plan have been placed in the Vote Office and will be placed in the Library.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy on the use of private health facilities by the NHS. [82652]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our policy is to promote greater plurality and diversity in the provision of national health service care, including the use of private and voluntary sector providers where they offer high clinical standards and value for money.

  Pulmonary Disease
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to reduce the number of deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. [82653]

  Ms Blears
  The major cause of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is smoking. That is why the Government have set up a comprehensive smoking cessation service. In the four-year period to 2003, we have allocated £73 million to the national health service to provide a national NHS smoking cessation service. Smoking cessation aids have also been made available on NHS prescription. Additionally an important element of the overall tobacco strategy is the health education programme to which some £55 million has been allocated in the period 1999–2000 to 2002–03.

  Officials are holding a meeting in the new year with the National Asthma Campaign, British Thoracic Society and the British Lung Foundation on 28 February to discuss respiratory illness in the national service framework (NSF) for older people, and the effect of general NSF principles including rehabilitation on COPD patients.
  751W
  Expert groups such as the British Thoracic Society have developed clinical guidelines for the treatment of COPD.

  Pulmonary rehabilitation is increasingly offered in COPD, particularly to older people, to help them achieve their highest level of function and independence. It has been shown to improve exercise capacity, and to reduce anxiety and depression.

  Acrylamide
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on acrylamide. [82655]

  Ms Blears
  Acrylamide has been found to occur in a wide range of home-cooked and processed foods including chips and crisps. It has not been found in uncooked or boiled foods, and appears to be formed during cooking by methods such as frying and baking.

  Acrylamide has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. However, this is not a new risk, as it is likely that we have been exposed to acrylamide in food for generations.

  The Food Standards Agency is commissioning research and surveillance to ascertain the reason for, and extent of, acrylamide formation, but in the meantime has advised that on the basis of current evidence people should eat a balanced diet including a variety of fruit and vegetables, and that as part of a balanced diet people should moderate their consumption of fried and fatty foods.

  Hospital Discharges
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review statutory guidance on hospital discharge to ensure that the needs of carers in paid employment are taken into account during discharge planning. [84233]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: In discharging people from hospital, account should be taken of the needs and personal circumstances of

  Project

  Hospital

  Number of patients

  Status

  Does EECP help patients with refractory angina?

  Hammersmith hospital

  15

  complete

  Does EECP help increase exercise capacity in heart failure?

  Hammersmith hospital

  20

  ongoing

  How does the efficacy of EECP for the relief of angina compare in patients whose angina is not controlled by usual medical therapy?

  Castle Hill hospital, Hull

  12

  complete

  No information is available about cost.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the amount of over-prescribing of antibiotics in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [84802]

  Ms Blears
  We have no direct evidence of over-prescribing of antibiotics in the National Health Service. Data from the prescription cost analysis system show that the number of prescriptions dispensed in the 752W
  carers, including any extra support needed by carers in paid employment. This will be emphasised in the forthcoming revision of the hospital discharge workbook.

  Care Homes (Insurance)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications for care home insurance liability of the postponement of criminal records bureau checks and the protection of vulnerable adults list. [84592]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: A criminal record disclosure forms one of many checks persons caring for vulnerable adults have in order to work with this client group. Measures are already in place to ensure the projection of vulnerable adults from abuse. Persons caring for vulnerable adults continue to be subject to rigorous pre-employment checks, including confirming previous employment history and taking up references, to ensure their suitability for the position in question. Therefore these postponements should not represent an increase in the insurance liability of care homes.

  Agency Nurses (West Sussex)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each primary care trust in West Sussex has spent this year on agency nursing staff. [83290]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Angina Treatments
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are being treated under the pilot schemes for enhanced external counterpulsation for angina; which hospitals are involved in the pilots; and what the cost is of a course of treatment. [83588]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: The national research register, a register containing details of research funded by, or of interest to, the National Health Service, has details of the following projects involving enhanced external counterpulsation.

  community in England was 23.3 per cent, lower in 2001 than in 1995, 37.9 million items compared to 49.4 million items.

  Our strategy to combat infectious disease Getting Ahead of the Curve identified antimicrobial resistance as a priority and a targeted action plan is being developed. This will build on existing initiatives to promote prudent prescribing of antibiotics.

  Birth Statistics (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many live births there were, broken
  753W
  down by ethnic groups, in hospitals in Buckinghamshire in (a) 2001, (b) 2000, (c) 1999, (d) 1998 and (e) 1997. [83335]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Cancer Care
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the money pledged for improved cancer care has been taken up by primary care trusts and hospital trusts. [83700]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not collect information on how much is spent on individual programmes. However, we know that all areas have invested in cancer services. The national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards, is working with chief executives of strategic health authorities to ensure that the money allocated for cancer services this year and next year gets through to cancer services and that Cancer Plan targets are met.

  We are devolving power from the centre to locally run services to allow the freedom to innovate and improve care for patients. The increased resources that we have made available and will continue to make available to support the implementation of the Cancer Plan will move to the National Health Service frontline. Primary care trusts will have freedom to decide where NHS resources are best spent, but they will need to account publicly for how they have used resources against the test of high clinical standards and good value for money.

  Cancer Treatment (Musgrove Hospital)
  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are on the waiting list for cancer treatment at Musgrove Hospital. [83385]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of patients waiting for cancer treatment is not collected centrally. Waiting list information is collected at consultant specialty level and it is, therefore, not possible to derive those patients waiting cancer treatment.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the NVQ level 4 registered managers award for care homes; and if he will make a statement. [83763]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: The Registered Managers (Adults) Level 4 National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) is a new award that is based on the national occupational standards for registered managers, adult residential, that were developed by Topss England last year. This NVQ was first offered in March 2002 and the candidates undertaking these courses will not yet have completed the award. It is therefore not possible to assess how effective the new award will be in the workplace at this stage.

  National occupational standards are reviewed on a five year rolling programme and any changes are then reflected in the associated NVQ. In the meantime, the reports done by National Care Standard Commission
  754W
  (NCSC) Inspectors should provide details of any improvements in the management of care homes and state whether a registered manager holds the new registered manager (adults) award.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the available capacity in the training sector to provide(a) care staff with NVQ level 2 and (b) registered managers with NVQ level 4, by 2005. [83764]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: We are aware that there is not a very strong National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) infrastructure within the care sector at present. This is why part of the £15 million in the training strategy implementation fund for 2002–03 is being used to support 11,500 line managers who are undertaking training to become NVQ assessors, verifiers and mentors. The fund is administered by Topss England, the former national training organisation for social care.

  In order to receive some of these funds, social care employers are invited to develop, either alone or in partnership, arrangements to support the establishment and development of work based assessment, verification and mentoring arrangements. This will both improve the quality of existing provision and increase the availability of appropriately qualified and experienced staff.

  Officials from my Department are also working with Department of Education and Skills and Topss England to reduce barriers to completion of NVQs and improve the quantityand quality of provision.

  Child Migrants
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been disbursed under the aegis of the Support Fund for the Welfare of Child Migrants; how many benefited from the fund; and what assistance is now given to child migrants. [84030]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government made available £1 million over three years, ending in 2002, for a support fund for travel and subsistence for former child migrants who wished to make first-time visits to the United Kingdom to be reunited with close family. By the end of October this year the Fund had helped 430 former child migrants. A further five may still be supported by it, depending on the state of their health.

  This Government continues to fund the work of the child migrants trust, which helps former child migrants trace their families and provides support for family reunions.

  Child Protection
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the Departments with which he has interdepartmental links regarding the protection of children from physical and sexual abuse; and when he has had meetings with each of these Departments since May 1997. [83349]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department works closely with all other Government Departments which have an interest in safeguarding children.
  755W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has had no meetings with ministerial colleagues specifically regarding the protection of children from physical and sexual abuse. I have policy responsibility for child protection and therefore attend interdepartmental meetings in this connection.

  Children in Care
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of young people leaving care in each year since 1993 were aged 16. [84024]

  Jacqui Smith
  The proportion of young people aged 16 leaving care in each year since 1993 is shown in the table.

  Number of young people who left care aged 16, since 1993— England

  Year ending 31 March

  Total number of leavers

  Number of leavers aged 16

  Percentage of leavers aged 16

  1993

  32,400

  3,000

  9

  1994

  33,100

  3,000

  9

  1995

  33,200

  3,400

  10

  1996

  32,400

  3,500

  11

  1997

  30,300

  3,400

  11

  1998

  29,000

  3,300

  11

  1999

  27,100

  2,900

  11

  2000

  26,800

  2,900

  11

  2001

  25,100

  2,400

  10

  Note:

  All numbers rounded to the nearest 100

  Source:

  DH Form SSDA903

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of responses to the consultation on the complaints procedure for children in care, "Listening to People". [84806]

  Jacqui Smith
  We will place in the Library copies of responses to the consultation document "Listening to People", except those where respondents requested that replies remain confidential, in the next few weeks.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young people left care in each of the past five years; and of those, how many left without having attained any GCSEs at A*-G grades. [84022]

  Jacqui Smith
  These data are only available from year ending 31 March 2000 onwards. The available information is set out in the table.

  Number of Children who ceased to be looked after during the years ending 31 March 2000 to 2002 by age and educational qualifications

  England

  Numbers

  2000

  2001

  2002

  All care leavers in the year (0 to 18 years)

  26,800

  25,100

  1—

  Care leavers aged 16 and over

  6,760

  6,560

  6,340

  of which: The number with no GCSE passes (A*-G)

  4,780

  4,200

  3,850

  1Indicates figure not available until March 2003

  All figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Above tables excludes all children looked after under agreed series of short term placements.

  Colorectal Cancer Screening
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce colorectal cancer screening. [84031]

  Ms Blears
  In a speech to the Britain Against Cancer Conference on 5 November 2002, my right hon. Friend, The Secretary of State for Health reaffirmed his commitment to introduce a national screening programme for colorectal cancer and to improve services for symptomatic patients. It will take several years to do this. The national cancer director will be working with all the relevant experts to determine the best way forward, and specifically to consider workforce, capacity and skills requirements for both screening and symptomatic services.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the guarantee of employment under Shifting the Balance of Power by a further 12 months for CHC staff; what his policy is on the terms of 'CHC Transition Issues: Human Resource Framework' issued by his Department in November 2001; and if he will make a statement on the TUPE rights of CHC staff. [84404]

  Mr. Lammy
  A 12-month guarantee of continued employment was given until 31 March 2003, for all staff, including Community Health Council staff, affected by Shifting the Balance of Power (StBOP) who were transferring to strategic health authorites (StHAs) on 1 April 2002. Over 20,000 staff were involved in StBOP reorganisation. Because of the numbers involved, a one years employment guarantee was given to enable a smooth transition. The 'CHC Transition Issues: Human Resource Framework was issued to cover only the transfer to the StHAs. It was not intended for any other purpose. We are currently working with the trade unions and other interested parties on a new human resources document to support CHC staff and managers affected by the abolition of CHCs.

  The commission for patient and public involvement in health is a non-departmental public body and is not part of the National Health Service. Its role will be very different to those of CHCs. As a result, the Government has received legal advice that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) would not apply.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the abolition date is for community health councils. [84444]

  Mr. Lammy
  Community Health Councils (CHCs) will be abolished once the new arrangements for patient and public involvement are functioning. We will make an announcement as soon as a date is set.

  Contraception
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his action to reduce the rate of conceptions among women under 18-years-old. [83164]
  757W
  Ms Blears
  The Social Exclusion Unit Teenage Pregnancy Report was published in June 1999. This set out the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy with the goal of reducing the under 18 conception rate by 50 per cent., by 2010. An interim reduction target of 15 per cent., by 2004 is set out in the Government Manifesto and NHS Plan. A second goal of the strategy is to increase to 60 per cent., by 2010 the participation of teenage parents in education, training or employment to reduce their long term risk of social exclusion.

  The strategy has a 30 point action plan. 26 of the action points have been completed with two action points, 11 and 20, due to be completed by the end of the financial year.

  Action point 13 is to deliver guidance on the circumstances in which different health professionals may prescribe, supply and administer contraceptives to under 16s. Further work is being undertaken to identify the extent and nature of confusion among health professionals to inform the need and content of further guidance.

  The target completion date for Action point 29 is 2003.

  There are encouraging early signs that the strategy is working. There has been a 6 per cent., reduction in the under 18 and under 16 conception rate from the baseline year of 1998 with latest data showing a reduction in the under 18 conception rate for the 12th successive quarter.

  However, considerable further work is needed to ensure that activity is sustained and monitored. Our response to the first annual report of the independent advisory group on teenage pregnancy was published in June 2002 and sets out a further programme of work to deliver our headline goals. Our commitment is further underlined by the inclusion of the under 18 reduction target in the public service agreements for both the Department and local government.

  Delayed Discharges
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of delayed discharges was in(a) North Yorkshire and (b) England on (i) 1 April 1997 and (ii) 1 April 2002. [82642]

  Jacqui Smith
  The delayed discharge rate for people aged 75 and over in North Yorkshire in the first quarter of 1997–98 was 3.9 per cent. In the last quarter of 2001–02, the rate was 8.5 per cent. The equivalent rates for England were 13.3 per cent., and 9.4 per cent., respectively, a reduction of 21 per cent., in the number of older people whose discharge was delayed.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in each(a) local authority, (b) primary care trust and (c) health authority in England will be required to implement the proposed fines for delayed discharge. [83850]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: Health and social care agencies have, over a number of years, developed local information systems to help them tackle delayed discharges. In the future, they will need to agree between themselves what data they need to prepare for the introduction of reimbursement. That information should flow from existing systems.
  758W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he will measure the degree to which delayed discharges are widespread in March 2004 in order to ascertain whether targets relating to delayed discharges have been met. [84043]

  Jacqui Smith
  This will be evident from the progress achieved by March 2004 in comparison with the number of delayed transfers of care at the time that the NHS Plan was published.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his definition of a delayed discharge is. [84044]

  Jacqui Smith
  The definition used in information collected via the Department's Service and Financial Framework Report returns specifies that "a delayed discharge occurs when a patient is ready for transfer from an 'acute' bed, but still occupying an 'acute' bed in a hospital. The patient being ready for transfer when a clinician in conjunction with the multi-disciplinary team have decided both that the patient no longer requires to occupy an 'acute' hospital bed and is safe to be transferred."

  Dementia
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what amount of the NHS budget has been spent on providing specialist treatment for people with dementia in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [84856]

  (2) what provision the NHS makes for specialist staff to treat people with dementia; and if he will make a statement; [84855]

  (3)what plans he has to (a) develop specialist care and (b) to increase funding, for the treatment of people suffering from dementia; and if he will make a statement. [84857]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the needs of people with dementia and their carers are met. For that reason, the national service framework (NSF) for older people has set a standard and within this a service model that includes access to specialist care. NSF implementation will ensure that people with dementia receive the care and treatment they need. There are milestones to monitor progress.

  The Government are making available by 2003–04 an extra £1.4 billion for new investment in better health and social services for older people. Older people with dementia will benefit from this new investment and the Government have confirmed its commitment to ensuring that, as appropriate, people with dementia receive drugs and treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Final decisions on funding for mental health in 2003–04 will be made soon as part of the work on primary care trust allocations and central budgets.

  In 2001 there were 350 consultants in the old age psychiatry in England— most established services now have more than one. Following publication of the NSF for older people, the Department is examining the training needs of all staff working with people with dementia.
  759W
  Information on national health service spending on specialist treatment for people with dementia is not available.

  Detained Children
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in England, who were the subject of inquiries in 2001–02 under(a) section 17 and (b) section 47 of the Children Act 1989 were in (i) prison service detention, (ii) local authority secure units subject to section 23(5) Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and (iii) local authority secure units subject to section 25 Children Act 1989. [84074]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people under the age of 18 years were diagnosed as diabetic in(a) Lancashire and (b) the North West of England in the last year for which figures are available. [82376]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, The latest in-patient admissions information held by the Department for the number of people under the age of 18 years with diabetes in the Lancashire health authorities and the North West Region is shown in the table.

  Admissions to hospitals by area of treatment for diabetic ketoacidosis in patients aged under 18 years old

  2000–01

  Number

  QCX East Lancashire HA

  21

  QCY North West Lancashire

  24

  HA

  QC4 Morecambe Bay HA

  7

  North West

  296

  Notes:

  The primary diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the diabetes national service framework. [85219]

  Mr. Lammy
  We shall be publishing the delivery strategy for the diabetes national service framework in the next few weeks.

  Diagnostic Treatment (Mid-Surrey)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on plans to locate a diagnostic treatment centre in mid-Surrey. [83567]

  Ms Blears
  Work is currently on-going to finalise the Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority's capacity plan. The Department's directorate of health and social care for the south of England is supporting the strategic health authority in this process. The capacity plan will identify a range of solutions to address the identified capacity constraints in the Surrey and Sussex health 760W
  community. Any decision on the location of a diagnosis and treatment centre in Mid-Surrey will be taken as part of this process.

  Dialysis
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are receiving dialysis treatments in(a) Lancashire, (b) the North West of England and (c) England. [83791]

  Jacqui Smith
  The figures in the able are for 2001. They have been collated from estimates provided by the United Kingdom renal registry and from local National Health Service sources and should therefore only be used only as a guide. Activity information on hospital attendance for dialysis is being collected centrally for the first time in 2002–2003.

  Haemodialysis

  Peritoneal Dialysis

  Total

  Lancashire

  181

  123

  304

  North West

  1,090

  712

  1,802

  England

  11,076

  5,187

  16,263

  The Department at the moment does not centrally collect information on dialysis patients. However, information is being collected for the first time in 2002–03 as part of the new 'regular day or night attenders' dataset.

  East Elmbridge and Mid-Surrey PCT
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide funding to enable the East Elmbridge and Mid-Surrey PCT to maintain current service levels next year. [83568]

  Ms Blears
  The announcement of three-year allocations to primary care trusts will be made soon. It will then be for the East Elmbridge and Mid-Surrey Primary Care Trust to determine spending priorities consistent with the recently published priorities and planning framework 2003–06.

  Electro-acupuncture
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the chief executive of St Richard's Hospital, West Sussex on the availability of staff to administer electro-acupuncture; and if he will make a statement. [83796]

  Ms Blears
  There have been no recent discussions with the chief executive of St. Richard's hospital. However I wrote to the hon. Member on 3 September 2002 about this matter.

  GPs (Closed Lists)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners in(a) Kent and (b) the south-east are operating a closed-list policy. [82740]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Handrails
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which public bodies supply handrails to the elderly to prevent falls. [84047]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local council and national health service trust community equipment services are able to provide handrails to older and disabled people. These services, although currently separate, will be fully integrated by 2004 as set out in the NHS Plan.

  In addition, local councils may provide handrails under other arrangements for housing adaptations.

  Health Budget (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the total health budget for Leeds is dedicated to Leeds West. [81491]

  Jacqui Smith
  For the current financial year strategic health authorities share their recurrent revenue allocations between their primary care trusts (PCTs) in line with guidance issued by the Department.

  In 2002–03, £94.8 million (revenue) was allocated to the Leeds West Primary Care Trust. This represents 15 per cent, of the total allocation to the five PCTs serving Leeds.

  Heart Hospitals
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with O.R. International on their plans to establish several heart hospitals in England; and if he will make a statement. [82529]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: Officials have had one informal meeting with OR International. Any discussions will need to be held in the context of the national revascularisation strategy and the proper process of tendering for bids to expand capacity.

  Hepatitis C
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure he plans to undertake in 2002–03 to encourage public awareness of hepatitis C; and what proportion of that expenditure is planned for advertising on television. [83018]

  Ms Blears
  We have made approximately £430,000 available in 2002–03 to fund work connected with increasing professional and public awareness. We do not anticipate that this work will include television advertising.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the number of carriers of hepatitis C in the UK; and what proportion of that total are likely to develop(a) cirrhosis of the liver and (b) cancer of the liver. [83019]

  Ms Blears
  It is estimated that 0.4 per cent., of the general population in England, about 200,000 people, have chronic hepatitis C infection. Information on the prevalence of chronic hepatitis C infection in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can be obtained from the respective devolved Administrations.
  762W
  Studies suggest that about 20 per cent., of individuals with chronic hepatitis C infection develop cirrhosis after 20–30 years. Of these, about 1–4 per cent., per year will develop primary liver cancer.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish an expert group to consider the case for a compensation scheme for those persons infected with hepatitis C from NHS blood products. [83367]

  Ms Blears
  There are no plans to establish an expert group to consider this matter.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is being made available, and over what timescale, for the implementation of the hepatitis C strategy published by his Department in August. [83551]

  Ms Blears
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) on 19 November 2002,Official Report, column 102W.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue guidance to primary care trusts on increasing the priority given to the diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C. [83552]

  Ms Blears
  Consultation on the Department paper, "Hepatitis C Strategy for England", ended on 15 November 2002. We will be publishing a hepatitis C action plan based on responses to the consultation paper and comments received at recent meetings with stakeholders in the next few months. As part of this work, we will be considering the need to issue guidance on hepatitis C to the national health service.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance to General Practitioners drawing attention to the risk of hepatitis C infection through needle misuse, and promoting good health practice among those most at risk. [83553]

  Ms Blears
  The Department issued a briefing pack entitled "Hepatitis C: essential information for professionals" to all general medical practitioners and practice nurses in England in March 2002. The information contained in the briefing pack includes advice on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C infection. The briefing pack also draws attention to further sources of information such as the Department's publication, "Hepatitis C— guidance for those working with drug users". The professional briefing paper and patient leaflet contained in the briefing pack are on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/hepatitisc

  The briefing pack supplements regional professional awareness-raising conferences held for primary care professionals in February and March 2002. Further conferences are planned for 2003.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the costs of an education campaign in England and Wales to alert the public to the risks of hepatitis C infection. [83554]

  Ms Blears
  We have currently allocated £0.9 million of central funding over 2002–03 and 2003–04 to raise professional and public awareness of hepatitis C in
  763W
  England. Information relating to Wales can be obtained from the National Assembly for Wales. Funding for future years has yet to be determined.

  HIV-positive Babies
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many live births to HIV-infected mothers were subsequently found to be HIV-positive in each year since 1997. [84023]

  Ms Blears
  The table shows the number of reported live births in England to HIV-infected women for the years 1997–2001, by the last reported infection status of child and year of birth.

  Year of birth1

  Infected

  Indeterminate2

  Uninfected

  Total reported live births

  1997

  54

  12

  84

  150

  1998

  39

  14

  118

  171

  1999

  32

  25

  178

  235

  2000

  32

  71

  238

  341

  2001

  11

  245

  187

  443

  1For recent years, numbers may increase as late reports are received.

  2Those children categorised as indeterminate are probably uninfected but it takes up to 18 months (due to persistence of maternal antibodies in the child) before a negative antibody test can rule out infection in the child.

  Home Care Services
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that home care services are free at the point of need. [83337]

  Jacqui Smith
  Councils have had the power to charge for non-residential social services since the 1948 National Assistance Act. Councils have wide discretion on how to set their charges, although it is stipulated that if they choose to charge for services, the charges generally should be 'reasonable'.

  The Department issued statutory guidance to local councils for home care charges in November 2001. This guidance does not seek to change councils' power to charge, or not, but seeks to ensure that, where councils do charge, this will be based on fairer, well designed charging policies. An important principle of the guidance is that charges should not reduce a person's income below basic levels of income support plus a 25 per cent, buffer.

  Hospices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had on allowing hospices to apply for lottery funding. [84061]

  Ms Blears
  Department officials have been closely involved in discussions on the eligibility of hospices to apply for lottery funding. I am content that the results of a widespread and public consultation exercise undertaken by the New Opportunities Fund indicated the possible merits of applications for lottery funding from hospices.

  The New Opportunities Fund Board is responsible for the operation of the fund. Support for adult hospices has been made by the fund under the Living with Cancer
  764W
  programme and further funding is being made available for adult community palliative care services and children's hospices. I understand that a number of hospices have applied to the Fund through this programme and that decisions on applications will be announced in the new year.

  Hospital Discharge Workbook
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to update the hospital discharge workbook. [84042]

  Jacqui Smith
  The guidance on hospital discharge is currently being reviewed with a view to publishing a revised workbook shortly.

  Linten Hospital Site
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will decide whether Maidstone and Weald primary trust will be allowed to take forward their proposal for a 48 bed interim care centre at the former Linten Hospital site; and if he will make a statement. [84009]

  Ms Blears
  Discussions on the future of the Linten Hospital site have been underway for some time. Kent and Medway Health Strategic Health Authority is in close contact with the Maidstone and Weald Primary Care Trust to look at a number of options for the development of intermediate care and associated services in the locality. No decisions have yet been made by the health economy but I am advised by the strategic health authority that a number of proposals are under active consideration.

  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suicides there have been at Medway Secure Training Centre since 1999. [84016]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to(a) maximise compliance and (b) minimise compulsion in relation to the use of antipsychotic medicines for severe mental illness. [83805]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr Loughton) on Monday 25 November 2002,Official Report, col 129W.

  Mental Health Grant
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surplus resources will remain after the survey process for the final out-turn of the mental health grant has been completed. [84034]

  Jacqui Smith
  There will not be any surplus resources of the Mental Health Grant as it is redistributed to councils with social service responsibilities in accordance with a detailed bidding process.

  National Care Standards
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will issue guidance to local authority inspectors to enable them to interpret according to individual circumstances the physical standards regulations within the National Care Standards, when registering new community housing projects where service users will not have major physical support needs, including brain injury rehabilitation community housing services; [82924]

  (2) if he will consult voluntary and charitable sector organisations who provide care home, supported and community housing services for people with disabilities in reviewing the effects of the National Care Standards; [82927]

  (3) if he plans to review the effect of the National Care Standards on the provision of care home, supported and community housing services to people with disabilities; [82926]

  (4) what representations he has received from voluntary or charitable sector providers of care home, supported and community housing services for people with disabilities concerning the application of the National Care Standards. [82925]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have made it clear in the past that the National Minimum Standards will be continuously monitored. We had always proposed to review them within the first three years of operation, and in the light of the review consider any changes needed. Where significant changes are proposed, the Government have pledged that there will be another consultation process to ensure that the views of the sector are fully represented.

  The Department issued a consultation document, "Care Homes for Older People and Younger Adults: Consultation Document—August 2002", on 16 August. It set out how the National Minimum Standards should be amended so that certain environmental standards will no longer apply to care homes which existed before 1 April 2002.

  The consultation document draws attention to the package of measures the Department launched in January 2002 to smooth the introduction of the national standards. This included comprehensive statutory guidance to the Commission, under section 6 of the Care Standards Act, setting out the supportive way in which the standards should be applied. The guidance indicates that the standards should be used to help guide all care homes on action they can take to improve their services. In addition, in August 2002, we issued guidance on the regulation of supported housing and care homes.

  Responses to the consultation have been received from a range of interested parties, including the voluntary and charitable sector organisations. We are
  766W
  currently considering these and will shortly be issuing an amended set of national minimum standards for care homes for older people and for care homes for younger adults.

  We have received a number of representations including some from voluntary or charitable providers of care services about the application of National Care Standards.

  National Healthy Schools Standard
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of schools have adopted the National Healthy Schools Standard. [84046]

  Ms Blears
  Over half of the 25,600 schools in England are involved in the national healthy schools programme and over 8,000 are working towards achievement of the full standard.

  All schools have received information about the national programme and there are 105 local education and health partnerships recruiting and supporting schools to achieve the standard.

  National School Fruit Scheme
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of primary schools are participating in the National School Fruit Scheme. [84013]

  Ms Blears
  The national school fruit scheme will entitle every child aged four to six to a free piece of fruit each school day from 2004. The scheme is currently being expanded to all eligible schools through large scale pilots on a region by region basis with funding of £42 million from the New Opportunities Fund.

  It is currently available to all primary, infant and special schools attended by four to six year olds in London and West Midlands regions and selected schools in small pilot areas in other regions.

  In West Midlands 89 per cent, of eligible schools are currently participating. In London, from 2 December, 78 per cent, will be participating. These are schools which have joined the scheme at the first time of asking. We expect the percentage of participating schools to rise in the new year.

  Participating schools in West Midlands, London and the small pilot areas represent 20 per cent, of primary, infant and special schools in England attended by four to six year olds.

  Nurses
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trained nurses there were in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire in each year since 1 January 1996. [85136]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected by constituency. Information for the former Buckinghamshire Health Authority is shown in the table.
  767W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff within Buckinghamshire Health Authority area as at 30 September each year

  whole-time equivalent

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  2,490

  2,520

  2,610

  2,670

  2,680

  2,820

  headcount

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  3.210

  3,430

  3,490

  3,760

  3,830

  3,860

  Notes:

  2001 is the most recent year for which figures are currently available.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  HA figures are based on trusts and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of health care.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Oncology Consultants
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many oncology consultant vacancies there were in each of the cancer networks. [83308]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer answer 25 November 2002]The information requested is not available; there are 34 cancer networks, which are based around flows of

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002—vacancies in NHS trusts by DHSC and strategic health authority, specific consultant specialties—three month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  Clinical oncology (excluding HA staff)

  Three month vacancy rate (percentage)

  Three month vacancy (number)

  Staff in post (wte)

  Staff in post (hc)

  England

  6.4

  20

  290

  320

  Midlands and Eastern

  5.4

  10

  90

  90

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  0.0

  0

  20

  20

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  23.1

  0

  10

  10

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcester

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Essex

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  0.0

  0

  10

  10

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  9.7

  0

  20

  20

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Trent

  0.0

  0

  10

  10

  London

  4.5

  0

  40

  50

  North Central London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North East London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North West London

  6.4

  0

  10

  20

  South East London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South West London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Northern

  10.8

  10

  90

  100

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  8.2

  0

  10

  10

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  38.5

  10

  10

  10

  Greater Manchester

  5.3

  0

  20

  20

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  7.3

  0

  10

  20

  South Yorkshire

  0.0

  0

  10

  10

  West Yorkshire

  5.9

  0

  20

  20

  South

  2.7

  0

  70

  80

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  0.0

  0

  20

  20

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  8.5

  0

  10

  10

  Kent and Medway

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Somerset and Dorset

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South West Peninsula

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Surrey and Sussex

  0.0

  0

  10

  10

  Thames Valley

  0.0

  0

  10

  20

  Special HAs

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  768W
  patients to tertiary centres so they are not co-terminus with strategic health authorities (StHA). We can only provide data about oncology consultant vacancies by StHA.

  The number of three-month clinical and medical oncology vacancies in StHAs is shown in the table. The current vacancy rate for clinical oncology in England is 6.4 per cent, and in medical oncology is 2.3 per cent.
  769W

  Medical oncology (excluding HA staff)

  Three month vacancy rate (percentage)

  Three month vacancy (number)

  Staff in post (wte)

  Staff in post (hc)

  England

  2.3

  0

  150

  180

  Midlands and Eastern

  5.5

  0

  30

  40

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Birmingham and the Black Country

  7.1

  0

  10

  10

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Hereford and Worcester

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Essex

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Trent

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  London

  0.0

  0

  40

  50

  North Central London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North East London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North West London

  0.0

  0

  20

  20

  South East London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South West London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Northern

  0.0

  0

  40

  50

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Greater Manchester

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South Yorkshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  West Yorkshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South

  3.9

  0

  40

  50

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Kent and Medway

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Somerset and Dorset

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South West Peninsula

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Surrey and Sussex

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Thames Valley

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Special HAs

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1 Figures where sum of staff in post and vacancies is less than 10.

  2 Figures where sum of staff in post and vacancies is zero.

  Key notes:

  3. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2002.

  4. Three month vacancies are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  5. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post.

  6. Three month vacancy rates are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey and the Consultant Census, March 2002.

  7. Staff in post data are from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2001 and the Mini Consultant Census, March 2002.

  8. Staff in post data exclude staff employed by health authorities, as vacancy information was only collected from trusts, PCTs and special health authorities.

  9. Medical and dental figures exclude staff in training.

  10. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  11. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  Other notes:

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

  13. Due to rounding, calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  14. StHA figures are based on trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of healthcare.

  15. Figures may not match previously published data due to a different method of rounding used on the staff in post data.

  Sources:

  Vacancy Numbers and Rates: Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2002 and Consultant census March 2002

  Medical and Dental Staff in Post: Department of Health Consultant census March 2002

  Patient Discharge
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a pilot scheme of the delayed hospital discharge fines from 1 April 2003. [83494]
  770W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has set up a reimbursement implementation team to work alongside its change agents team with a number of health and social care agencies around the country. They will be examining how best any barriers to implementation can
  771W
  be overcome. Their work will inform the drafting of detailed regulations and guidance on this.

  Premature Babies
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many premature babies have developed chronic diseases in each year since 1997. [83169]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Quality Protects
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvements in the outcomes for children and young people Quality Protects has delivered. [82766]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is real evidence that Quality Protects is beginning to improve children's lives. For example, since the programme began we have seen:More corporate working across councils and greater understanding of councils' and councillors' role as 'corporate parents';
  More partnership working with voluntary organisations;
  An increase in the proportion of children looked after placed for adoption— 3,400 looked after children were adopted in England in the year to 31 March 2002, 11 per cent, more than in the previous year and 25 per cent, more than in 1999–2000;
  Children in care experiencing fewer placements— 16 per cent, of children now experience three or more placements in one year as opposed to 19 per cent, in 1997–98;
  A reduction in the number of re-registrations on the child protection register from 20 per cent, in 1997–98 to 14 per cent, in 2001–02;
  More support being given to care leavers;
  More councils listening to children and young people in their care;
  Improvements in the collecting and use of management information.

  We shall shortly be publishing an overview report of councils' fourth annual management action plans, which set out their progress in and future plans for implementing Quality Protects.

  Radiological Protection
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what radiological protection, with specific reference to protective coverings, is required when using new scanners; and whether the cost of protective items is covered by the funds set aside for extra CT and MRI scanners. [84015]

  Ms Blears
  The following regulations, standards and guidelines are designed to ensure that all aspects of safety, including radiation protection issues, are addressed whenever diagnostic medical equipment is installed in the United Kingdom.For general safety issues, all equipment must be CE-marked in accordance with the requirements of the Medical Devices Regulations, 2002, S.I. 2002, no. 618, which are derived from the Medical Devices Directive, 93/42/EEC. In addition medical
  772W
  electrical equipment should meet the British and European standards, such as the General Requirements for Safety, BSEN 60601.
  The Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 (IRR99) provide radiation protection to workers and the public and are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.
  Department of Health regulations concerning radiation protection for patients are the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000[IR(ME)R 2000].
  To ensure that imaging equipment is installed in suitable accommodation, NHS Estates publish guidelines that describe issue that should be considered. References to the relevant publications are provided below.

  Consultations regarding the allocation of extra computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scanners are under way with strategic health authorities and local healthcare commissioners. These discussions will ensure that adequate funding is in place to allow the safe installation of all new equipment.
  References:
  Facilities for Diagnostic Imaging and Interventional Radiology, NHS Estates, London, HMSO. ISBN 0–11–322000–0
  Health Building Note 6 Supplement 1. Accommodation for magnetic resonance imaging. NHS Estates 1994, London, HMSO. ISBN 0113217307
  Health Guidance Note Magnetic Resonance Imaging. NHS Estates, London, HMSO. ISBN 0113220510

  Rehabilitation
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support he is making available to improve vocational rehabilitation services through the national service framework for chronic and neurological disorders. [83854]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national service framework for long-term conditions (NSF) will focus on neurological conditions and some of the generic issues relevant to a wide range of people with disabilities and long term conditions. We have appointed an external reference group to take forward the detailed development of the NSF and to consider the range of issues it should tackle which could include vocational rehabilitation. We recognise the importance of supporting people with long-term conditions to remain in or return to work wherever possible. We plan to publish the NSF in 2004. Implementation will cover a 10-year period starting in 2005. We will consider the resource and funding implications of implementing the NSF during its development.

  The Government are currently testing out which health and employment interventions are most effective in supporting people with illness or disability to stay in work.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were in residential and nursing homes in(a) 1997, (b) 2001 and (c) at the latest available date. [83537]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not centrally available on the number of residents in residential and nursing homes. The number of places in residential and nursing care homes in England is shown in the table for 1997 and 2001. Data for 2002 are not yet available.
  773W

  Number of residential and nursing care home places1 in England at 31 March, 1997 to 2001

  As at 31 March

  Residential

  Nursing2

  Total

  1997

  338,100

  196,300

  534,400

  2001

  341,200

  186,800

  528,000

  1 Data include places in dual registered homes.

  2 Nursing home places covers general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures are provided to the Department by the NCSC regarding the average time it takes to open a new(a) residential and (b) nursing home; and if he will make a statement. [83713]

  Jacqui Smith
  No such figures have been requested or provided.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average levels of fees for residential and nursing home residents were in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001; and what the average is. [83536]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information regarding the average fee levels charged by care homes is not kept centrally. However, figures by independent health and community care consultants Laing and Buisson indicate the following average weekly fee levels in February 1997, March 2001 and March 2002:

  Residential care homes

  Nursing care homes

  1997

  247

  338

  2001

  280

  393

  2002

  302

  422

  Ritalin
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what long-term assessment has been made of the use of the drug Ritalin; and if he will make a statement. [83478]

  Jacqui Smith
  Ritalin is indicated as a part of a comprehensive treatment programme for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children over six years of age where remedial measures alone prove insufficient. In October 2000, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published an appraisal of the use of the drug methlphenidate (main brand name Ritalin) in the treatment of childhood ADHD, and issued clinical guidelines for its use, including the need for regular monitoring of children receiving this therapy. NICE recommended long-term follow-up of adverse effects and the potential for misuse of the drug in assessing long-term benefits and health gain into adulthood.

  As with all medicines, the safety of methylphenidate is continually monitored by the Medicines Control Agency and the independent advisory body, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines. Comprehensive information on the use of methylphenidate, including possible side effects, contraindications and precautions is contained in the summary of product characteristics produced by the manufacturer and approved by the licensing authority. Review by NICE of its guidance on the use of methylphenidate is scheduled for August 2003.

  Sexual Health and HIV Services
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of primary care trusts have an identified lead for sexual health and HIV services for their area; what proportion have in place arrangements for commissioning such services in consortia with neighbouring PCTs; what proportion have neither; which primary care trusts have yet to name a lead for sexual health and HIV services for their area and have not made provision for commissioning in consortia with neighbouring PCTs; and when the report of the baseline service mapping exercise of sexual health and HIV services will be published. [83555]

  Ms Blears
  Of the 304 primary care trusts (PCTs), including two designated as care trusts, in England, 273 have notified the Department of a sexual health and HIV lead for their area. We are currently taking action to identify remaining leads. We have not collected information centrally on commissioning arrangements for sexual health services. The local baseline review mapping exercise reports are currently being analysed and a summary report will be published early next year.

  We are still awaiting details of sexual health leads from the following PCTs:

  Bedford

  Bedfordshire Heartlands

  Billericay, Brentwood and Wickford

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell Forest

  Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth

  Chingford, Wanstead and Woodford

  Dacorum

  Derwentside

  Dudley South

  Eastleigh and Test Valley South

  Enfield

  Gateshead

  Gedling

  Haringey

  Herefordshire

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  Huntingdonshire

  Islington

  Lincolnshire South West

  Mid Devon

  Mid Sussex

  North East Oxfordshire

  North Surrey

  Rotherham

  South Peterborough

  Wednesbury and West Bromwich

  Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead

  Witham, Braintree and Halstead

  Woking Area

  Smear Tests
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long it took to provide the result from a smear test in each health authority in the last year for which figures are available. [83457]
  775W
  Ms Blears
  The information is not available in the format requested. Information on waiting times for screening tests is only available for those areas where the result letters are sent to women directly by the health authorities. Around two thirds of health authorities and primary care trusts do this.

  In 2001–02, 50 per cent., of women in these health authorities received their written cervical screening test result within six weeks. 85 per cent., of women received their written results within 10 weeks.

  Source:

  Statistical Bulletin: Cervical Screening Programme, England: 2001–02.

  Smoking Cessation Services
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department makes available to support smoking cessation; and what cost benefit analysis has been conducted of this spending. [84454]

  Ms Blears
  In 2002–03 the Department allocated £37 million to support smoking cessation. Drawing on a range of evidence and research findings the Department concludes that smoking cessation services are very cost effective, with a cost per life year saved of less than £1,000.

  Soft Drinks
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Food Standards Agency has taken with regard to the safety of unregulated imported soft drinks. [84026]

  Ms Blears
  All food, including soft drinks, is subject to the same food safety legislation, whether produced in the United Kingdom or imported. This legislation is enforced by local authorities. In addition, soft drinks imported from countries outside the European Union are subject to checks by local port health authorities.

  Somerset Drug Service
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much money has been allocated annually to the Somerset Drug Service since its inception; [82606]

  (2) how many individuals have been treated by the Somerset Drug Service through (a) self-referral, (b) court referral and (c) other referral in the last two years. [82607]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority that the annual allocation to Somerset Drug Service was as follows:

  £

  Allocation

  2002–03

  1,562,000

  2001–02

  1,265,000

  2000–01

  900,000

  These are the only years for which information is readily available from the strategic health authority.
  776W
  The number of individuals referred for treatment at Somerset Drug Service is not collected centrally. Again, the strategic health authority has advised me that referrals to the service in 2000–01 were 248 and in 2001–02 were 288.

  Tobacco Products
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken in accordance with Article 7 of the EU Tobacco Directive, to ban the use of texts, names, trademarks and figurative or other signs suggesting that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than others, on the packaging of tobacco products. [81683]

  Ms Blears
  Following a three month consultation exercise, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly make and lay before Parliament Regulations to transpose the Directive including its requirements under Article 7. These Regulations will ban the use of such terms, which suggest that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than others. The Directive requires this ban to be in effect by 30 September 2003. Article 7 is subject to a challenge in the European Court of Justice and judgement is expected shortly. If necessary, the Regulations will be amended to reflect the judgement.

  Tuberculosis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts have a higher than average tuberculosis level; and how much each trust will receive of the money being made available for tuberculosis. [83323]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: Data currently available through the statutory notification system collected by the public health laboratory service are not broken down by primary care trust (PCT). Data are currently provided by health authority only.

  Funding will be allocated to those health authorities with the highest incidences of tuberculosis, who will in turn distribute money to the PCTs in their area.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet the head of the tuberculosis unit at the Public Health Laboratory Service. [83327]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: Departmental officials maintain close working contact with the public health laboratory service leads on tuberculosis, who in turn report back to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts have levels of tuberculosis higher than the national average. [83328]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: Notification data currently available through the statutory notification system, collected bythe public health laboratory service, is not broken down by primary care trust. Data is currently provided by health authority only.

  Zyban
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions for Zyban have been issued in each month since the drug was licensed, broken down by health authority. [80547]

  Ms Blears
  Information on the number of prescriptions for Zyban issued by month since the drug was licensed, broken down by Strategic Health Authority, have been placed in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Access Radio
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether she has carried out a regulatory impact analysis of the effect of the proposed changes in the Communications Bill, with specific regard to the introduction of access radio; and what assessment she has made of the impact on existing local commercial radio stations, if(a) access radio is fully funded out of the public purse and (b) access radio is allowed to raise revenue through selling advertising slots. [84818]

  Dr. Howells
  Access radio formed part of the Draft Communications Regulatory Impact Assessment published in May for consultation.

  The Radio Authority are currently undertaking a pilot study of a number of access radio stations. The purpose of the study is to establish whether access radio is viable and how it might be licensed, regulated, funded, promoted and organised. The Radio Authority evaluation will also seek to assess the possible impact on the commercial radio sector. The completed evaluation is expected to be published next February.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how she intends to regulate the activities of access radio; and if she will make a statement; [84861]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of access radio on the ability of local commercial radio stations to attract funding by carrying advertising; [84860]

  (3) how she expects access radio will be funded; and if she will make a statement. [84859]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The Radio Authority are currently undertaking a pilot study of a number of access radio stations. The purpose of the study is to establish whether access radio is viable and how it might be licensed, regulated, funded, promoted and organised. The Radio Authority evaluation will also seek to assess the possible impact on the commercial radio sector. The completed evaluation is expected to be published next February.

  BBC
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions in the last 12 months the BBC has paid goodwill cheques to the victims of maladministration of licence fee collection. [84468]
  778W
  Dr. Howells
  Neither the BBC nor TV Licensing are subject to the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and there are therefore no formal findings of maladministration against the BBC or TV Licensing. However, TV Licensing operates its own complaints procedures and if a member of the public remains unsatisfied with the outcome the BBC will also consider the complaint. Goodwill payments in relation to the administration of the television licensing system are made by TV Licensing rather than the BBC. Information on the number of such payments is available only for the period since Capita took over the TV Licensing contract in July this year. From July to October 2002, TV Licensing made a total of 825 goodwill payments.

  Broadcasting
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of her Department's role in facilitating and promoting the competitiveness of UK broadcast-related industries and the early take-up of digital broadcast services; and if she will make a statement. [83742]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department continues to encourage the competitiveness of the UK broadcast-related industries through its wide-ranging support for the creative industries, working in partnership with all stakeholders within Government and the industry to examine ways of enhancing performance at home and overseas. As part of this work, in November 1999 DCMS published the report of the UK Television Exports Inquiry which specifically looked at how Government and the industry could work together to enhance export performance, to lower barriers to investment and to increase the international attractiveness of UK television programmes. DCMS continues to work with the industry and with Skillset in taking forward the recommendations of the Audio Visual Industries Training Group to meet future skills needs.

  We are also promoting competitiveness through targets set for BBC commercial income and through the promotion of digital broadcasting, where the UK has maintained world leadership, with 40 per cent, of households having access to digital television across the platforms. We have approved new digital BBC services which enhance the digital proposition. With the Department of Trade and Industry, and in consultation with broadcasters, manufacturers and consumer representatives, we have published the Digital Television Action Plan. This sets out what needs to be done by whom and by when in order to meet the criteria for full switchover. We have also taken steps to encourage digital radio development by aligning the licence period for digital and analogue licences. The Communications Bill provides the framework for enhancing competitiveness further and extending the take-up of digital television.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals she has for a future regulatory system for broadcasting which recognises market and technological developments; and if she will make a statement. [83743]
  779W
  Dr. Howells
  On 19 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced the Communications Bill, which will establish the new regulatory framework for broadcasting and the communications industries. This framework recognises, both within Ofcom's general duties and the detail of the regulatory provisions, the importance of competition, of investment and of innovation in delivering the dynamic market for communications services which we want to see in the United Kingdom. A dynamic, competitive market will encourage the development and take-up of new technologies, to the benefit of business, consumers and the UK economy. The proposals in the Bill also address the challenges of technological convergence, in providing for regulation by a single body and for a flexible regime capable of accommodating further change.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of levels of(a) standards and diversity of broadcasting output, (b) broadcasting content being socially inclusive and (c) access to broadcast material; and if she will make a statement. [83753]

  Dr. Howells
  It is the responsibility of the broadcasters and the broadcasting regulatory bodies, that is the BBC Governors, Independent Television Commission, Radio Authority and Broadcasting Standards Commission, to ensure that broadcasters meet their obligations for quality, diversity, social inclusion and accessibility, in accordance with the regulatory requirements agreed by Parliament. They report on these in their Annual Reports and, in establishing new regulatory requirements as set out in the Communications Bill, we have also had the benefit of wide-ranging consultation.

  Counterfeit Goods
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Trade

  2001–02 grant

  Total number of awards

  Total value of grants paid (£000)

  Designated Museums Challenge Fund (administered by Resource)

  56

  8,465

  Wolfson Public Libraries Fund (administered by Resource)

  16

  2,580

  Spaces for Sport and Art (administered by Sport England on behalf of DCMS and DfES)

  306

  579

  Listed places of worship

  707

  1,659

  This table covers grants paid directly by the Department or by its NDPBs from ring-fenced monies allocated by the Department for a specific scheme to which individuals or organisations may apply. Grants paid to third parties by NDPBs from general grant-in-aid or lottery funds have not been included in the table.

  The administration of the specified grant programmes is carried out by a number of different units within the department and relevant NDPBs to which a range of staff make a contribution. It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of these costs centrally other than for the listed places of worship, where
  780W
  and Industry regarding the sale of counterfeit and illegal music album sales; and if she will make a statement; [85305]

  (2) how many illegally produced music singles and albums she estimates to have been sold in the UK in 2002; [85307]

  (3) she has made of the total cost in 2001 of illegal sales of music singles and albums; and what measures she is taking to prevent this. [85306]

  Dr. Howells
  This Department and the Department for Trade and Industry work together closely on the fight against music piracy and the protection of copyright, and are in regular contact with the industry on these issues. Among other things, the Government supported the Private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), which was enacted on 20 November as the Copyright, etc. Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002; this increased the maximum sentence for copyright offences from two to 10 years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. Furthermore, the role of this Department's new music industry adviser, Stephen Navin, includes the provision of advice on combatting piracy. The British Phonographic Industry estimates that the total value of commercially pirated singles and albums in 2001 totalled £27.6 million; information on the number of illegally produced records in 2002 is not yet available.

  Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the grants funded by her Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; and if she will make a statement as to(a) the total of such funding in the last financial year, (b) the total number of awards and (c) their administrative costs. [82193]

  Dr. Howells
  The information you requested is as follows:

  administration costs incurred in the last financial year were nil.

  Heritage Grant Fund
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department has taken to transfer responsibility of the Heritage Grant Fund; and if she will make a statement. [83755]

  Dr. Howells
  Responsibility for the Heritage Grant Fund was transferred to English Heritage on 1 April 2000.

  Museums
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been(a) made available through her Department's challenge fund and (b) spent in each year since 1998–99 by each museum; and if she will make a statement. [83734]

  Designation challenge fund awards 1999–2004

  £

  Amount awarded

  Total awarded

  Awards made

  Ref/name of museum

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  1999–2002

  2002–04

  1 University of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum

  54,193.44

  96,613.52

  146,845.48

  297,652.44

  100,025.00

  2 University of Cambridge, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

  32,732.69

  88,879.78

  83,701.06

  205,313.53

  11,400.00

  3 University of Cambridge, Whipple Museum of the History of Science

  48,000.23

  164,815.96

  113,562.38

  326,378.57

  99,912.00

  4 Courtauld Gallery, London

  50,000.14

  75,000.00

  75,000.00

  200,000.14

  100,000.00

  5 University of Manchester, Manchester Museum

  50,004.00

  47,071.17

  113,068.00

  210,143.17

  50,000.00

  6 University of Manchester, Whitworth Art Gallery

  44,690.00

  115,000.00

  122,000.00

  281,690.00

  86,500.00

  7 University of Oxford, Ashmolean Museum

  60,000.00

  100,291.93

  102,329.26

  262,621.19

  154,800.00

  8 University of Oxford, Museum of the History of Science

  150,000.00

  58,000.00

  0.00

  208,000.00

  0.00

  9 University of Oxford, Museum of Natural History

  31,420.69

  114,639.84

  102,276.49

  248,337.02

  86,843.00

  10 University of Oxford, Pitt Rivers Museum

  59,484.00

  122,885.97

  129,972.00

  312,341.97

  149,716.00

  11 University of Reading, Rural History Centre

  62,076.30

  95,244.04

  87,709.08

  245,029.42

  91,500.00

  12 Horniman Museum, London

  96,295.78

  99,812.00

  63,500.00

  259,607.78

  157,000.00

  13 Museum of London

  0.00

  117,970.67

  232,029.34

  350,000.01

  153,000.00

  14 Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  34,408.69

  135,000.00

  89,401.00

  258,809.69

  91,750.00

  15 Birmingham City Museums and Art Gallery

  66,482.56

  170,000.00

  187,974.00

  424,456.56

  239,178.00

  16 Leeds Museums and Galleries

  63,319.00

  36.469.92

  116,000.00

  215,788.92

  0.00

  17 Manchester City Art Galleries

  60,112.00

  31,843.42

  84,220.44

  176,175.86

  92,810.00

  18 Stoke-on-Trent Museums Service

  104,036.80

  110,280.60

  106,417.04

  320,734.44

  96,476.00

  19 Tyne and Wear Museums1

  20 York Museum Service

  90,193.15

  129,812.49

  200,660.21

  420,665.85

  100,000.00

  21 Beamish, the North of England Open Air Museum

  30,000.00

  0.00

  770,000.00

  800,000.00

  500,000.00

  22 Bowes Museum

  57,383.50

  29,906.50

  95,400.00

  182,690.00

  222,000.00

  23 Wiltshire Heritage Museum

  35,000.00

  45,815.17

  20,423.37

  101,238.54

  0.00

  24 Dulwich Picture Gallery

  52,000.00

  80,000.00

  59,687.79

  191,687.79

  52,723.00

  25 Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust

  71,520.00

  90,106.00

  99,654.21

  261,280.21

  80,000.00

  26 Jewish Museum

  62,960.00

  73,989.76

  76,171.00

  213,120.76

  97,533.00

  27 London Transport Museum

  52,500.00

  95,000.00

  95,500.00

  243,000.00

  50,000.00

  28 Mary Rose Trust

  77,658.00

  120,000.00

  137,770.20

  335,428.20

  100,000.00

  29 National Motor Museum

  31,298.66

  63,166.59

  123,208.81

  217,674.06

  71,395.00

  30 National Tramway Museum

  33,054.20

  97,273.56

  215,181.74

  345,509.50

  100,000.00

  31 Wordsworth Trust

  66,149.07

  86,080.00

  86,882.00

  239,111.07

  67,400.00

  32 Museum of British Road Transport, Coventry

  20,000.00

  100,000.00

  100,000.00

  220,000.00

  145,000.00

  33 Tank Museum, Bovington Camp

  50,000.00

  88,221.20

  79,117.26

  217,338.46

  135,000.00

  34 Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museums

  6,060.00

  44,218.00

  56,117.82

  106,395.82

  40,000.00

  35 Northampton Museums and Art Gallery

  60.000.00

  80,000.00

  160,000.00

  300,000.00

  0.00

  36 Norfolk Museums Service

  86,776.36

  112,994.14

  182,617.60

  382,388.10

  249,813.00

  37 Harewood House

  78,197.63

  99,225.00

  177,097.00

  354,519.63

  196,000.00

  38 Barber Institute of Fine Arts, Birmingham

  77,751.00

  48,657.54

  30,000.00

  156,408.54

  68,475.00

  39 University College London, Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology

  62,618.35

  104,634.96

  125,510.69

  292,764.00

  137,158.00

  40 Colchester Museums

  42.188.82

  85,080.00

  57,960.00

  185,228.82

  48,000.00

  41 Exeter City Museums and Art Gallery

  117,297.39

  173,389.08

  71,867.89

  362,554.36

  99,700.00

  42 Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum

  26,034.56

  114,460.00

  64,000.00

  204,494.56

  27,760.00

  43 Royal Engineers Museum, Chatham

  22,849.09

  68,554.23

  75,320.19

  166,723.51

  0.00

  44 National Museum of Labour History, Manchester

  64,216.67

  96,949.38

  83,580.00

  244,746.05

  86,760.00

  45 University of Cambridge, Sedgwick Museum of Geology

  50,731.55

  148,479.21

  178,029.79

  377,240.55

  178,000.00

  46 University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge

  36.355.00

  33,025.00

  219,361.00

  288,741.00

  100,230.00

  47 Southampton City Council Cultural Services

  43.928.00

  39,528.44

  62,031.20

  145,487.64

  50,000.00

  48 Weald and Downland Open Air Museum, Chichester

  74.949.66

  64,000.00

  75,800.00

  214,749.66

  10,000.00

  49 Plymouth City Museum and Art Gallery

  46,331.52

  59,925.25

  69,278.40

  175,535.17

  50,000.00

  50 Royal Pavilion, Libraries and Museums

  28,250.00

  0.00

  0.00

  28,250.00

  135,000.00

  51 Bristol Museums and Art Galleries

  59,492.42

  73,639.45

  112,693.05

  245,824.92

  96,644.00

  52 National Waterways Museum

  52,533.36

  116,608.00

  93,184.50

  262,325.86

  50,000.00

  53 The Wedgwood Museum Trust

  0.00

  42,880.88

  61,250.00

  104,130.88

  5,000.00

  55 Roman Baths Museum and Museum of Costume, Bath

  0.00

  43,625.18

  109,874.82

  153,500.00

  50,000.00

  56 Museum of Artillery in the Rotunda

  0.00

  101,250.00

  91,589.20

  192,839.20

  0.00

  57 Sir John Soane's Museum

  0.00

  95,000.00

  82,360.00

  177,360.00

  81,007.00

  58 Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art

  0.00

  83,393.21

  32,882.31

  116,275.52

  0.00

  59 Kingston upon Hull City Museums and Art Galleries

  0.00

  67,871.48

  58,855.12

  126,726.60

  0.00

  60 Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust

  0.00

  120,536.78

  70,444.61

  190,981.39

  0.00

  782W
  Dr. Howells
  The 62 museums with designated collections have each received awards from the designation challenge fund, administered by Resource: the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, to help meet the costs of caring for and interpreting their designated collections. The awards are set out in the following table.
  783W

  Designation challenge fund awards 1999–2004

  £

  Amount awarded

  Total awarded

  Awards made

  Ref/name of museum

  1999–2000

  2001–02

  1999–2002

  2002–04

  61 Lancashire County Museums Service, Textile Industry Collection

  0.00

  32,693.85

  122,210.28

  154,904.13

  80,000.00

  62 Museums of the Royal College of Surgeons of England

  0.00

  50,955.27

  31,613.58

  82,568.85

  94,400.00

  Joint Manchester Project

  25,000.00

  —

  —

  25,000.00

  30,000.00

  Totals

  2,858,534.28

  5,080,764.42

  6,671,191.21

  14,610,489.91

  5,445,908.00

  1 Joint project with Beamish—see number 21

  Note:

  Awards for 1999–2002 have now been spent. New awards made in July 2002 for the period 2002–04 total sum not yet claimed by grant recipients.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department has taken to maintain the quality of exhibitions in major museums funded by her Department since the removal of entry charges; and if she will make a statement. [83739]

  Dr. Howells
  The day-to-day operation of Government-funded museums and galleries, including the staging of exhibitions, is a matter for the Boards of Trustees and management of such bodies. In October 2002, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced the provision of increased grant-in-aid to the national museums and galleries to enable them to continue the Government's highly successful policy of free admission.

  National Football Centre
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will visit the National Football Centre development near Burton upon Trent to view the construction already in place. [84627]

  Mrs. Dean
  (2) when she(a) last met and (b) next plans to meet the Football Association to discuss the development of the National Football Centre. [84628]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government appreciates that the present uncertainty about the completion of the National Football Centre has created some concern, both locally and among those with a general interest in the future success of the England team. However, this is entirely a matter for the Football Association. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have discussed the matter with the FA, and Ministers have no plans to visit the site. The Government's priority is the continued development of grass roots football, which my Department funds through the Football Foundation. The arrangements made for the coaching of elite players must remain the responsibility of football itself.

  Public Bodies
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what recent assessment she has made of her Department's non-departmental public bodies'(a) outputs, (b) efficiency, (c) access, (d) quality, (e) income generation and (f) private sector funding; and if she will make a statement; [83750]
  784W
  (2) what assessment she has made of the targets for her Department's non-departmental public bodies' funding agreements announced since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [83762]

  Dr. Howells
  During the course of the 2002 Spending Review, the Department has looked at the performance of its sponsored bodies and at the effectiveness of funding agreements as a means of performance management. The conclusions from our assessment are positive, but we have plans for further improvements: the introduction of more streamlined funding agreements that will focus on delivery of our four strategic priorities; and the earmarking of resources in the 2003–06 period, specifically to help non-departmental public bodies improve efficiency and effectiveness.

  Sport Representations
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations she has received from and discussions she has had with(a) Sport England, (b) UK Sport, (c) Special Olympics Great Britain and (d) other organisations and individuals, regarding the allocation of funding for Special Olympics Great Britain from (i) Sport England and (ii) UK Sport. [84409]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have received any such representations nor had any discussions with Sport England, UK Sport, Special Olympics Great Britain or other organisations and individuals regarding the allocation of specific funding for Special Olympics Great Britain from Sport England or UK Sport.

  I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 4 November 2002, Official Report, columns 81–82W.

  Sport Scotland
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money Sport Scotland has received since 2000. [84548]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport in Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

  Street Advertisments
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what regulations protect
  785W
  hand— painted street advertising, what plans she has to improve the protection of hand-painted street advertising; and if she will make a statement. [82717]

  Dr. Howells
  t here are no regulations specifically to protect hand-painted street advertising. It is possible that such advertising can be protected by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which requires the Secretary of State to compile lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. An advertisement that has been painted on to a building would be protected if the building itself was listed.

  At the launch of the State of the Historic Environment Report on 25 November, we announced plans— in partnership with English Heritage— to improve and refocus the way the UK's built environment receives statutory protection. These will include a review of the current designation system, with a view to changing it to one that sustains the historic environment as a whole rather than relating in a piecemeal way to its constituent parts. This review will take around a year to report.

  Sub-titling
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions 786W
  she has had with the producers of videos about the provision of sub-titles for the hard of hearing; and if she will make a statement. [84862]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: My officials have been in contact with a number of organisations, primarily the Film Council and British Video Association, the BBC, ITV and the ITC and, via the Broadcasters Disability Network, ITFC Ltd, a company which produces sub-titling for both broadcasters and DVD production houses. We have been looking at the current availability of equipment and videos, and emphasising the importance which we attach to access for the hard of hearing. DVDs normally include sub-titles.

  Worcester Cathedral
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what costs she estimates will be incurred by Worcester Cathedral under the proposals in the Licensing Bill. [84962]

  Dr. Howells
  I have made no estimates of the costs that will be specifically incurred by Worcester Cathedral under the proposals in the Licensing Bill. Any costs would depend on the licensable activities, if any, which are undertaken at the Cathedral and their frequency.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Defence
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  The aggregate amount of civil defence grants to be made for the financial year 2003–04 is £19,038,000 of which £100,000 will be retained as discretionary grant for special projects and special events deemed of benefit to the wider emergency planning community in England and Wales.

  The remaining £18,938,000 will be allocated to individual authorities as set out in the table below.

  The grants have been allocated in the same way as last year, but with each authority receiving an equal share of the additional £70,000 available. Every authority thereby receives a slight increase in grant of £386.

  Local Authority

  Grant Allocation 2003–04 (£)

  Anglesey/Ynys Mon

  61,342

  Barking and Dagenham

  75,969

  Barnet

  80,694

  Barnsley

  76,076

  Bath and North East Somerset

  90,011

  Bedfordshire

  136,511

  Bexley

  78,758

  Birmingham

  187,380

  Blackburn with Darwen

  70,658

  Blackpool

  66,662

  Blaenau Gwent

  63,083

  Bolton

  82,674

  Bournemouth

  70,122

  Bracknell Forest

  63,899

  Bradford

  125,756

  Brent

  86,592

  Bridgend

  68,323

  Brighton and Hove

  81,172

  Bristol

  98,486

  Bromley

  84,980

  Buckinghamshire

  200,557

  Bury

  71,195

  Caerphilly

  73,088

  Calderdale

  74,574

  Cambridgeshire

  163,057

  Camden

  84,175

  Cardiff

  87,322

  Carmarthenshire

  73,858

  Ceredigion

  64,143

  Cheshire

  189,969

  Conwy

  64,811

  Cornwall

  189,279

  Corporation of London

  60,145

  Coventry

  77,776

  Croydon

  90,666

  Cumbria

  216,116

  Darlington

  63,899

  Denbighshire

  71,434

  Derby

  76,503

  Derbyshire

  220,459

  Devon

  217,294

  68WS

  Local Authority

  Grant Allocation 2003–04 (£)

  Doncaster

  85,516

  Dorset

  175,886

  Dudley

  82,908

  Durham

  213,601

  Ealing

  90,344

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  72,166

  East Sussex

  208,288

  Enfield

  88,198

  Essex

  315,112

  Flintshire

  77,741

  Gatehshead

  79,140

  Gloucestershire

  189,960

  Greater Manchester FCDA

  64,060

  Greenwich

  86,482

  Gwynedd

  67,698

  Hackney

  88,145

  Halton

  68,137

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  76,719

  Hampshire

  298,996

  Haringey

  85,624

  Harrow

  65,726

  Hartlepool

  64,650

  Havering

  77,685

  Herefordshire

  70,229

  Hertfordshire

  310,886

  Hillingdon

  81,386

  Hounslow

  80,742

  Hull (Kingston upon Hull)

  72,265

  Isle of Wight

  72,230

  Isles of Scilly

  53,708

  Islington

  83,424

  Kensington and Chelsea

  74,788

  Kent

  339,586

  Kingston upon Thames

  67,654

  Kirklees

  95,431

  Knowsley

  74,359

  Lambeth

  87,789

  Lancashire

  315,233

  Leeds

  172,987

  Leicester

  88,896

  Leicestershire

  192,957

  Lewisham

  83,978

  Lincolnshire

  212,793

  Liverpool

  97,648

  London FEPA

  151,825

  Luton

  59,894

  Manchester

  147,667

  Medway

  81,547

  Merseyside FCDA

  73,332

  Merthyr Tydfil

  60,998

  Merton

  72,053

  Middlesbrough

  71,355

  Milton Keynes

  81,404

  Monmouthshire

  62,154

  Neath Port Talbot

  70,259

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  102,823

  Newham

  88,226

  Newport

  68,616

  Norfolk

  276,813

  North East Lincolnshire

  71,624

  North Lincolnshire

  69,532

  North Somerset

  71,248

  North Tyneside

  74,091

  North Yorkshire

  244,523

  Northamptonshire

  239,260

  Northumberland

  188,122

  Nottingham

  86,321

  Nottinghamshire

  210,927

  Oldham

  79,294

  Oxfordshire

  202,459

  Pembrokeshire

  66,735

  Peterborough

  72,214

  Plymouth

  81,708

  69WS

  Local Authority

  Grant Allocation 2003–04 (£)

  Poole

  66,635

  Portsmouth

  74,467

  Powys

  85,886

  Reading

  67,386

  Redbridge

  82,566

  Redcar and Cleveland

  69,693

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  82,319

  Richmond upon Thames

  69,424

  Rochdale

  77,310

  Rotherham

  81,654

  Rutland

  56,443

  Salford

  72,386

  Sandwell

  88,413

  Sefton

  84,015

  Sheffield

  96,386

  Shropshire

  153,834

  Slough

  68,566

  Solihull

  73,716

  Somerset

  164,359

  South Gloucestershire

  76,183

  South Tyneside

  71,516

  South Yorkshire FCDA

  84,356

  Southampton

  77,470

  Southend

  71,966

  Southwark

  77,343

  St Helens

  73,333

  Staffordshire

  226,842

  Stockport

  79,992

  Stockton-on-Tees

  73,877

  Stoke-on-Trent

  74,413

  Suffolk

  221,786

  Sunderland

  101,107

  Surrey

  297,388

  Sutton

  73,126

  Swansea

  78,933

  Swindon

  71,355

  Tameside

  77,310

  Telford and Wrekin

  72,385

  Thurrock

  68,666

  Torbay

  67,440

  Torfaen

  64,876

  Tower Hamlets

  93,509

  Trafford

  75,754

  Tyne and Wear FCDA

  34,892

  Vale of Glamorgan

  72,385

  Wakefield

  86,667

  Walsall

  83,639

  Waltham Forest

  83,532

  Wandsworth

  79,155

  Warrington

  72,804

  Warwickshire

  181,722

  West Berkshire

  67,815

  West Midlands FCDA

  60,386

  West Sussex

  225,386

  West Yorkshire FCDA

  61,593

  Westminster

  86,804

  Wigan

  84,497

  Wiltshire

  194,786

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  66,796

  Wirral

  89,861

  Wokingham

  66,525

  Wolverhampton

  82,030

  Worcestershire

  186,835

  Wrexham

  72,926

  York

  72,220

  70WS

DEFENCE

  HMS Nottingham
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  When the destroyer HMS NOTTINGHAM grounded in Australian waters on 7 July 2002 she sustained severe damage and flooding in the forward part of the ship. She is now on passage to the UK on a heavy lift ship and is expected to arrive in United Kingdom waters on 7 December. She will then be unloaded and towed into HM Naval Base at Portsmouth where a contract has been placed for her repair with Fleet Support Limited. The repair work— which will cost around £26M, including all materials supplied by the Department— is expected to last up to 18 months. HMS NOTTINGHAM is expected to return to operational service in November 2004.

  HMS NOTTINGHAM is a highly capable Type 42 destroyer designed to provide area air defence either independently or as an integral component of larger joint or coalition maritime task groups. Her key weapons, sensors and Command System were significantly upgraded during an extensive refit in 1999–2000. These improvements will enable the ship to keep pace with the increasing demands of maritime air defence during the next 10 years and will aid interoperability with key allies, in particular the USA. HMS NOTTINGHAM'S contribution will be crucial to bridging the air defence gap during the drawdown in Sea Harrier air defence aircraft beginning in 2005 and the introduction of the Type 45 Destroyer from 2007.

  To ease the short-term programming gap in the fleet created by HMS NOTTINGHAM'S unavailability, HMS GLASGOW, an older and less capable Type 42 is being regenerated from a planned state of lower readiness. An alternative solution which would have given HMS GLASGOW a similar capability upgrade to that received by HMS NOTTINGHAM in 1999 was considered, but the repair of HMS NOTTINGHAM was deemed to provide best value for money.

  Service Pensions (Taxation)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  On 25 April 2002 Official Report, columns 426—27W, I informed the House that the problem of mistaken taxation of some Service invalidity pensions was more extensive than previously understood. I reported that we had set up an internal review, independent of the staffs involved, to establish the extent of the taxation errors and expose any related problems. This review is now complete.

  The review has established that the taxation problem is more extensive than I indicated in April. It is now clear that some RAF pensions are affected, and that the RN pensions affected are not limited to the period 1973–99. In addition, the review has found that further work is needed on Army pensions; this is required both to re-examine more thoroughly certain cases adjudged when first reviewed as correctly taxed, and to examine for the first time some other cases previously not thought to be at risk.
  71WS
  The findings of the review mean that the number of files needing examination has proved considerably larger than I stated previously. I now expect it will not be possible to complete a comprehensive check for all three Services before next summer. I regret that this work cannot be done faster, but it is vital that it be done accurately, by suitably cleared staff who are also familiar with the relevant documents. The pace of the work is also affected by the lack of comprehensive computerised information distinguishing invalidity pensions from others. This has made it necessary to handle many tens of thousands of files which are not at risk in order to identify those that are. This difficulty continues to affect progress.

  We are very much aware of the importance of giving as much priority as possible to examining the cases of our oldest pensioners. Although over 70 per cent, of errors identified so far affect younger pensioners, discharged in or after 1990, we anticipate that errors still to be found will include some affecting the oldest age-group. I much regret that in several of the cases recently re-examined a pensioner, previously misadvised that his pension was correctly taxed, has died before an error was recognised. In such cases the tax refund is to be paid, with due apology, to the pensioner's widow or estate.

  A further problem brought to light by the review is that some of the pensions taxed in error were also affected by an underpayment of Armed Forces Pension Scheme benefits. Over 350 pensioners have so far been identified in this category, most of whom were discharged in the 1990s. The average underpayment in these cases was around £4,500. The cost to date of rectifying tax errors has been some £5M, which happens also to be an average of some £4,500 per pensioner.

  The review includes a full analysis of the causes of errors and the necessary rem—edial action; the latter is already in hand. The procedures used in the conduct of the review have been validated by the National Audit Office. The NAO's letter of validation and the report of the review have been placed in the library of the House.

  Army Attributable Pensions
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the mistaken taxation of Army attributable pensions. [53048]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since my statement to the House on 23 January 2002,Official Report, columns 891–902, the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency has been conducting a review to establish more clearly the exact extent of the problem with the mistaken taxation of service invaliding and attributable pensions. This work is not complete, but has revealed that some Royal Navy invaliding and attributable pensions awarded between 1973 and 1999 have also been mistakenly taxed. We will be reviewing all the case files of those who might have been affected and arranging for refunds to be made as appropriate. This will be done as quickly as possible but is expected to take some months given the need to review several thousand pension files. We will also be providing appropriate national publicity to allow those who think they might have a claim to apply for a tax refund.
  72WS
  Our research has not so far revealed any cases where Royal Air Force pensions were wrongly taxed and there is evidence that the RAF has had in place checks which would have uncovered cases where attributable pensions should have been exempt from tax. However, we will include the RAF in our continuing work to ensure that no error is left unidentified.

  Our further work to date has confirmed that the problem was more extensive than originally understood but has also shown the complexity of the issues involved as, over time, changes have been made to the organisations responsible for administering the pensions and to the rules governing the schemes. We have therefore concluded that we should set up an internal review, completely independent of the staffs involved, to establish the precise extent of the current problems and to expose any other problems that may exist. This independent review will look across all three sevices, be launched as soon as possible and is likely to take a number of months to complete. The review team will be headed up by a senior civil servant and consist of staff drawn from the Defence Internal Audit. In order to provide external confidence, the NAO will be invited to validate the procedures. I will report the findings to the House

TRANSPORT

  Car Sharing/Car Clubs
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar)
  I have written to Sir Trevor Chinn, the chairman of the Motorists' Forum, welcoming their report on car sharing and car clubs and enclosing the Government's response. The response outlines further support that the Government will give to work in this field, in particular:continued funding for an advisory service on car clubs and formal car sharing schemes;
  further research to monitor car clubs in circumstances that offer the most potential for success, for example where they may help to achieve higher densities in new residential developments than might otherwise be the case; and
  further research on formal car sharing schemes in institutional settings, such as the workplace, with a view to publishing best practice guidance later next year.

  Copies of my letter and the Government response have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

TREASURY

  Public Service Pensions
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  Legislation governing public service pensions requires public service pensions to be increased annually by the same percentage as State earnings related pensions (additional pensions). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced on 19 November 2002,Official Report, column 16WS that benefits such as additional pensions will be increased by 1.7 per cent., in line with the annual increase in the Retail Prices Index up to September 2002. Public service pensions will therefore be increased by 1.7

  73WS
  per cent, from 7 April 2003, except those which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro-rata increase.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Strategy
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  All controlled drugs are harmful and will remain illegal. Drug misuse is the biggest challenge society faces. It damages the health and life chances of individuals. It undermines family life, turns law-abiding citizens into thieves and erodes communities. It is essential that we educate the young about the dangers of drugs, prevent drug misuse, tackle the dealers to reduce the prevalence of drugs on the streets and reduce the harm drugs cause.

  To address this, the Government has published its Updated Drug Strategy developed to take account of new evidence of what works and focus on delivery.

  In 1998, the first cross-cutting strategy was introduced to tackle drug trafficking, supply and misuse. This update builds on the foundations laid and the lessons learnt. We must concentrate on the most dangerous drugs, the most damaged communities and the individuals whose addiction and chaotic lifestyles are the most harmful, both to themselves and others. Education, prevention, enforcement, treatment and harm minimisation are our most powerful tools.

  Setting out a range of policies and interventions, the Updated Drug Strategy provides:
  a tougher focus on Class A drugs;
  a stronger focus on education, enforcement and treatment to prevent and tackle problematic drug use;
  more resources— direct annual expenditure for tackling drugs will rise from £1,026 million in this financial year to £1,244 million in the next financial year, £1,344 million in the year starting April 2004 to a total annual spend of nearly £1.5 billion in the year starting April 2005— an increase of 44 per cent;
  a major new education campaign to be launched in Spring 2003 to drive home the risks of drug misuse. More support for parents, carers and families so they can easily access advice, help, counselling and mutual support;
  more help for the young people most at risk of developing drug problems through increased outreach and community treatment and an extension of drug testing and referrals to treatment and care via the youth justice system so that by 2006, we are able to support 40,000–50,000 vulnerable young people a year;
  strengthened enforcement- including new cross-regional police teams to tackle middle markets and targeted policing to crack down on crack;
  a major expansion of services to refer people into treatment via the criminal justice system. We will use every opportunity from arrest, to court and sentence to identify drug-misusing offenders and engage them in treatment. Starting from next year in the highest crime areas with the worst drug problems we will roll out a comprehensive end to end approach. This will ensure that every drug addicted offender is identified through drug testing at the point of arrest and charge and given the choice at their bail hearing of entering treatment rather than entering custody. All this is backed up by extra resources for arrest referral, drug treatment and testing orders, treatment in prison and Youth Offending Institutes and for post-release treatment and support for those leaving custody;
  74WS
  an expansion of treatment services to ensure access is available when needed and is tailored to individual need, including residential treatment. Improved treatment for crack and cocaine users and heroin prescribing properly supervised for all those who would clinically benefit from it. By 2008, we will have developed the capacity to treat 200,000 problematic drug users each year. Funding for treatment services, including prisons, will increase by £45 million in the next financial year, £54 million for the year starting from April 2004 and £115 million from April 2005. This will be boosted by treatment funding associated with Drug Treatment and Testing Orders of nearly £10 million in the next financial year, £12 million in the year starting from April 2004 and £16 million from April 2005— bringing the total direct annual spend on treatment up to £589 million by 2005;
  new aftercare and throughcare services to help those leaving prison or treatment remain free from drugs;
  strengthened capacity to deliver first in the areas with the greatest problems and improved services in those areas most affected by crack use; and
  revised targets which are challenging but achievable

  Copies of "Updated Drug Strategy 2002 " have been placed in the Library. It is also available on the web at http://www.drugs.gov.uk

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Radio Ownership Scheme
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  I have today deposited a copy of the draft Order and accompanying Explanatory Memorandum in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies have also been sent to the Radio Authority, the Independent Television Commission (ITC) and the Commercial Radio Companies Association. We welcome comments from anyone with an interest.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fire Service
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  Today I have placed copies of a report produced by the COBR-Joint Assessment Cell report, entitled "Industrial Action by the Fire Brigades Union. Contingency arrangements during the 8-day strike, 22–30 November 2002" in the Vote Office and Libraries of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chief Surveillance Commissioner
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  I am today laying before Parliament the annual report for 2001–2002 of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner on the discharge of his functions under Part III of the Police Act 1997 and Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. As required, under section 107(3A) of the Police Act 1997, after consultation with the Chief Surveillance Commissioner I can confirm that no matter has been excluded from the enclosed report.

  I am most grateful to Sir Andrew Leggatt and his colleagues for the work which has gone into preparing it.

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

Electricity Supplies: Interruption
Lord Marlesfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have advised electricity distribution companies in the United Kingdom of ways to reduce the risk of supplies to rural areas being interrupted as a result of severe weather.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the responsibility for minimising the risk of interruption of supplies lies with the relevant distribution network operator. At the beginning of this year, my honourable friend the Minister for Energy commissioned British Power International to study whether the distribution companies had adequate arrangements in place to deal with the loss of electricity to consumers at times of emergency. Individual areas for improvement were identified and passed back to the companies for action. The BPI report was published on 18th June 2002.
Following the storms in late October, a further study has been commissioned to establish how well the companies" networks were able to withstand the storms, how well the companies performed in the aftermath of the storms and the lessons to be learned for the future.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, and I am glad to hear that the Government are at least taking an interest in what is a serious problem. Does he recognise that one of the main reasons for the interruption of electricity supplies in rural areas is the fact that trees and branches fall on to wires? They are mainly low-voltage wires, which could easily, economically and cost-effectively be put underground. May I remind him—because I am sure that he does not remember—that when I was on the board of Eastern Electricity, I got the company to introduce a scheme in East Anglia? It put wires underground in 30 communities and there were no problems in those areas, although there were many storms. Will he encourage electricity distribution companies to face up to their simple responsibilities in this matter?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, these are exactly the issues that the study will consider. The whole question of branches being properly trimmed on a regular basis is part of essential maintenance. Other
1020
steps could be taken, such as providing covered conductors. Wires could also be put underground, although that would involve considerable expense.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, will the study to which my noble friend referred have regard to the expertise gathered in the north of Scotland following the electrification of the whole of that area, which was a considerable engineering achievement? Will it have regard to the expertise built up by what was then the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for dealing with adverse weather conditions? That expertise would be valuable to any study undertaken on the matter.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall make certain that that expertise is fed in when we consider the results of the study.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in north Northumberland, it is not only as a result of bad weather that the electricity supply is cut off? In the Belford area, local residents have put together an extremely good report. Their supplier is Northern Electric and they have been asking for support from the Government to back up their findings. They want the modernisation programme to be brought forward and implemented along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I should be grateful for any help that the Minister can give people in that area. The position is detrimental to people's wellbeing and to businesses in particular.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are obviously processes for complaining when interruptions occur, through bodies such as Energywatch; Ofgem also has the responsibility of making certain. I should imagine that that is the first body to which such reports should be sent. Equally, if the noble Baroness would like to send the report to the department, we should ensure that it was considered.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in my village of Crondall, low voltage power interruptions are quite frequent? There has been some investigation of that and it has been found that it is normally caused by foxes. Those poor foxes—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, when the thing shorts, the fox is killed as a result. Does my noble friend believe that that is a reasonable way to get rid of foxes in Hampshire, and might that approach apply in Suffolk and other parts of the country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation, it is probably better to stay away from the issue of foxes and to concentrate on rather easier subjects.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that placing electricity cables underground not only saves the appearance of the countryside but saves public expense?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know the exact comparison of costs between placing cables underground and placing them overground. I should imagine that it is much more expensive to put them overground in most circumstances. However, in most cases cables are overground and it would involve considerable expense to put them underground. I shall look at the figures to make an exact comparison.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether the studies to which he referred will include the development of new technologies such as micro-CHB and micropower, in which I declare an interest? These are ways in which, within the next year or so, users will be able to generate their own electricity in their own homes and therefore, in rural areas in particular, will be totally independent of what happens outside.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the study I am talking about is a very short one to look specifically at how the distribution companies operated in these particular circumstances. It will not be considering major issues such as new technology but the rather more simple issues of good housekeeping, information systems and how they performed, and what we can do to get it better next time.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in the House recently we have been considering major emergencies of a different kind. Is the Minister aware that in the early 1980s, during a large-scale blizzard in South Wales which closed down the electricity supply and most other public services, we learnt very quickly that you cannot carry through the normal arrangements for managing a national emergency if you have no electric power? Therefore this is not only a matter of household convenience but has much wider implications.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is no doubt that that is the case. That is why this is such an important subject. As is shown by the two reports, it is one to which we are giving very serious attention.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while appreciating the significant questions posed by Members of the Opposition, can my noble friend advise the House of the extent to which they were able to deal with these questions during their 18 years in power?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot do that. All I can say is that the first of the studies, which was carried out earlier this year, looked at whether the companies were less able to deal with emergencies because of reduced manpower. The study found that this was not the case. The companies are as well placed now as previously to deal with emergencies. The position after the storm in 1987 was much worse—probably because the storm was much worse—and it took three weeks to restore supplies to everyone. It is not a question of the service getting worse; if anything it is getting better.

Household Debt
2.46 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are concerned about the current level of household debt, and whether they propose to take any action.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government continue to fully back the judgment of the Monetary Policy Committee in delivering macroeconomic stability. The MPC is alert to the risks associated with further expansion of household debt, as it made clear in its November inflation report. However, households' total interest payments are now only 7.3 per cent of their disposable income compared with a peak of 15.1 per cent in 1990 and an average of 9.3 per cent over the period 1979–97.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. He will know that total household debt now stands at a near record £810 billion and that it increased by nearly £10 billion in October of this year alone. Is it not clear that there must be a sharp correction, which will be painful for property buyers, for consumers and, indeed, for the economy as a whole? Does the noble Lord have any advice for these borrowers of a seasonal nature?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course there is a risk of a sharp correction. In its November inflation report the Bank of England specifically made that point and we agree with it. Clearly people should not borrow above the level for which their total household income will provide. The crucial factor for most families is how much it costs them to service that debt. Household wealth is more than five times greater than household debt and it would be difficult to persuade people that they should be concerned with the gross amount of debt rather than what it costs them.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the land value of a house in 1952 was approximately 15 per cent and that today it is more than 50 per cent? If we really want to solve the problem

1023
of household debt and high levels of borrowing, more land has to be released. That is the basic cause of the problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, whatever the cause may be, whether it is the availability of land or any other cause, the level of housing starts—and I have figures only for the past 10 years—is grossly inadequate to meet not so much the rise in population but the rise in household formation. Clearly if that situation is to be improved, more sites have to be found. That is why the Government are concentrating so heavily on finding more Brownfield sites.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many people with absolute levels of debt will find the Answer complacent in that they are extremely vulnerable to either increases in interest rates or unemployment? Will he go back to his colleagues in the Treasury and suggest that they, the FSA and the Bank of England should consider taking concerted action to warn people about the dangers of accumulating high levels of debt? Many of the ways in which these warnings are currently issued—for example, in the inflation report—simply do not filter down to ordinary people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that we are complacent and I certainly do not think that the Monetary Policy Committee is complacent. This is clearly one of the important issues that it takes into account. I shall not attempt to guess what conclusion the committee will reach this week. If the noble Lord is concerned with the individual pain of high levels of debt, I hope that he is slightly reassured to think that repossession levels are at an historic low and are falling. They are only a quarter of the level that they were at their peak in 1991.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, how would the Minister describe a household which, like the Government, has five times more money going out every month than it has coming in?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is not what I said. I said that household wealth was over five times the household debt. That is not the same as income.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, within households, particular problems arise with young people? Is not the way in which debt is made available to young people a particular problem within the overall scope of debt management?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, of course that is right. The availability of credit to those who are not in circumstances to service it has been a matter of concern over many years. Again, I am not seeking to be complacent; I am merely looking to put both sides of the argument. There is an increase in the use, for example, of credit cards, including by young
1024
people. But a very large proportion of that is in the form of debit cards, which are, of course, paid off immediately.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance that he* will not support what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, implied; namely, that the Government will not ask the Monetary Policy Committee to increase interest rates in order to do anything about it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly not give any advice to the Monetary Policy Committee. We took the decision in May 1997 to devolve these matters to the committee. If I were under any circumstances to give advice, I should not give it on the basis of not being able to make a distinction between wealth and income.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is not the high level of spending and borrowing due in part to a general lack of confidence in the future? People are faced with the prospects of germ warfare and alarmist reports in the newspaper. Is it not normal when people are insecure for them often to go shopping or to turn to the bottle?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Retail therapy, my Lords! You could argue the contrary. You could argue that people's willingness to borrow comes from a certain amount of confidence in the future. After all, we have historically high levels of employment and historically low levels of unemployment. We have historically low interest rates and historically low inflation. There is a great deal more security among the population than there was in the 1980s and 1990s.

Central London: Congestion Charging
2.53 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryask Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to deal with emergencies arising from a breakdown of the central London congestion charging scheme.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the decision to set up the scheme was entirely the mayor's. Similarly, it is the mayor's responsibility to deal with any problems that arise. The mayor has gone on record as saying that the scheme could be switched off if it does not work.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, will the Minister tell us honestly whether he thinks the scheme will work? Is not the trouble at present that it seems to be mind-blowingly complex? Have not the rules for those living in central London to claim exemption and discounts been unflatteringly compared to the self-assessment tax papers? Will it not be dangerously easy

1025
for a visitor to London to stray unwittingly into the central London area without knowing it, and to find at the end of the day that he has an £80 fine to pay?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am certainly not going to express a view on whether or not the scheme will work. That would put me in the worst of all possible positions, would it not? The mayor would get the credit if it did work, and we should get the blame if it did not. We are not going to have that.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that any congestion charging scheme (I refer not only to London) has to be workable technically—I hear what the noble Lord says about the complexity for residents of inner London; it must be supported by adequate public transport alternatives—the mayor has given us assurances on that point; and it must have broad public acceptance.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister is responsible for the emergency services in London, and my noble friend's Question refers to emergencies. If the scheme means that emergency services will not be able get through the centre of London, will the Government look at the matter again? What is more, if the introduction of the scheme means that the centre of London becomes empty but the surrounding boroughs become totally congested, that will be the Government's responsibility. Will they then repeal the legislation that they brought in allowing congestion charging to happen in the first place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are a lot of extreme suppositions there. There are full exemptions from the congestion charge for fire, police and ambulance services. Therefore, there is no extra cost to the emergency services. They will clearly have free access to central London. According to the objectives of the scheme as I understand them, it is hoped that there will be less traffic in central London. Presumably, their response times will therefore be faster. As to the effects on congestion in outer London, these are exactly the things that will have to be seen when the scheme comes into force.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, will the Minister continue to resist calls for central government to interfere in matters which are properly, as he has said, those for devolved government? If he agrees, will he make the same point to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, who appears to have the new idea of a so-called "holes tsar" to deal with holes in the road? These are admittedly a major issue, but would it not be better for the powers to be given to the devolved government to deal with the matter, and so contribute to the reduction in congestion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that I have always resisted invitations to intervene in the responsibilities of the mayor and the Greater London Assembly. I do not think that the Secretary of State has talked about
1026
a "holes tsar", even if he used the word "tsar". What he has been talking about is the idea, particularly outside London, of having traffic managers who would take responsibility for all aspects of roads. The noble Baroness cannot deny that there is divided responsibility between the mayor and the Greater London government and the 32 boroughs in London. That has sometimes caused problems. It would be better, as the Secretary of State says, if these matters were under one central control.
Lord Imbert: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for a disabled person to apply for exemption from the congestion charge he or she has to supply an original birth certificate or marriage certificate and a copy of both sides of his or her blue or orange badge and pay a £10 administration charge—to relieve the disabled person of paying a £5 congestion charge?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I was not aware of that. This is, of course, the responsibility of the mayor. I will communicate the noble Lord's views to him.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree on reflection that it is simply no good for him or the Government to continue to try to distance themselves from the Mayor of London and the damage that he is likely to cause? If that damage is only slight, maybe they can get away with it. But if the consequences are muddle and expensive chaos, they can be very sure that they will be deeply involved in answering for it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a political judgment, which he is entirely entitled to make. But I am concerned that we should reflect the law as we have it in this country which was passed by Parliament. We passed an Act of devolution of power in London to the mayor and the Greater London Assembly. That was agreed by all parties at the time to be the right thing to do. You do not then—when there are worries about the mayor's particular policies or even about a number of issues—go on to demand the repeal of legislation.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, did I hear correctly that adequate means of public transport must be provided? Is that what the mayor said? How can residents of Battersea find adequate public transport when there is no Tube and, to get from Battersea to Parliament Square, for instance, one must take a series of buses?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State said it, not the mayor. He said that any congestion charging scheme must be supported by public transport alternatives. We are assured by the mayor, in particular, that the bus service has provision for increased capacity to meet the expected extra demand.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, can the Minister shed any light on the suggestion that the extended period for red traffic lights in central London is likely to be dramatically reduced upon the introduction of congest ion charges in order to suggest that congestion charging is responsible for the easier flow of traffic that will result?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can report only what we are told by Transport for London, which reports to the mayor. It says that there are two aspects of traffic light phasing, which is entirely the mayor's responsibility in central London. One has been that, until the works in Trafalgar Square are complete next summer, there has been phasing to choke off a certain amount of traffic to the square. The other, which is undoubtedly true, is that London was one of the few places t hat did not observe the phasing for pedestrians to cross roads, which followed the Department of Transport's guidelines set out in 1981. Transport for London is now observing those guidelines.

Prison Population
3.2 p.m
Lord Hurd of Westwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to deal with the results of overcrowding in H M prisons.
The Minister of Stale, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government are providing additional prison capacity. They have announced that £60 million will be made available to provide 740 additional prison places by March 2004. We have recently approved Prison Service plans for two new prisons. Sentencing is a matter for the courts, but, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General said in their recent statement, dangerous, violent and sexual offenders should be given custodial sentences for as long as punishment and public protection require. In addition, seriously persistent offenders who continue to offend, despite being given every reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation, should normally expect to receive a custodial sentence. For less serious offenders, consideration should be given to effective, non-custodial sentences. The government reform of the criminal justice system introduced tough new community sentences that can provide robust and effective alternatives to custody.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and acknowledge my involvement with the Prison Reform Trust. It is remarkable and perhaps sad that when the Minister introduced the Government's penal policy in the debate on the Address he did not spare a word for the grossly overcrowded state of our prisons. How many
1028
prisoners today are eating, sleeping and going to the lavatory while sharing with another prisoner a small cell designed for one?
Can the Minister assess the effect on programmes for education, training and family visits of the churn; that is to say, the present habit of shunting sentenced prisoners up and down the country repeatedly to try to solve the problem of overcrowding? If this continues, will not our prisons, a crucial but often forgotten public service, become, not part of the cure for crime, but nurseries for future crime?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in response to the first question, in October 2002, approximately 15,000 prisoners were held with another prisoner in cells designed for one. The key performance indicator in that respect was that only 18 per cent of the prison population should be held in such cells. The figure is about 21 per cent.
As regards the churn, where figures are available, 6,358 of a total prison population of about 72,500 were transferred between prisons in October 2002. Pressure on accommodation will inconvenience prisoners and disrupt programmes, but the Prison Service seeks to avoid this as much as possible and encourages establishments to place the necessary holds on prisoners studying for basic skills qualifications. The number has increased from 5,771 in October 2001. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord for giving notice of his supplementary questions.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that one result of overcrowding is undoubtedly the serious dilution of an already thin provision of education? To take just one example, with the numbers in Forest Bank prison in Greater Manchester, which has a very good education and training record, having risen rapidly from around 700 to nearly 1,000, it can provide education for fewer than half of its inmates.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of current numbers in prisons inevitably dilutes the ability of the Prison Service to provide basic education and skills, which make a real contribution to stopping reoffending and must be one of its vital aims. That is partly because of the transfers, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and because there are more prisoners. All prisons are required to provide a core curriculum, which includes basic skills, information technology and preparation for work, all of which lead to nationally recognised awards and qualifications. The more people there are in prison, the harder it is to provide that.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the director of the Prison Reform Trust, in an article nine days ago in the Observer, underlined the Lord Chief Justice's comment that we now imprison almost double the irreducible minimum to which the Lord Chief Justice referred. To respond simply by having an increased prison building programme has all the disadvantages and attractions of widening the M25. Will the Minister consider

1029
convening as a matter of urgency the widest gathering of interested parties to give top priority to reducing prison numbers so that the Prison Service can do the job for which it is intended and not be diverted by this enormous and irrational pressure to lock up more and more people?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Lord Chief Justice, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General made clear that, apart from the categories of case that I mentioned in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, consideration should be given to alternatives to custody—for example, curfews, strong community sentences or fines—so that reoffending can be effectively reduced. Separately, we also need to consider how, when people are released from prison, steps can be taken to help them to reintegrate in society to ensure that they do not reoffend.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are now 20 per cent more women in prison than there were last year and that the number now is approximately 4,000—twice as many as when Labour came to power in 1997? How have we created this anomaly in the criminal justice process whereby we incarcerate proportionately more women than men? Why are community sentences not used as often in the case of women, who commit less serious crimes than men?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we do not incarcerate more women than men. The number of women incarcerated has gone up as a proportion, although that is now flattening out. It is difficult to identify the main reason from the figures, but one of the largest categories of offence for which women have been incarcerated where that has not been so in the past is drug-related offences. That appears to be one factor that has driven up the female population in prison.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that the only answer to overcrowding in prisons is to reduce, where proper and acceptable, the number of people sent to prison? Does he accept that, where appropriate, non-violent offenders should in general receive non-custodial sentences; that such sentences cost 10 per cent of the cost of custodial sentences; and that the chances of people committing further offences while they are on non-custodial sentences are no greater than when they are locked up in overcrowded prisons? If he agrees, what is he doing to encourage and push the courts into awarding non-custodial sentences whenever appropriate?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said, for dangerous, violent and sexual offenders and seriously persistent offenders, custody appears appropriate. In other cases, consideration should be given to noncustodial sentences. That point has been made in the
1030
joint statement by my noble and learned friend and my right honourable friend in another place. That is what we are doing to try to support the point made by my noble friend.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the recent report—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are well into the 35th minute. I think it is time we moved on to the next Question.

Education Spending
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Blatchasked Her Majesty's Government:
How the £45 billion additional expenditure for education by 2006 announced in the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report on 27th November breaks down between early years, primary, secondary, further and higher education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Chancellor confirmed last week that by 2006 UK education spending will have increased by £15 billion compared with the current year. We will be announcing before Christmas more details of how the additional £12.8 billion for education and skills in England will be allocated. Over £4 billion will be for local authorities, which will take decisions on allocations between primary and secondary schools. Further education will be allocated an additional £1.2 billion.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister listen to the Chancellor's own words last week? He said:
"So I can not only confirm that we will fund our planned investments: by 2006, there will be £8 billion more a year for local authorities; £15 billion more a year for education; £63 billion more a year for public services".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/02; col. 326.]
Those were extremely misleading words. It is not £15 billion more a year; it is £15 billion more over three years. I call that deceit and I think the House deserves an apology.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I, too, have the words of my right honourable friend the Chancellor in front of me. I shall read them back to the noble Baroness:
"So I can not only confirm that we will fund our planned investments: by 2006, … £15 billion more a year for education".
The figures before us mean that we will be spending £53.7 billion, followed by £58.6 billion, £62.9 billion and £68.4 billion. By 2006, funding will be up, from this year to then, by £15 billion. I believe my right honourable friend was perfectly clear.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I had hoped at this moment to be able to thank the noble Baroness for following the normal courtesies and civilities of your

1031
Lordships' House by apologising to my noble friend Lady Blatch for creating a totally misleading impression during consideration of the Chancellor's speech in this House. As she has decided not to do that, will she consider that the Government's repeated use of misleading statistics to flatter their achievements and to understate their failures and the various errors of omission and commission that appear in the Chancellor's statements lead to only one result: an ever-diminishing trust in government?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not believe that I owe the noble Baroness an apology. If I did, I would have apologised. There should be no doubt in your Lordships' House about that. I am saying that we are perfectly clear. We contacted the noble Baroness before this Question was raised this afternoon to explain precisely what was meant. I believe that I have spelt out in my Answer precisely what was being said. My right honourable friend the Chancellor said that by 2006 we will have increased education spending by £15 billion from the figure for the current year.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, on this occasion, from these Benches we agree with the Minister's interpretation of the statistics. There are many occasions on which we have had spin on the statistics, but on this occasion I do not think we have. However, I have a question for the Minister. A great deal of the extra money that was going into the education budget is to go directly to schools through the Standards Fund. Since this Government have come to power, a great deal of money has gone not through local education authorities, but through the Standards Fund. What proportion of the budget will be going through local authorities and how has the proportion changed since 1997?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness those details at this stage, but I shall of course make a Statement in your Lordships' House before Christmas announcing the precise details. I reiterate that of the £12.8 billion, £4.3 billion was announced for local authority education standard spending assessments. Noble Lords will be aware that the SSA settlement will be announced in another place on Thursday this week by Nick Raynsford.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House of the extra provision for spending in further education—I declare an interest as a patron of a sixth-form college in Birmingham—given the excellent job that they do in providing education and training for those who have perhaps not got all that they should have done out of their secondary education?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Yes, my Lords. As I have already said, we have allocated a further £1.2 billion for further education, which I am sure is welcomed on all sides of your Lordships' House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if one asked the Plain English Campaign what these words meant—that by 2006 £15 billion more a year would be spent—it would expect £15 billion more each year until 2006 to be spent. That is deceitful.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have read out what my right honourable friend the Chancellor said. I reiterate that we are perfectly clear about the fact that by 2006 there will be £15 billion more a year for education. That represents increases in each year of £5 billion, £9 billion and £15 billion to get us to that point. I am sorry if the noble Baroness misinterpreted what my right honourable friend said. I hope that I have clarified for your Lordships' House precisely what the figures are.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, there will be two Statements to be repeated this afternoon at a suitable time after 3.30 p.m.—the first by my noble friend Lord Whitty on hunting with dogs and the second by my noble friend Lady Ashton on the Tomlinson inquiry.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision to contain disruption of public services by collective industrial action and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Although apparently modest in itself, the Bill will set up and enhance the frameworks to help the UK to address two key environmental challenges—climate change and sustainable waste management. There is a strong link between the two challenges. Less reliance on landfill will help reduce the production of greenhouse gases as well as helping us achieve our goal of putting a sustainable waste management system in place. These challenges are the subject of two important international commitments: the Kyoto Protocol and the landfill directive. The provisions in the Bill will help the UK to deliver on both these commitments.

1033
This modest Bill—only 35 clauses—tackles these two challenges through similar economic instruments. It will stimulate reductions in the emission of pollutants and make us less reliant on landfill in the most economically efficient way. It will support the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading system with statutory penalties. It will also set up a landfill allowance scheme, which is probably the first scheme of its type in Europe, possibly the world, to address waste.
The Bill uses trading to meet environmental goals, as trading is a flexible and cost-effective economic instrument that allows reductions, whether in landfill or emissions, to be made where it is cheapest to do so. Target holders in a trading scheme may do one of three things. First, they can take in-house action to reduce to their target levels. Secondly, they may reduce below their target and sell or bank the "surplus". Thirdly, they may let levels remain above their targets and themselves buy allowances from other participants. But because total levels are constrained to the sum of the individual targets, an overall environment-led benefit is achieved.
Your Lordships will be aware of the threat to the global environment caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. The role of landfill in adding to these emissions may, however, seem less clear.
Landfilling biodegradable waste produces methane, a greenhouse gas some 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide and 25 per cent of UK emissions of methane come from landfill sites.
The UK currently landfills nearly 80 per cent of its municipal waste, which is a lot higher than most other countries in Europe. As well as the implications for climate change it means we gain no additional value at all from the resources contained in the waste. Many of these resources could be reused or recycled or have energy extracted from them.
It is the goal of the UK Government to move to a more sustainable waste management system. A key for sustainable waste management is the waste hierarchy. That gives a framework for how waste should be managed: the higher up the hierarchy the more sustainable the management of waste. The hierarchy starts with reducing and minimising waste; then reusing what would otherwise be waste; then recycling; then recovery through composting and energy recovery. At the bottom comes disposal.
Each of the UK administrations have strategies to manage waste through the hierarchy, which derives from the Waste Framework Directive. The Strategy Unit of No 10 has just reported on delivery of the strategy in England and has recommendations on how to move management of waste further up the hierarchy.
This Bill is only part of the wider strategy. It is looking at the over-dependence on landfill at the bottom of the hierarchy, and the environmental problems of the production of methane in landfill.
1034
To tackle this problem the European Union agreed in 1999 to the Landfill Directive. This directive includes stringent targets to cut the amount of biodegradable municipal waste which is sent to landfill.
Within the UK these are devolved matters to all administrations, with the Scottish Parliament having legislative competence. For Northern Ireland this Bill will support the legislative base should the outcome of consultation support landfill allowances there. The administrations have agreed to act together, and have agreed that this Bill be considered in total by this Parliament. This will increase the effectiveness of the measures by widening the area for potential trading.
The obligations on the UK, even allowing for a four-year derogation require a 25 per cent cut in landfill of this waste from that produced in 1995 by 2010; 50 per cent by 2013 and 65 per cent by 2020. This is a very significant challenge for this country. Indeed, the challenge has become more difficult year on year. Municipal waste is currently growing at 3 per cent to 4 per cent a year with recycling growing at only I per cent. So we are landfilling at the moment more biodegradable municipal waste than ever and getting further away from our targets.
Biodegradable waste represents about 63 per cent of the municipal waste stream. It is that waste which may undergo anaerobic or aerobic decomposition. In other words, that means it either rots in air or without air. This type of waste includes paper, cardboard, food and garden waste and natural textiles. All these wastes can be recycled or recovered in some way.
We recognise the scale of the challenge and the large investment in alternatives to landfill which will be required. These reductions are obligations on all who use landfill and who produce waste. However, as the Landfill Directive targets apply to municipal waste we have to look to local authorities to deliver compliance with those targets.
Local authorities have been consulted in England and Wales on how to meet the challenge and consultation is continuing in Northern Ireland. The Government proposed allowances as an imaginative approach which should prove flexible and effective as well as giving certainty to local authorities about their obligations. There was general agreement in Great Britain on this approach.
Those noble Lords who follow these issues will know that when we consulted on this approach, it was called a permit system. We have changed the terminology to use the term "allowances" for legal clarity as landfills will already have pollution control permits as a result of other parts of the Landfill Directive.
Part 1 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to specify the maximum amounts of biodegradable waste which can be sent to landfill in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom. Naturally, she must consult the devolved administrations. That target setting must be carried out for each of the Landfill Directive target years. For the interim non-target years the Secretary of State may

1035
set limits with the countries' agreement, or there is a default formula to set them. That is intended to provide an even profile of reduction to meet the targets over that period.
After this initial division, responsibility for setting up an allowance scheme rests with each devolved administration in the UK and the UK Government for England. This reflects the fact that environment policy is devolved.
Scheme details will be set out in regulations: each devolved administration will be able to produce its own scheme and decide on the allocation of allowances in its area. It will also have to decide whether to permit trading in its area. Those countries who do decide to take advantage will become part of a cross-border trading scheme.
There is an absolute duty on each waste disposal authority not to exceed the allowances which they hold, whether by initial allocation or as a result: of a trade. However, no local authority will be obliged to trade: it may simply stay with its allotted allocation. Equally, the Bill gives flexibility for trading to be for no monetary value—simply a question of transfer by arrangement between the authorities.
However, we are not giving third parties the right to hold or trade landfill allowances. There are a number of reasons for this: first, we want opportunities for local authorities to trade surplus: secondly, because the targets will be difficult for the UK, so we do not want any possibility of allowances being "retired" out of the system. Neither do we want waste companies to purchase allowances and use them themselves; for example, for direct procurement. It is therefore confined to local authorities.
Details of each scheme are for the United Kingdom and my department in England and the devolved administrations. The Bill gives sufficient flexibility to allow for a variety of models. But each local authority will receive allowances which will represent maximum amounts that can be landfilled in each year. The intention is to allocate allowances for every year up to and including the final target year of 2020. Local authorities can then plan their progressive diversion from landfill over that period. However, the Bill recognises that over a period of 16 years the situation can change so there is a provision to revise the allocations should this prove necessary.
The schemes will be monitored by monitoring authorities appointed for each country in the United Kingdom. They will record each transfer on a central register and the trade will not have taken place until the record is made. Using the regulators has the additional benefit of least burden and cost as they are already responsible—or in the case of Northern Ireland soon will be—for regulating landfills and collect information from landfill operators and local authorities, so there is no duplication.
If a waste disposal authority landfills more biodegradable municipal waste than it holds allowances for, there will also be civil financial penalties. These penalties will be set out in regulations. They will need to be set at a sufficient level to ensure
1036
that the local authority has the incentive to divert from landfill or buy allowances rather than breach the limits. This is essential to secure the Landfill Directive targets and to underpin an effective trading scheme.
However, the aim is not to take resources out of local authorities but rather to encourage them to meet the targets in a sensible and co-ordinated way. That is why the Bill also allows the allocating authorities to suspend and/or cancel penalties if necessary.
The importance of the directive target years is again acknowledged in the power for a supplementary penalty if a waste disposal authority breaches limits in a directive year. This is a proper reflection of the legal obligation in the directive on the UK and is backed up by penalties from the EU, which could amount to 180 million a year.
Part 1 of the Bill also implements Article 5(1) of the directive by requiring each country to produce a strategy to reduce the amount of all biodegradable waste which is sent to landfill. As your Lordships will be aware, these strategies have, in the main, already been produced.
Chapter 2 relates solely to Wales. This gives to the National Assembly for Wales the power to require the Welsh local authorities to prepare municipal waste management strategies. The Assembly may also require information about municipal waste. That derives from the waste strategy for Wales, Wise about Waste, which made it clear that the Welsh Assembly Government intended to require local authorities to have those strategies. It will enable them to make sensible provision and it will enable the devolved administration to meet international commitments. The Assembly has worked closely with local authorities in Wales over the provisions.
I turn to Part 2, which deals with emissions trading and is part of a far wider commitment to implement a wide-ranging and innovative climate change programme to deliver both Kyoto and domestic greenhouse gas reduction targets. We are proud that the UK has the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme. There is voluntary participation by companies, which will deliver absolute emissions reductions to the benefit of the UK, and, more importantly, to the globe as a whole. It will also give UK business, Government and the City of London a head start in the practical operation of such schemes and prepare them for the introduction of wider trading schemes at EU and international level—potentially a billion dollar market.
There are four types of participant in this scheme. First, and most directly affected by the Bill, direct participants; those companies that have taken on an absolute five-year emission reduction target from sources within the scheme in return for a financial incentive. These are represented by 34 organisations spanning a range of sizes and sectors, including public sector bodies. Certain exclusions apply, the main one being power generators. Within the scheme, the controlled emissions are the responsibility of the end-user, rather than the generator.

1037
The second target-holding type is climate change agreement participants. These agreements between Government and sector associations and operators in 44 energy intensive sectors set energy or emissions targets. Meeting the target allows an 80 per cent discount from the climate change levy. Climate change agreement holders, both sector associations and operators, can use the scheme to buy allowances to help meet their target or, if they over-achieve, to sell the surplus.
Thirdly, there are trading participants, which do not hold targets, but simply buy and sell targets in the allowance market. We are also working on a fourth entry route to allow approved UK based emissions reduction projects—as distinct from companies—to generate credits valid against targets in the scheme. A pilot phase is due to be launched early next year.
It is essential for the scheme and the emerging allowance market to be underpinned by a robust compliance regime; it is a voluntary scheme that needs to be underlined by penalties. It must always be more attractive to turn to the market and buy allowances than to face the penalty for non-compliance. The Bill will then deliver on the promise made explicit in the contracts and other scheme documentation when we set up the scheme to provide for statutory penalties for direct participants who fail to meet their annual emissions targets. This will be welcomed by all participants in the scheme. It is in their interest to underpin and stimulate the market. The Bill does not change compliance consequences for climate change agreement participants, which would lose their levy discount for failing to meet their targets.
We have learnt the lesson from the introduction of the UK emissions trading scheme about the need for a market to have a robust compliance base. Therefore, we are taking this opportunity to prepare for future emissions trading schemes. Hence Clause 31 gives us the power to provide for penalties in future schemes. It does not specify that such potential schemes may cover other pollutants regulated under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and regulations, such as the acid rain gases sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides.
So the Bill tackles some of the biggest environmental challenges we face, both as a nation and internationally. It does this through innovative instruments which will share burdens more effectively. It uses market based tools, which should deliver more economically optimal solutions. We are meeting future challenges through future means. I commend the Bill to the House.
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, on reading the Bill for the first time my dominant emotion was disappointment. I had anticipated something that would put waste management centre stage. I had envisaged that the Government would take the initiative and produce a document with which there would be little disagreement.
1038
But where is the hierarchy of this waste treatment? Where are the measures to reduce waste production in the first place, then to encourage the re-use and recycling and composting of such waste? Where is the pressure to recover energy from waste? Alas, my Lords, apart from the penalties related to emissions trading, the Bill is predominantly about landfill.
More than that, sadly, it is aimed at biodegradable waste going into landfill, which forms only 6 per cent of our total waste produce. Does inert material in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland not matter? Am I wrong in believing that the use of plastics is increasing, particularly in excessive wrapping and packaging? The Bill refers to weight and not to things of lighter weight.
I know, for example, that a lot of work is going on with the re-using of worn out car tyres, but they are still going to landfill. They are hardly considered biodegradable. The Bill has nothing to say about the fridge mountains, nor the looming problem of disposal of old cars. Should there not be a rule or two about the rubble produced when brownfield sites are re-used?
I referred to three countries where clearly waste disposal is a devolved responsibility. Why then can the Government tell Scotland, in particular, to consult? Why does the section on waste management in Wales go into such fine detail about what the Assembly may include in its regulations? I note that there is no parallel provision for England.
My right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke introduced the landfill tax. It was the first ever hypothecated tax and its proceeds—or some of them—were intended to benefit the environment. Many a rural community has been reconciled to huge waste pits down the road by flows of funds to help improve the village and surrounding countryside. I wonder whether the Bill will gladden anyone's heart. Will the stringent targets—those that are known. because the figures are still not known to us—result in enthusiastic reduction, re-use or recycling?
Do the Government envisage giving priority to the treating of planning applications that will be needed to help promote recycling? Without priority planning permission being given, some of the Bill's aims may fall short. For example, I was told recently that one company had applied for a bottle recycling plant but was turned down by the local council.
Perhaps we are intended to read between the lines and realise that the threat of EU penalties will ensure that the Government act, fund new research into new ways of producing energy from waste and remove the obstacles to recycling. For instance, millions of eggshells from packaging stations, from dried egg producers, cake makers and other food producers currently go into landfill. They could be used as an ingredient for compost and for reclaiming land, but the current animal products legislation does not allow this. Will the Government address that issue?
The landfill tax may have resulted in some environmental benefits. It does not, however, appear to have been effective in reducing the quantities of waste going into landfill, which the Minister

1039
acknowledged in his opening speech, even if some has been temporarily diverted into lay-by, gateway, Iane or coppice. The thirteenth report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee quoted evidence to show that landfill tax started too low and has increased too slowly to be an effective deterrent. Again, I would be grateful for the Minister's observations on that point. There was also evidence that the tax has not provided business with adequate incentives to reduce, reuse or recycle waste.
In the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor indicated that, from April 2005, the escalator will be set at £3 per tonne per year rather than the current £1 per year. Should there not be a cross-benefit whereby firms are credited for reusing and recycling materials which would in other circumstances have been waste?
Big firms can make their own arrangements. Perhaps like other Lords, however, I have received correspondence outlining the concerns of smaller and family businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses believes that the cost of these measures will fall harder on smaller businesses. Will those who choose to pay landfill tax rather than to reuse or recycle be instrumental in frustrating achievement of the disposal authorities' targets, or will the latter be able to control local business? At the moment, if I wished to have a massive clear-out from home, for example, I would order a skip, the rate for which would depend on whether I wished to dump only inert material or biodegradable material. Will the companies providing that service be put out of business? How will they be able to continue operating?
Even if some way is found to control landfill operators, what will happen to loads exceeding the targets? Will they be turned away? Will the owners of the waste be charged by means of a fine accruing to the local authority?
If targets are established, there will be penalties for failing to reach them; in Clause 6—on the borrowing and banking of landfill allowances, which is a sort of draw-down facility—prison is mentioned. Clause 25, however, allows the allocating authority—in England, the Secretary of State—to specify the penalty. The allocating authority can then allow extra time to pay or—as the Minister said—waive the interest on overdue sums or cancel the penalty entirely. There is a slight muddle here which detracts from the push that the Government are trying to make.
The Government do not seem to be offering anything that will significantly impact on the amount of rubbish going to landfill. Ministers are coy about their targets—other than to link them to levels in 2001. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that foot and mouth erupted in February 2001. Have the 2001 figures been inflated by the amount of carcasses and ash that went to landfill during the outbreak?
How will the tradable allowances be set? Will the allocating authority nominate the landfill site to which the waste authority may deliver loads? Will Birmingham, for example, be restricted to trading with south Staffordshire or north Warwickshire, or will it he able to trade anywhere? Will the permits carry the
1040
same location conditions? Will the sale of excess quota to Bradford, for example, result in streams of lorries travelling long distances along our roads? All noble Lords will be acutely aware of the publics concern about the quality of our air. Air pollution is one thing that we are definitely trying to reduce. Have the Government commissioned cost analyses of the possible results of the trading system? Can Ministers say where, when and how often the environment will win?
I am similarly concerned that the Bill does not mention the revision of targets to allow for government action. I have in mind, for example, the recent decision to outlaw the feeding of swill to pigs. The catering waste that used to go to farms now goes to landfill. It is a significant amount of waste, totalling about 200,000 tonnes, I believe. That change happened overnight. In similar circumstances, other targets may have to be reset. Does the Bill allow for such changes? The Minister is keenly aware of biosecurity issues such as disease spread and the possibility of contamination leeching into watercourses. Perhaps he will touch on those issues in his reply.
As a side issue, I am a little surprised that the Bill does not mention tighter controls on the state of biodegradable matter going to landfill. After the recent concentration on biosecurity, I was expecting to see some rules which are similar to those in Germany. My noble friend Lord Luke will address that issue later in the debate.
I have two specific questions for the Minister. Will he clarify how the Government intend a waste disposal authority to deal with hazardous household waste? It has been suggested that, under the new arrangements, waste such as redundant batteries, and electrical goods including cameras and hairdryers, may not be covered by existing legislation. The provisions of the hazardous waste directive are very clear and definite, but the provisions of the landfill directive are less so. As we know, however, batteries and smaller electrical appliances known as white goods are sometimes placed in the same bins intended for landfill. Do the Government anticipate that waste disposal authorities will distinguish between the two forms of waste? If so, how will they do so?
Does the Minister accept that the Government have a duty to inform all interested parties, especially industry, of the capital investment required of them to make the scheme work successfully? My understanding from the industry representatives who have come to see us is that implementation will cost £1.5 billion annually for the next 10 years. It is a huge sum.
Does the Minister share my concern that some waste disposal authorities may decide that it is cheaper t D use the trading scheme rather than to tackle the issue of reuse within their own boundary? I am sure that that is not one of the Bill's objectives, but I should be grateful for some clarification on that point. I have been contacted—to name only a few—by the Local Government Association, the National Farmers

1041
Union, Friends of the Earth, the Environmental Services Association and, as I said, the Federation of Small Businesses. All of them are keen that the Bill should work well, but they have concerns which we shall be able to discuss in detail in Committee.
I cannot end my speech without at least mentioning Part 2 of the Bill, although—as noble Lords will see—it comprises only a small proportion of the overall legislation. It is a long time since 1999, and we have fought many battles since then—on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, on the Food Standards Agency and on the Animal Health Bill, to name but three. However, I am sure that the emissions trading scheme established in the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, to which the Minister referred, was intended to be voluntary. The Minister will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the Government have made that scheme compulsory. I presume that this Bill will make such schemes compulsory. The Minister is shaking his head. Perhaps he will clarify the point later.
We welcome the Bill in principle. As I said, however, I am disappointed that the Government have failed to take a holistic approach to the waste problem. I fear that fly-tipping, for example—a subject which this House has often discussed—will increase rapidly. The Bill also, as I said, fails to tackle at source the growing problem of waste production. Nevertheless, I support the Bill in principle.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill meets our obligations under the European Landfill Directive and further develops emissions trading schemes. It certainly begins to combat climate change. It also moves towards sustainable waste management, which is to be welcomed. Our response has generally been supportive in tackling UK waste generation and disposal and meeting the challenges of the landfill directive. However, the Bill may be operating in isolation from the wider challenge of increasing household and industrial recycling and composting rates, which are to be found in the targets that are set in other European directives; for example, on packaging and packaging waste. This has burgeoned in recent years and there is undoubtedly a need for more constraints on the commercial instigators of ever more packaging, the disposal of which constantly presents problems for hard-pressed local authorities.
The Bill relates to the wider review of waste management that has recently been published by the strategy unit. As regards the hierarchy of disposal mentioned by the Minister, I tend to agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Where is it? Where is the practice of the hierarchy laid down in the Bill and where are the targets that will be set in relation to each method of disposal?
The question of emissions trading is one which we support in principle, but we are critical of the scope of the scheme in operation because only larger businesses
1042
can participate. Indeed, in future, the European Union scheme will operate in a different way from that of the United Kingdom. We will therefore seek to amend the Bill and I would ask the Minister what are his views in relation to these differences and how they can be reconciled. For example, we need to take account of these present failings and indeed future challenges. We will highlight the issues not included in the Bill, which we believe are crucially important to the future of both waste management and emissions trading.
There are two problems with the Bill as it presently stands. First, the inclusion of incineration and its relation to recent Budget proposals for rises in landfill tax. That could mitigate against the increased use of recycling and composting and could well he the subject of amendments from these Benches.
The removal of energy recovery will undoubtedly be the subject of an amendment to the Bill. It could emphasise and promote other forms of treatment in preference—for example, more recycling and composting, to which we as Liberal Democrats certainly give priority.
As a Welsh Member of this Chamber, I welcome the devolving of functions in Chapter 2 to the Welsh Assembly and, through secondary legislation, it is important that the Welsh Assembly consults on and produces an appropriate scheme—which it has now done, and I welcome that. From my knowledge as a former constituency MP, I know that the cost of landfill is quite a burden on local authorities. One authority with which I am well acquainted was faced with the cost of landfill representing 4 per cent of its total budget. That very often applies to rural areas, where the total budget of such authorities globally is rather less than the much larger budgets of those in urban areas.
I am also concerned about the impact of the legislation on agriculture. We must be aware of inadvertent inclusion of legitimate farming activities in this Bill. For example, agricultural waste within the scope of the Bill could be problematic. It could refer to biodegradable wastes and how they are disposed of.
Fly-tipping has already been mentioned, and it is certainly on the increase. A possible result of the targets on householders could result in more fly-tipping of biodegradable material that waste disposal authorities will perhaps not go out to collect.
Those of us who live in the countryside and are involved in farming have noticed the dumping of more cars, more tyres, more household waste, indeed even construction waste in quite large quantities. That occurs especially on the urban fringe. In a recent NFU survey of 2,000 farmers, two-thirds said that they suffered from fly-tipping. That is a very large number of those who are managing land. Fly-tipping can be dangerous to livestock and it pollutes. As we know, farmers can be held responsible and the cost of getting rid of the material that is dumped on their land can be very considerable.

1043
There is also the impact on agricultural land of excessive biodegradable applications and the run-off from agricultural land into water and watercourses, which could have a knock-on effect on drinking water, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
The disposal of organic waste, particularly catering waste, on agricultural land could include meat. We all know of the problems relating to swill, but this could he another way in which meat products might affect grazing animals. Have DEFRA vets been consulted on the possible disposal of catering waste onto agricultural land and the impact of that on animal health? Have the Environment Agency and the Food Safety Agency been consulted, and have alternative methods of disposal of this material been examined?
We believe that emissions trading is a big move forward. Indeed, the principle of robust compliance which the Minister outlined is vital as indeed is the point that it must be attractive to markets in order to allow purchases. This is innovative and is to be welcomed, but there is a tremendous amount of detail in the Bill that needs to be debated and discussed. We will address all of these matters in terms of amendments. Indeed, we will seek to make the Bill as effective as possible.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill. I feel some sympathy for him because, on waste disposal and emissions, the Government really are between a rock and a hard place. However, this is not the first time my noble friend has been there.
As the Minister explained, on the one hand the Government a re under pressure from the packaging and landfill directives of the European Union. They are also under pressure from the Kyoto climate change undertakings. On the other hand, local authorities and business are concerned about the additional costs and the extra work produced by the regulations. The Green Alliance and the environmental groups say that the cost should be higher to encourage more environmentally friendly action. Business organisations say that costs should be lower because they are concerned about our competitiveness.
What are the Government to do, stuck in the middle of all these pressures? 'The answer has to be some sort of compromise, which probably satisfies nobody but achieves a reasonable balance. I think that the Government have tried to do that in the Bill.
I find that the Bill is consistent with past policies. It sticks to the principle of the polluter pays; indeed, the Bill says how much. It discourages climate change gases. It encourages a more pleasant environment. The trading element rewards firms and local authorities which are more diligent in reducing pollution. Incentives are needed. According to the Pre-Budget Report, there seem to be large discrepancies between the best and the poorly performing authorities. Waste and emissions trading mixes discipline with incentive to encourage the poorly performing authorities to raise their game.
1044
I am glad therefore that noble Lords welcome the Bill. To reject it out of hand would do a disservice both to business and to local authorities which are anxious to raise their levels of recycling and lower their levels of landfill.
Nowadays, the more thoughtful businesses and local authorities are trying to show a more human face. They do so through corporate social responsibility. That has caught on because more and more businessmen realise that, by alienating the public, they alienate their customers and their own employees. Respect for the environment is a major element of corporate social responsibility. I believe that the Bill will be a step towards helping businesses to achieve their objectives in that respect.
In reality, business has little alternative but to get to grips with these environmental issues and to make the most of the incentives provided. The incentives ensure that the amount of tax paid and the amount of regulation suffered are not fixed; they vary according to the efforts of individual businesses and authorities. At the same time as raising standards by rewarding reduced air and land pollution, the Bill also rewards the corporate social responsibility which business is trying to achieve. Higher standards may have some cost to business and industry but that can be recovered.
Higher standards also provide economic benefits to the economy. A recent study demonstrated that less pollution reduced the cost of damage to rubber and painted surfaces of buildings. Business also benefits from better health achieved through a cleaner environment, and industry itself becomes more efficient by producing less waste. Therefore, the Government are right to encourage these high standards. The Government's Envirowise programme saved British business £43 million last year by encouraging better working practices.
But there is more. The demand for high environmental standards has created a whole new environmental technology and services industry. In a very interesting letter in today's Financial Times, Mr John Acton makes that very point. He explains how the carrot-and-stick approach gives British industry a chance to lead the world in recycling and recovery technology. I agree. By promoting high standards here in Britain, we put the British environmental services industry in a strong position to exploit the enormous 500 billion dollar global marketplace. Indeed, because of its potenthal, the DTI has made this industry one of the targets for its growth and innovation team.
Here, I declare an unpaid interest. I am the honorary president of the Environmental Industries Commission. The commission is supported by all political parties, by academics, environmentalists and trade unions, and by more than 225 firms—large and small—in this sector. We all believe that we can create a clean and sustainable environment not only by regulation but also by the use of existing and new technologies, through science and by innovation and

1045
investment. I can tell the Minister that the Environmental Industries Commission welcomes the Bill.
As well as technology and regulations, trading schemes, such as the one in the Bill, are an important and efficient way of encouraging higher environmental standards. They use the power of the market. By setting a market price for a pollutant, trading sends a powerful signal to business about the benefits of reducing its use of that pollutant. For example, the US sulphur dioxide trading system has proved a successful mechanism in reducing emissions of that pollutant.
The Minister spoke of the importance of compliance. I agree. To be effective, trading schemes must have clear rules and penalties, together with a culture of acceptable behaviour on such matters as insider trading. The penalties are essential as they ensure that participants comply with the caps set out in the emissions trading scheme. In that way, the British public is sure that the environmental outcome that the scheme aims to achieve really is achieved; otherwise, the scheme simply becomes a casino for speculative traders and nothing is achieved.
The schemes work best if they are mandatory, propose clear emission limits and set uniform penalties for non-compliance. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can assure me that confining the scheme to a limited number of participants means that it will contain those features and will not be another casino, as has happened in some industries. Perhaps the Minister can also say what happens if people who trade in such schemes eventually cannot pay. Will there be some kind of compulsory insurance?
I support the Bill in its aim of ensuring that the polluter-pays principle is upheld. It lays out how much such polluters should pay by setting emission limits, thereby establishing a market price for pollutants. It achieves that in a very creative way. The Bill is not about more regulation; nor is it about placing more burden on industry. I believe that it encourages the higher standards and better environment that people are rightly demanding.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Byford, I, too, am concerned that so much is not included in the Bill. The main part of the Bill is concerned with how we handle biodegradable domestic refuse, and I shall largely confine my remarks to that aspect.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I sympathise with the Government. I sympathise with them because they are between a rock and, in this case, a soft place—the soft place being biodegradable domestic refuse and the hard place being the European directives that could result in this country having to pay large financial penalties by 2015 if we do not alter our ways. A cynic might observe that the penalty schemes derived within the Bill—we do not have the details of them but we know they are there—are intended simply to raise funds in order to pay the penalties should we
1046
miss the targets. There is an element of justice in that because, if we fail to meet the targets, it will be because people on the ground have not met them.
Be that as it may, the scheme as outlined brings about what I consider to be the ultimate "Sovietisation" of the waste disposal industry. We have a national plan, national targets and national timescales; we have devolved targets and devolved timescales; we have local allocations and local timescales; and we have trading and penalties. If that is not similar to something that went on in another country a while ago, I shall be very surprised.
It is a sad fact that pollution prevention control and, now, waste disposal seem to have brought out the worst of government legislative practice. I refer to the latest report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee. At paragraph 26 on page 6, the report states:
"The Bill is, effectively, almost a 'skeleton bill'. We have previously reported unfavourably on such bills, which leave many important matters to ministerial discretion. Even where the powers in the bill are subject to affirmative procedure, Parliament can only accept or reject what is proposed. It cannot amend it. Had this bill applied only to England, we would have considered seriously whether to recommend that some of what is proposed to be done by regulations should appear on the face of the bill. We appreciate that the highly unusual structure of the bill was to some extent dictated by the different legislative procedures under the devolution arrangements. While we do not propose any amendment at this stage, we draw the House's attention to the extent of the delegated powers in the bill".
Half the clauses in the Bill—17 out of 34—involve proposals to bring in regulation. That is a part of the Bill that we cannot see and do not know. Therefore, it is very difficult to judge how or whether the Bill will work.
There is another aspect to this issue. We do not know, and cannot know—and will not know I suspect for quite some time—under what financial regime the Bill will work. I shall return to that matter later on.
In the good/bad old days—they were quite fun—Essex was involved in the disposal of more than 35 per cent of London's domestic refuse in addition to its own. So it might be said that I have considerably dirty boots on this subject. The waste was disposed of in Essex because it had places where it could go. The waste was used as a land reclamation tool. Despite the transport costs, it was the most economic—in terms of cost—way of disposal.
The alternative in those days was the Edmonton incinerator, or its equivalent. That was in north London and took waste from about half-a-million people. We could never get accurate costings as to what it cost to dispose of waste through Edmonton. The best figure we could produce was that the cost was about three times that of disposing of waste in landfill in Essex.
There has been a progression since those days. I shall not say that Edmonton was "superseded" because I think it is still going, but a new type of plant was brought in called SELCHP (South East London Combined Heat and Power). That was a very sophisticated modern plant, which still operates in south-east London. It involves incineration. But it

1047
involves incineration in order to generate electricity and, more importantly, community heating. If my memory is correct, it heats something like 5,000 to 6,000 houses. That was seen as a big step forward, as indeed it is.
There is still an irreducible minimum of waste for disposal, but this provides a great deal of recovery to the community. The difficulties were the planning problems. The Nimby attitude runs strong in us all. No one likes to have a steady stream of waste-carrying trucks pouring past our front door. There is always the environmental fear—however unreal it may be and however sophisticated the plant may be to prevent risk—t hat something will go wrong and that people will gel nasty noxious emissions from such a plant. But for such plants to be effective—and the direction that we must move in—they must be centred in or on the immediate fringe of a community because not least of the problems of waste disposal is that transport costs are very high. If one is in the business of recovery—be it energy or whatever—one has to minimise costs in order to make things work.
I think we shall reach the point where communities or, in rural areas, small groups of communities will have once again to accept their own liability for waste disposal. Difficulties are created because of this planning problem; people are naturally and inherently reluctant to discuss and deal with the problem.
I turn towards the future. I mention two other systems that go even further and which have a great future. Anaerobic fermentation will be the next big thing. Using this system one can take biodegradable domestic waste and produce ethanol, which the internal combustion engine runs on very successfully. That is the first possibility. But of course if one burns ethanol through the internal combustion engine, one still gets the normal atmospheric pollutants that one gets from burning hydrocarbon fuels in an internal combustion engine.
One can take the ethanol system a stage further and produce methane, which is a purer fuel and more clean-burning and still can be used through an internal combustion engine or in furnaces or for electricity generation. That is fine, but once again the combustion process still produces atmospheric pollution. One can take the methane process a stage further—there are plants already beginning to do this—and produce hydrogen. That is the ultimate clean fuel: burning hydrogen produces water. Since one is using recovered hydrogen from plants that have already grown, that would be totally environmentally neutral and totally environmentally clean.
Systems to do that, as I have said, already exist, but they are expensive. There is another possibility, for which I am grateful to the Economist. I read in the Economist that in the past two weeks plants in California and the Netherlands have been specifically created to deal with soiled nappies, which are to be converted into useable products—wallpaper was mentioned, shoe insoles, roof shingles and so on. There are a great many uses, but there are questions of course of market acceptability.
1048
The reason I mentioned that is not particularly to highlight that problem, but to highlight another. Those plants in order to operate have been established with a direct subsidy of £65 per tonne of soiled nappies that they use. If one compares that with the cost, without tax, of landfill disposal of about £10 per tonne, one can see immediately why concern about the financial regime—and lack of information about the financial regime for the future—is absolutely critical as to whether the Bill will work and whether the targets can be met.
The nearest I can get on the financial side is an article in the Financial Times last Saturday, which seemed to indicate that local authorities will be obliged to operate under Treasury-set financial disciplines and incentives. I shudder at the thought. But, I shudder at the thought because I do not know what they are. It is extremely difficult to know how this House is to pass judgment on this Bill without that knowledge. So, if one can get over the philosophical difficulties with, what I would call, "bringing out the worst in the Government's legislative practice", the Bill is welcome, but it raises more questions than it answers.

Hunting with Dogs
4.19 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to outline to the House my proposals for legislation to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs. Few people would regard that as the most important issue for Parliament and government to resolve, but it is a serious issue on which many Members of the House and of the public have strong and polarised views. That is why we must return to the matter again.
"The last time that Parliament considered a Bill on hunting with dogs, no agreement was reached between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That is why our manifesto promised to,
'enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs'.
And that is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave me the job of fulfilling our manifesto promise by designing legislation to command support in Parliament and to make good law—legislation that will stand the test of time.
"At the request of the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal and the Countryside Alliance, I took the conclusions of the Burns inquiry as my starting point. His terms of reference required Lord Burns to consider all aspects of hunting with dogs, and the authority of his report is acknowledged on all sides.
"The key issues emerging from the Burns report were cruelty and utility. Those two principles have run like a golden thread through the consultation

1049
process. Everything has been tested against those principles: are we preventing cruelty and are we recognising what farmers and others need to do to eradicate vermin or to protect their livestock or crops or the bio-diversity of an area?
"My Bill is based on the answers to those two questions. After my Statement in March, I started a wide-ranging consultation process involving all interested parties, Members of Parliament and the public. Initially, the response generated more heat than light. About 7,000 people wrote asking me to leave everything unchanged. That matched about 7,000 who asked me to 'just ban everything'. However, others wrote detailed contributions based on evidence and their personal experience.
"In May, I asked for detailed evidence to be submitted against a set of questions and criteria based on considering the issues of cruelty and utility and other questions raised by the evidence that I had received by that time. The amount of serious engagement increased greatly. In September, I chaired a series of public hearings in Portcullis House. The three main campaigning groups participated in full. Together, we heard expert witnesses from all sides of the argument who debated the merit of applying the principles of cruelty and utility to the activity of hunting mammals with dogs.
"I want to pay tribute to the leaders of those groups—the Countryside Alliance, the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal and the Middle Way Group—who fully engaged in a mature and intelligent manner with an issue on which each of them felt passionately and deeply. During the consultation, both sides have welcomed and praised a process that has been fair, open and transparent.
"The two principles of cruelty and utility provide the golden thread that runs from the start to the finish of the process and through the drafting of the Bill. That golden thread is strengthened by the integrity of the process, basis of principle and strong focus on evidence that has led me to conclusions that, I hope, will command the support of the House.
"I will publish a Bill this afternoon, but in advance of that, let me take this opportunity to outline the reasoning behind my conclusions. There has been support from all the organisations involved for the idea of drafting legislation on the basis of evidence and the two principles of cruelty and utility. That in itself is significant and should be noted by Members opposite.
"On a number of occasions, John Jackson, chairman of the Countryside Alliance, said:
'if something is cruel, we should not be doing it'.
Animal welfare organisations have acknowledged utility: things that need to be done for such purposes as eradicating vermin or protecting livestock. Indeed, they included a list of exemptions in the
1050
Deadline 2000 option that we debated in the last Parliament. The Middle Way Group has also acknowledged the validity of those two principles.
"So the legislation is designed to recognise utility and prevent cruelty. Let me briefly spell out what that means. The utility test involves asking what is necessary to prevent serious damage to livestock, crops and other property or biological diversity. The cruelty test involves asking which effective methods of achieving that purpose cause the least suffering.
"All activities will be judged on the evidence available as to whether they meet both those tests. Where an activity has no utility and involves cruelty, it will not be allowed to continue. Incontrovertible evidence shows that the activities of hare coursing and deer hunting cannot meet the two tests, so those activities will be banned. Where an activity with dogs has general utility and there is no generally less cruel method, it will be allowed. Again, incontrovertible evidence has shown that the activities of ratting and rabbiting should be allowed to continue and that will be dealt with in the Bill.
"For some activities the evidence is less clear cut. For these activities, I propose to set up an independent process to consider on a case-by-case basis whether particular activities involving dogs meet the two tests. That is consistent with the Burns findings. The procedure will require an application to an independent registrar to show why there is a need to undertake the proposed activity and that the cruelty test is satisfied. The procedure will then allow a prescribed animal welfare organisation to provide evidence as well.
"If the registrar is satisfied that both tests are met, he will grant registration. If not, he will refuse. In considering applications, the registrar will also have to consider whether the applicant will be able to comply with standard conditions, such as requiring hunted animals to be killed quickly and humanely when caught. Applicants may also specify conditions to which their hunting will be subject.
"If either side wants to appeal against the decision, they can do so to an independent tribunal. The tribunal will be a national body with a president at its head appointed by the Lord Chancellor. A panel will have a legally qualified chairman, normally sitting with two other members, one with land management experience and the other with animal welfare experience.
"That is similar to the fair and effective way in which housing and employment law have been dealt with to a high standard for many years. Let me stress that we will not establish local tribunals. At every stage, there will be balance, fairness, clear principles, transparency and an emphasis on evidence within a process based on clear tests that enables hunters and those concerned with animal welfare to present their evidence.
"The onus is now on those who want to undertake any activity to show that they can meet the tests of utility and cruelty. They may find ways of changing their activity to meet the two tests. That will be a

1051
matter for them, and I shall not prejudge the independent registrar. What is clear is that if they cannot meet the tests, the activity cannot continue. It is simple: if the activity cannot meet the tests, the activity will not happen; if it can, it will.
"A number of commentators have tried to suggest that we intend going beyond the issue of hunting with dogs to other country sports. I want to make clear that there is no such intention. It is spelled out in our manifesto commitment:
'we have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting'.
"I am also convinced by the evidence that there is no need to control falconry within the provisions of my Bill. In falconry, dogs are used to flush out quarry, so for the avoidance of doubt the Bill will specify such activities as exempted activities.
"It may be argued that the two principles of utility and cruelty on which I am basing my proposals do not go wide enough. The social and economic contribution of hunting will be mentioned, or the argument that ancient freedoms should not be interfered with. Those are serious points. I do not take them lightly. But the key point is that nobody has—nor should have—a right to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. Of course, we want to keep to a minimum the constraints on people's behaviour and activity, but to ask for the liberty to be cruel would be absurd. Parliament has the right to set limits and has done so in the past. That is what this Bill does.
"The Bill seeks to prevent cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. Even being registered will not allow people to undertake activities in such a way as to cause avoidable or unnecessary suffering. People will be registered to hunt certain species with dogs in a specific area. They will not have licence to be cruel.
"Let us not forget that we have to address the issue and bring it to a sensible resolution in a way that will stand the test of time rather than being a quick fix or a temporary solution that cannot be implemented. My conclusions are based on evidence and principle, not prejudice on either side of the argument. I hope that Members on both sides will see the merit of the proposals. They are fair and reasonable; they balance principle and evidence; and they can be enforced.
"Most people want to see cruelty prevented. They also want farmers, gamekeepers and others who have to manage the land to be able to do so. There is no magic wand. There is no quick win. The basis of principle and evidence provides a golden thread that runs through the whole process and provides authority for the proposals themselves. I believe that the proposals will stand the test of time and are right. I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place—after, as too often happens, the Government leaked it to the
1052
press in advance. We shall all have to wait to read the Bill's detail, but I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the Government's thoughts.
Am I alone in finding the Statement an astonishing reflection of the Government's priorities? Nothing is working properly in the country: not the trains; not the roads; not the health service; not, as we shall hear shortly, the examination system; and not, as we card last week, the Chancellor's management of the economy. There is so much to do—so much that the Government have touched, tinkered and tampered with and made worse.
We have a public pre-occupied with the growth of industrial action. We face a major threat from international terrorism. We have a nation on the verge of being taken to war with Iraq. To cap it all, we have daily reports of strife at the highest levels of government. It is against that background that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, unveils the flagship item of this Session's legislative programme—a Bill to ban hunting.
It will not be in the countryside only that the Government's sense of priorities will be utterly disbelieved. Whatever Bill is presented to us later today we cannot be sure that it will be the same Bill as will be introduced to another place. I state clearly that we on this side have a free vote. It is not a party issue.
In this response I speak for my party in condemning the bizarre sense of legislative priority, but I speak for myself now in expressing my views. I am bitterly disappointed in the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. We heard a lot of fine talk about compromise. But there should be no doubt that the end result of the proposals put forward will mean the end of hunting in most tracts of our countryside; the alienation and criminalisation of law-abiding people; and, ironically, the control of foxes by means far more cruel than those already in place and anything that takes place in a properly conducted hunt.
Who do the Government think that will please? It will not please the fanatics who want a total ban on all country sports, or the abolitionists on Labour's Back Benches in another place who have already made clear that they will try to amend the Bill. The Government have not only lost their sense of priorities, they seem to be losing their political touch, too.
What is it with this Government and the countryside? We are living through the greatest collapse of farm incomes and the gravest rural economic crisis in living memory. We have endured the agony of foot and mouth and the government-driven cruelty of the slaughter of millions of animals. And now we have this proposal. However it is dressed, it will be seen as an erosion of ancient freedoms and a passport to the destruction of a large part of our country life.
The Government would be unwise to anticipate an easy ride. I fear that the Bill is a divisive Bill that cannot be driven either through another place or through your Lordships' House without impacting on

1053
other parts of the Government's legislative programme. And no so-called "modernisation" of procedure will change that.
We shall look carefully at the Bill when it is published, but I shall ask questions immediately. There is to be rabbiting, ratting and falconry; a little bit of hunting in some places; and no hunting in other places. Where is the logic in that? Where is the principle? Where is the "golden thread", mentioned repeatedly by the Minister, running through the proposed legislation? I fear that it is a pretty slender thread.
What is the case for placing the onus on country people to prove their innocence? Is not that one more example of the changing of the onus of proof to the accused, as we have seen in too many Bills recently from the Government? For how long will the proposed licences be granted? Will they be permanent licences, or time limited? On what grounds will the so-called "independent registrar"—an unelected official—be given life and death powers over hunting? Is not the so-called "independent tribunal" a beast on which the views of one member and another will inevitably disagree, with the casting vote perhaps going to the president appointed by the Lord Chancellor? That looks suspiciously like a right of appeal from one government department being given to an appointee of another. Who will those people be? Will conservation and employment be a criteria that affect their judgment on utility?
Finally, I do not want to turn to individual activities. There will be ample scope for that in Committee. Does the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have any idea of the scale of damage that a ban on stag hunting will have on the fragile economy of Exmoor and the West Country?
However one looks at it, it is an anti-hunting Bill. Hunting and country people have gone a long way to meet the Government. They consulted and they talked to the Government. They proposed constructive ways to move the debate forward. I am sure that spirit still remains. I hope that the Government will not pursue a divisive and damaging course that may play well with their Back-Benchers at a time of growing difficulty for the Government.
The Minister's right honourable friend was right when he said that few people will regard this as the most important issue facing Parliament. Does the Minister have any influence? Is it too late for him to persuade his right honourable friend to draw the logical conclusions of his own Statement and set this Bill on one side to allow for further discussion?
I fear that what is proposed will divide the country even further and that the real priorities of the public will yet again be neglected.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I, too, on behalf of these Benches, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. For a long time the Liberal Democrats' official policy has been to support a ban on hunting with dogs. I hope that the
1054
Government, too, will have a free vote on the issue. We recognise that a whole range of views are held with deep conscience on this matter. Both in another place and here, if and when we vote on the matter, we shall no doubt find ourselves in different Lobbies.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, one of the difficulties of responding to the Statement and questioning the Minister today is that we do not know what will be in the Bill when it is published this afternoon. We have no idea what the other place will do to it on a free vote before it arrives here. Therefore, the discussion is difficult. I must add that it is unusual to have a Statement announcing that a Bill will be starting its progress through Parliament. That is not a normal procedure. In my view we should be discussing other issues rather than discussing this matter yet again in your Lordships' House.
If the Bill arrives and if your Lordships are prepared to return it in some form, it should be done expeditiously and that should be the end of parliamentary debate. Indeed, the Statement repeatedly says that it is important that the proposals stand the test of time.
The first major question I have is whether the proposals are likely to do that. The mechanism being set up seems designed to result in a series of continuing arguments, area by area, hunt by hunt, before the tribunals. Rather than settling the argument, there must be at least a strong possibility that it will merely keep it rumbling on month after month, year after year. Sooner or later it will no doubt end up back in Parliament.
My personal view is that hunting with dogs should not be allowed. People can judge anything else that I say in the light of that, although I am trying to take an objective view.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Greaves: No, my Lords. I am trying to take an objective view of the Statement. I believe that hunting with dogs should not be allowed. If that is not the view of Parliament—if the Bill cannot be got through Parliament—my second choice is that the current situation should continue more or less as it is. The third way proposals, which have been associated with, among others, some of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, and the current proposal risk becoming a real can of worms. They will not bring this question to a close; they will merely continue it year after year. I believe that the Government have the right to bring the matter before Parliament. They should have done so several years ago and sought a firm resolution of it then but they were not able—or not prepared—to do so.
I turn to the meaning of cruelty and utility. When the Bill is published, will it clearly define those words? According to the Statement, they are supposed to be the golden thread that will bind all of this together. However, the Statement contained the assertion that meeting the two tests will be a decision for the independent registrar. It stated:

1055
"I shall not prejudge the independent registrar".
If the Government are not prepared to prejudge the tribunal that they will set up, what understanding do they have of the likely outcomes of the process that they are establishing? I hope that the Minister can tell us. What is his best estimate of how much fox hunting will remain in this country if the Bill is enacted and the procedure is set up? The Government must have an idea of that; if they have not, it would be extraordinary for them to introduce the Bill. Are they in fact saying, "We are passing the buck to other people. We do not know what the outcome will be"? I hope that the Minister will tell us what the expected outcome is likely to be.
Finally, if the Bill is passed, what levels of supervision and control of the remaining hunts are there likely to be, once those hunts have been allowed to continue by the tribunal? Will that involve the sort of regime envisaged by the Middle Way Group or has that all been put to one side? Once hunts have been told, "Yes, you can continue", will that simply involve the current situation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, both spokespeople for the Opposition dealt with the Bill in a calm and sensible way, which, as your Lordships will be aware, has not always been the case in relation to this subject.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and, to some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, understandably asked: why are we giving this matter priority? As my right honourable friend said in the Statement, this may not he the most major issue but it has been around for an awfully long time, it has caused a serious problem between this House and another place and it needs to be resolved. The timing of that was in effect determined in our manifesto at the previous election: we needed a period of consultation to establish whether there was consensus. We have advanced a proposition that at least reflects many of the points put to my right honourable friend during that consultation, although it may not create an entire consensus. In particular, the issues involved are: is it cruel or more cruel than other methods of control and is it useful? In that context, is it useful with regard to damage to livestock, crops and biodiversity?
This issue, as I said, has been around for a long time and it needs to be resolved; it will be resolved by this parliamentary process. If the end result feared by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, means, in effect, the end of hunting, that in itself would have to be a concession. Hunting with dogs is inevitably cruel and there is no way in which the utility can outweigh the cruelty. We are looking at a balance between cruelty and the avoidance of suffering, and utility in terms of pest control and crop protection.
This issue will be dealt with by another place in the first instance with a free vote on, I believe, all sides of the House and it will be dealt with here with a free vote on all sides of the House. We have also said that at the end of the process we want to resolve the issue. By considering the proposals in another place and here, I
1056
hope that we will recognise their merits. No one will be 100 per cent satisfied by the proposals but they reflect the key issues.
It is all very well for the noble Baroness to talk about the erosion of ancient liberties. However, if, as a result of a mature judgment, those ancient liberties are seen to maintain a system that involves unnecessary cruelty to animals, those ancient liberties, frankly, have to go. If, however, a balance can be demonstrated in favour of hunting or hunting can be adjusted to alter that balance, those liberties can, to that extent, be maintained.
I was a little concerned about the response of the noble Baroness; she does not normally utter threats. I was not clear whether she was speaking for herself or the Opposition when she referred to the effects on other parts of the legislative programme. This issue needs to be dealt with on its merits one way or another, just like any other piece of legislation. Part of the problem with regard to the way in which this House and another place previously dealt with such legislation is that somehow its significance was elevated above that of other legislation.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I suggested that on all sides of the House this is a very controversial issue and that it will take time; my remarks should not he taken in any other way. The Minister slightly misunderstood what I said. This is a controversial Bill, which I believe he accepts, and the time that we spend going through it will obviously take away from the time that we can spend on the other Bills that I listed, which we will not be tackling.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, to that degree, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clarification.
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions, in particular about how the registration system would work. A registration will operate initially for three years and it will be renewable. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked whether hunting could continue and under what terms: there may be conditions attached to the registration. If those conditions are not met, the registration could be withdrawn. Normally, it would last for three years. Inspectors from prescribed animal welfare bodies will be empowered to inspect the hunting arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, slightly surprised me when, expressing his own views on the matter, he said that he would rather have the status quo than something short of an absolute and crude ban. That is an odd position for the Liberal Democrats to take on this issue.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I made it clear that that was my view, not that of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the first part of what the noble Lord said was his view and I should hope that none of it was the Liberal Democrat view.

1057
On the Bill's definitions, cruelty will mean unnecessary suffering to animals and utility will mean the prevention of damage to, in effect, the agricultural sector and in terms of biodiversity. Both of those terms will be narrowly defined.
The noble Lord challenged me to estimate the extent to which hunting would remain operational as a result of these proceedings. He knows very well that I shall not rise to that challenge. We suggest that the registrar will take an independent judgment on these matters; having dealt with matters in that way, it would be wrong for the Government to imply that we have a target one way or the other. The Bill will achieve a reduction in the total amount of unnecessary cruelty resulting from hunting and the issue will have been resolved in this Parliament. No doubt noble Lords will raise other points.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister said that there would be a free vote in this House. Will there be a free vote in the House of Commons?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I said that there would be a free vote in both Houses. Perhaps the noble Lord did not hear me. I said that as far as my party is concerned there will be a free vote in both Houses.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the Minister take back to his colleagues the thought that it might be a good idea if the Government stopped interfering in everyone's business the whole time? Here we have a sport which has been going on for hundreds of years and all of sudden it is to be criminalised. The noble Lord says that this is as a result of mature judgment. It is nothing of the kind. If we are such a mature society, why do so many people end up in prison? The answer is that we are not a mature society. Does the Minister agree that the Government are making a great mistake in saying that we should abandon all these sports and kill all the hounds and horses? I do not go hunting at all but it seems to me that what is proposed, on the basis that it will stop some cruelty, is to see the issue completely the wrong way round. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, for well over 100 years this Parliament has had a record of taking legislative means to reduce cruelty to animals. There is a dispute about the degree of cruelty involved in this respect but it is not an innovative thing for Parliament to legislate to reduce cruelty to animals. This is the next step. I referred to mature judgment. There are polarised views on this issue. A step was taken which brought together, at least for a period, the various campaigning organisations. We tried to take the best of their views into account before proposing the process that will be incorporated in the Bill.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and, in due course, the Bill. This long-running sore needs to be dealt with once and for all and here is an
1058
opportunity to do so. Can my noble friend enlarge on the exclusions from the ban? He mentioned ratting and rabbiting. Are there to be geographical exclusions? Or will they be nation-wide?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, they will be nation-wide exclusions. That applies also to falconry where the argument is slightly more balanced. But my right honourable friend has reached the conclusion that falconry should also be excluded. All of the exclusions will be national exclusions.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the purpose of the legislation is to prevent unnecessary suffering to particular mammals. He will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has brought forward a Bill to make illegal unnecessary suffering by any wild animal. Do the Government support that Bill? If it is passed, will it not render this legislation wholly unnecessary?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the original Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, was withdrawn. However, it could have potentially dealt with a much wider range of issues than provided for within the Bill we are now discussing. Hunting with dogs has caused huge controversy for years. It is an issue we need to resolve. We shall propose further legislation on animal welfare more generally, but this is the issue that has caused the controversy we are now attempting to resolve.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, how did the Government come to conclude that it is unacceptably cruel for a hound to bite the back of the neck and sever the spinal cord of a fox but that it is perfectly acceptable for a terrier to carry out the same operation upon a rat or a rabbit?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is the balance between the degree of cruelty and the unnecessary nature of the cruelty rather than the absolute pain of the animal. We are talking about unnecessary suffering. If you are trying to get rid of rats there will be some suffering involved. We are attempting to minimise the degree of suffering, but the term is "unnecessary suffering" balanced against the necessity for pest control in the first place.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarification. The Statement says,
"we have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting".
What, for example, would happen if the Scottish Executive introduced a Bill to ban such activities, as it has done already in regard to foxhunting? Would Westminster overrule Edinburgh?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. When I refer to "national" I mean that the Bill relates to England and Wales. This issue is devolved to Scotland. It can take its own decisions in this area. Therefore the decisions taken there do not in any way bind the UK Government in relation to England and Wales. Nor is Scotland subject to the UK Parliament in this respect.

1059
I can perhaps take this opportunity of correcting something I said earlier. Although the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, was withdrawn, it was immediately replaced due to a technical error. I am sorry for misleading the noble Viscount.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, as a board member of the Countryside Alliance, I pay tribute to Mr Alun Michael for the very open and careful way he carried out this difficult consultation process. We shall look very carefully at the Bill when it is brought forward and try to play as constructive a role as possible.
Having said that, I should like to ask the Minister about the licensing or registration system. We are told that the onus will be on the people who want to undertake any activity to show that they can meet the tests of utility and cruelty. That is all very well. However, bearing in mind that the experts at the public hearings made perfectly clear—as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his excellent report—that there was not sufficient evidence to come to a safe conclusion on cruelty, can the Minister tell the House how ordinary citizens will be able to do so if the experts cannot?
Why is conservation not mentioned in the list of features in the utility definition? The conservation of our countryside is paramount and hunting's role in that is most important. That appears to have been missed out. Is there a reason?
Can the Minister tell the House what is a prescribed animal welfare organisation, bearing in mind the helpful contribution during the hearings of Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who made it perfectly clear that it would be very difficult to have an animal welfare organisation that had been for years campaigning against a particular activity responsible for regulating it? I believe he used the analogy of having someone from the temperance society on a licensing board.
I studied the Burns report as carefully as any noble Lord, possibly more than most; I attended the hearings and I took as much part as I possibly could. I could not see a single scrap of evidence to justify a ban on stag hunting and on coursing. If the Government were so confident that these activities could not meet the cruelty and utility tests, they, too, should be subject to registration. If they could not meet those tests they would not get a licence. I get a feeling that the dangerously fragile community of Exmoor and the small and equally fragile coursing community will be the political footballs which are kicked to the Minister's Back-Bench colleagues. It has nothing to do with utility or cruelty.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as to conservation, the Statement refers—this will be a reference in the Bill—to the protection of livestock, crops and bio-diversity. There is therefore at least some reference to conservation.
1060
I am not in a position to give a definitive list of the designated animal welfare organisations. Obviously, there are organisations which self-evidently might fulfil that title. However, we want to proceed on the basis of as much consensus as possible.
The noble Lord referred to hare coursing and, I think, deer hunting. We want to restrict ambiguity in the Bill. There is evident cruelty in hare coursing with no significant utility in that activity. The balance was therefore clear and there was not an issue of judgment for the registrar to take. We also considered the evidence in the Burns report and that given to the hearings in regard to deer hunting. We concluded that there is evidence that deer hunting with dogs cannot meet the criteria in relation to the avoidance of unnecessary suffering. Therefore, again, there was not an issue of judgment for the registrar to take.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. I declare an interest as president of the Countryside Alliance and as someone who hunts regularly with foxhounds and most particularly with deer-hounds in the West Country.
Does the Minister agree that we all want to achieve legislation that has the respect and support of the rural communities to which it will apply; legislation which, it is to be hoped, will not create a constitutional crisis between the two Houses; and which will not result, as that in Scotland has, in damage to animal welfare?
I am greatly concerned about the explanation that the Minister has just given about deer hunting. Will he look carefully with his colleagues at the material that was placed before my right honourable friend Mr Alun Michael from the National Park on Exmoor to the effect that a ban on deer hunting would have a devastating effect on the local economy, on the local community and on the deer herd'? Will he re-examine the independent report prepared by Professor Savage for the National Trust which said that simply to impose a ban on deer hunting without making a considerable number of other legislative changes—in particular in relation to firearms, following up wounded deer on other people's land and so on—would have a devastating effect on the deer herd there?
Finally, does the Minister agree that it would be wrong, in order to resolve human conflicts—differences of opinion between people in this House and another place—to take steps which destroy one of the great jewels of those western moorlands; namely, our deer herd? That could happen if a ban is imposed and there is no alternative management structure in place. What do the Government propose to do about imposing such a structure and financing it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my right honourable friend has seen the evidence that was submitted in relation to deer hunting and has taken careful note of the argument. He has visited Exmoor and has spoken to a significant number of people there who are concerned not only with the effects of the impact of the Bill but also with developing a positive deer management strategy. His conclusion in relation to the terms of the

1061
Bill was that the evidence was fairly clear that deer hunting as it is carried out cannot meet the test of cruelty. I repeat: in those circumstances it was not sensible to put it into the box where the registrar had to make an issue of judgment.
I accept that there will need to be some new measures in certain parts of the country in relation to the management of deer. That is the matter on which my right honourable friend was attempting to start discussion when he visited Exmoor. That does not override the objective of the Bill, which is to avoid unnecessary cruelty. His judgment and the judgment of the Government is that deer hunting does fall into that category.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, as deputy president of the Countryside Alliance, I ask the Minister: is it not sensible to assume that the Bill that will come to this House from the Commons will probably be very different from the Bill that is envisaged in the Statement? Might it not be sensible to set up a Select Committee of this House to review the evidence that was given at the Portcullis House inquiry?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the procedures of this House are a matter for the House. I do not believe that that would be a sensible procedure. The evidence has been gone over, first, by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and by the process that I have described. There are not a huge number of new arguments to be discussed. As to whether the Bill will be exactly the same as the one being introduced today, that is a matter for another place on a free vote. Therefore, I can neither agree nor disagree with the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I, like others, am puzzled by the decision to allow cuddly rabbits to be hunted by dogs but not pestilential foxes? Why is that so? Is it because the rabbits are followed by people in jeans and tee-shirts and the foxes by people in red jackets and bowler hats? Is that perhaps the reason?
The following paragraph appears on page 4 of the Statement:
"A number of commentators have tried to suggest that there is an intention of going beyond the issue of hunting with dogs to other country sports. I want to make it clear that there is no such intention. It is spelt out in our manifesto commitment: 'we have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting'".
But how long is that for? The manifesto operates only until the end of this Parliament. Is the Minister prepared to give an absolute assurance that new Labour will never bring forward any propositions on any legislation to ban angling and shooting?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble friend—my ex-noble friend as, regrettably, I must call him these days—is well aware, no government or Parliament can completely bind the next. The views of the Labour Party and the Labour Government were clearly expressed in that manifesto and have been clearly reiterated today.
1062
As to whether this is in a sense a class issue—or a dress issue—people will be perfectly able to go around wearing hunting pink and rabbiting as a result of the Bill. It has nothing to do with that. It is a question of whether the balance of utility as regards vermin—rats and rabbits—is such that it outweighs any concern about unnecessary cruelty in those areas. That is the judgment that has been made in terms of that exclusion.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I should like to pursue a point made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. He mentioned that in the tribunal there would be one member with land management experience and one with animal welfare experience. Is the Minister aware that during the hearing earlier this summer at Portcullis House chaired by his right honourable friend Mr Alun Michael, the representative of the RSPCA was asked by Lembit Öpik, the Liberal Democrat MP, whether the RSPCA's main aim was to ban hunting or to improve animal welfare? After much prodding, the answer was that the aim was to ban hunting. Is it right that that organisation should even consider being represented on any tribunal sitting in judgment on anyone applying for a hunting licence?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the proposal does not prescribe which organisation anyone should come from. But it is clear that there are two sides to these arguments. Those who have experience of land management are by and large in favour of something like the status quo; those who have experience of animal welfare are by and large in favour of restricting or banning hunting. That is bound to be the position, although not exclusively so. We want a balanced tribunal, as we have in many other respects, with a legally qualified chair. That is the tried and tested method for resolving issues where there are different interests and where there are bound to be different initial opinions, as there are in almost every tribunal. The point is to come to a conclusion based on the merits of a particular case.
Lord Monson: My Lords, taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, after all their lengthy consultations and researches, have the Government any hard evidence that hunting is more cruel than shooting or fishing? If, as most of us suspect, they have no such evidence, how on earth can they justify singling out hunting for criminalisation, unless it is for reasons of comparative electoral advantage?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord's last remark indicates that there is a popular support for at least some degree of restriction on hunting, whereas clearly there is not for restricting shooting and fishing in the way that he suggests.
As to the issue of cruelty, what has clearly caused a polarisation of opinion is whether or not the way in which the animal is killed at the end of a hunt is unnecessary cruelty over and beyond other forms of vermin control. It is generally the view of those who

1063
wish to restrict or ban hunting that that is the case. That is the issue that has to be resolved. That is the process that we have put into operation by means of the Statement and the Bill introduced in another place today. That issue will be resolved in this Parliament.

Tomlinson Inquiry
5 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the inquiry into A-level standards. The Statement is as follows:
"I would like to make a Statement on the inquiry into A-level standards.
"My predecessor, the right honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley, invited Mike Tomlinson to carry out an independent inquiry into the concerns raised in September by headteachers' representatives and some examiners about the grading of students' work in this year's AS and A2-level examinations.
"I would like to begin by thanking Mike Tomlinson for the substantial work that he has done. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.
"The initial inquiry investigated allegations about the setting of standards for A-level grades this year, in particular, ensuring that the conversion from marks to grades was determined according to proper standards and procedures.
"Mr Tomlinson's report of 27th September identified weaknesses in the way the exams had been assessed this year and recommended a process of regrading. The outcomes of the regrading exercise were announced to Parliament on 15th October.
"Mr Tomlinson's final report states at paragraph 2 that:
'I remain convinced that my interim report and the subsequent review of grade boundaries dealt effectively with the major concerns and allegations about manipulation of the grading process'.
This is a strong statement, which I wholeheartedly endorse, and I pay tribute to my right honourable friend for setting the process in motion.
"Mr Tomlinson goes on to say at paragraph 3 of his report that:
'Action by QCA and the other regulatory bodies on my earlier recommendations, allied to further proposals made in this final report will, in my view, secure the standards and integrity of next year's examinations'.
Again, I endorse that view and want to express my confidence in the commitment of Sir Anthony Greener and Ken Boston at the QCA, working with my department, to implement the necessary steps set out by Mr Tomlinson.
1064
"The QCA has already followed the recommendations given in Mr Tomlinson's first report, working together with the exam boards, the regulatory authorities in Wales and Northern Ireland and the headteachers' associations.
"As a further short-term measure to help restore confidence in the system, Mike Tomlinson has recommended that, for the January and summer 2003 examinations only, an appropriately qualified individual should observe and report publicly to the QCA board on the awarding process. I agree with this recommendation and believe that Mike Tomlinson is best qualified to fill the role. Therefore, after discussion with the QCA, I have invited Mr Tomlinson to carry out this responsibility and I am pleased to say that he has accepted. I have also accepted Mr Tomlinson's other short-term recommendations in paragraph 69 of his report for further strengthening of the system for 2003.
"In addition, I have received separately from the QCA advice on the extra resources needed to deliver the 2003 exams securely. I can announce today that I am prepared to make available up to £6 million once detailed costing work has been completed. This money will mainly be spent on ensuring that the necessary markers can be recruited.
"Separately, the QCA has advised the Government that in order to ensure timely delivery of English results at both GCSE and AS/A2-level in summer 2003 the GCSE English literature examination be moved prior to the 26th May bank holiday to relieve pressure on markers. The Government have accepted this recommendation for this year only.
"I turn now to the medium and long-term recommendations of Mr Tornlinson's report. Mr Tomlinson has gone about the task thoroughly, and it follows extensive consultation. His proposals are designed to ensure maintenance of the A-level standard in future years.
"Mr Tomlinson's first recommendation is for the systematic reform of the administrative requirements for the AS and A2 examinations to reduce the demands placed on schools and colleges by the awarding bodies' differing requirements and practices. I agree and I have asked the QCA to take this forward urgently with the awarding bodies.
"Secondly, Mr Tomlinson calls for the professionalisation of examining to include high-quality training for examiners and examination officers linked to career development. We welcome these suggestions and will take them forward jointly with the QCA.
"Thirdly, Mr Tomlinson recommends clarifying and making more transparent the relationships between my department, the QCA and the awarding bodies through a memorandum of understanding. I agree and can tell the House that work is in hand to draw up such a memorandum. In addition, I will consider very carefully the points made at

1065
paragraph 96 of his report about the varied responsibilities of the QCA and how they can best be addressed.
"Fourthly, Mr Tomlinson's report calls for arrangements to ensure, and reinforce confidence, that standards over time are being safeguarded. He recommends that the QCA should establish an independent committee whose role would be to review and, if necessary, advise publicly on whether standards are being maintained. We agree and will put this into effect.
"Fifthly, Mr Tomlinson recommends simplification of the rules governing re-sits and 'cashing-in' of AS units. I accept this recommendation and I am asking the QCA to consider this urgently with the awarding bodies and other partners.
"Sixthly, the report recommends changes to the timetable for publication of A-level results to give more time for marking and awarding. We will consult with the QCA, university interests, colleges and schools to see whether such a change can be achieved.
"Finally, in the medium term, Mr Tomlinson recommends increasing the use of ICT in the administration and marking of public examinations and eventually in the examining process itself. We agree that this issue needs to be addressed, and I am asking the QCA to put forward fully costed options, which I will consider positively.
"In the longer term, Mr Tomlinson has identified two issues for consideration. The first is the de-coupling of AS and A2 to create two free-standing qualifications as part of the 14–19 policy developments. Mr Tomlinson suggests that consideration should be given at the same time to other changes in the design of A-level assessment. We agree that these issues are important. They will be considered as part of the 14–19 reforms in the Next Steps document on this matter to be published early in the New Year.
"Secondly, Mr Tomlinson calls for further work on the practicality of introducing a post-qualifications admission system for entry to higher education. Together with the QCA, university interests, colleges and schools, we will explore the practicality of moving to such a system.
"The AS/A2 examination is a fundamentally sound system. It will become a better system as a result of Mr Tomlinson's work. But, as he says,
'The standard has not been lowered if an increased proportion of students meet it as a consequence of improved teaching and hard work by students'.
"I invite honourable Members to join me in paying tribute to Mike Tomlinson's first-class work in carrying through the issues, which now need to be tackled".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I echo her tribute and thanks to Mike Tomlinson and his team for their work in preparing these reports in the relatively short time they were given.
However, I am not yet sure what went wrong, or who, or what, was responsible. I agree that the report should look forward to making sure that this fiasco never happens again. However, Mike Tomlinson said on Radio 4 today that he did not blame anyone for what had happened. Ministers must be asked some serious questions. If Mike Tomlinson says that no-one is to blame, that is all right: no individual is to blame, the department is not to blame, the examination bodies are not to blame, and students and teachers are certainly not to blame. So, as the newly enrolled infant child would say, the debacle just happened like magic.
Was the system at fault? Was it a lack of clear guidance from the department? What, in the Minister's mind, led to the A-level fiasco, which my honourable friend in another place, Damian Green, described as the worst crisis in the history of public examinations in this country?
So many young people have been affected by the debacle. An air of uncertainty has prevailed throughout the summer and, sadly, on into the autumn. What comfort can the current second-year sixth-form students draw from the Statement? They are almost three-quarters of the way through the two-year course. They have completed their AS exams and are now sitting their A2s. The AS exams have already been marked. As the film world would say, they are already in the can, so that work cannot be undone.
My honourable friend Damian Green in another place has set five tests against which the Secretary of State's response must be judged. First, has the examination system been freed from the suspicion of political interference? The Statement certainly does not address that point. Secondly, will the examination's standards be maintained at a high level? We can only wait and see on that. Thirdly, can we be sure that the marking system will be efficient? Things will need to improve very quickly if the impact is to affect the young people who are sitting examinations at the moment and will be sitting them only a matter of weeks from now. Fourthly, does the Minister agree that young people are being asked to sit too many examinations? Has that featured in the thinking so far? Again, that is not addressed by the report. Fifthly, does the examination system work efficiently with the university admissions system? That remains an open question and should be taken into any review. The Statement does not satisfy all those tests, but it would be helpful to have the Minister's comments on some of those questions today.
We welcome the setting up of the independent committee to advise on whether standards are being maintained year on year. When we called for such an independent committee, the Minister for School Standards resoundingly rejected the suggestion, so we are pleased that it has now been taken on board and adopted.

1067
Will the Government follow Tomlinson's wish to separate AS and A2 examinations as part of a review of post-16 examinations? My honourable friends in another place have called for such a review, which should also include looking at the issue of exam overload.
How many more examiners and markers will be needed to ensure that an efficient system is in place? The noble Baroness has talked about the system being dealt with in the short to medium term and in the long term. It would be helpful to know how many more will be needed. It has been difficult to enrol and recruit them so far. What magic thing is going to be conjured out of the air to bring forward more people in the timescale that is needed to be effective in the short term?
Will the Government indicate their plans for changing the liming of the examination in preparation for higher education?
Neither the Tomlinson review nor the Secretary of State have explained why Sir William Stubbs was sacked. On what basis was that decision made? Tomlinson has concluded that the relationship between QCA and the Government works well, but that relationship can have been far from well when a chairman of QCA could be summarily sacked without explanation. It would be helpful to have some elucidation on that point.
This aspect of the report presents my party with some difficulty. If we, students, teachers and parents are to be convinced that there is no ministerial manipulation or interference, the QCA must be made truly independent. There is too much suspicion. Whether it is real or imagined is not important. As long as that suspicion is there, it is important that it should be addressed. That suspicion is not simply on our part, but on the part of many others outside the confines of the Westminster village. Will the Minister confirm that the Tomlinson view on this issue will be rejected and that the QCA will be made truly independent?
This has been a sorry saga and it is not yet over. Confidence will not be restored overnight. It is going to take time. However, one thing is crucial: this shambles must never be repeated, and that includes for the children currently taking GCSEs and A-levels.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. I also thank Mike Tomlinson for the two reports, which have done something to sort out a little bit of the mess that the A-level system got into this summer.
We have a lot of sympathy with a number of the issues that arise in the second report. We are particularly glad to see that Tomlinson's medium and long-term proposals address decoupling AS from A2-levels, and in particular the question of whether we are over-examining pupils in the upper reaches of our secondary schools. We also welcome the consideration of the timing of the university admissions process—the
1068
possibility of a post-qualification admissions process and perhaps a move towards a six-term school year. These all seem very sensible moves. We would like them to be taken further and would like some reassurance from the Minister that the Government will be looking at these issues seriously.
We also very much welcome the proposals for the training of examiners and for the simplifying and tightening up of the rules on resits for the AS and A2 exams and for the clarification of the relationship between the department and the QCA in the attempt to re-establish confidence that standards are to be safeguarded.
The most astonishing aspect of the first Tomlinson report was the statement that there was no clear understanding between the QCA and the examining boards on the standards to be applied to AS and A2-level. I am glad that the proposals in the report to set up machinery will, in Mr Tomlinson's words,
"secure the standards and integrity of next year's examinations".
However, I am not sure that I share his confidence that it can be achieved without some decoupling of the QCA from the department.
One of the statistics that we learnt in the process of our discussions about what happened is that one third of the officials who staff the QCA come from the Department for Education and Skills and most of those fill the top positions in the QCA. There is a great danger that, far from putting in place robust structures, the report is asking the Government, the QCA and the boards just to go away and hatch up a way of working together that suits them. One has visions of the press officers from these organisations working together for the six weeks before the announcement of the results in 2003, just as they did in 2002.
Is all this talk of independence meaningless? What would be the point of a memorandum of understanding between the DfES and the QCA while the Secretary of State retained power to hire and lire the chief executive and to second members of his department to senior positions in the QCA? Surely the Secretary of State should order the break-up of the QCA and establish a thoroughly independent examinations regulator accountable directly to Parliament, not to the DfES.
Secondly, we are not as confident as Mike Tomlinson is that all the issues relating to this year's A-levels have been cleared up. He says:
"I remain convinced that my interim report and the subsequent review of grade boundaries dealt effectively with the major concerns and allegations about manipulation of the grading process".
Yet we also know, again from what has subsequently emerged after the first Tomlinson report, that, while there was a review of grade boundaries, it did not look at scripts where the marks were within six marks of the grade boundary. That has left a vast number of pupils unhappy with the situation. The initial concern arose where scripts had been submitted with work that had been done on assessment, which teachers had already seen and which came back ungraded, with a complete

1069
fail mark, which the teachers were unable to understand. The proposed adjusting of the candidates' grades without any reference to their scripts should be ruled out. It was identified by Nick Tate of the SCAA back in 1997. Is the Secretary of State prepared to rule out that practice now?
Where in the Statement is there any satisfaction for the thousands of students who were robbed of their legitimate grades this summer? The report says that any remaining concerns have been "dealt with". But there are examples. My noble friend in the other place has already mentioned the head of Knights Templar School which has outstanding problems still with the scripts submitted. Mike Tomlinson wrote to the head only a few days ago saying,
"I cannot personally see anything that can be done about the 2002 examination and results, but the final decision is not mine".
If it is not his decision then whose is it? He has psychology students who have to re-sit their examinations in January because they had been so badly done by in last summer's fiasco. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that every student who took AS or A2-level exams this year will have the grades that they deserve?
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch, for their tributes to Mike Tomlinson and to his team. I am sure that he will be grateful to receive them.
I shall deal, first, with the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She raised the important question of who is to blame. I refer to what Mike Tomlinson concluded. He said that a number of factors were involved. The first was what he described as the "perceived pressure" on examination boards from the QCA. Noble Lords will remember that we discussed some of these issues in the earlier Statement on Tomlinson—Part 1, if I may so describe it.
The second factor was the lack of guidance on the level of attainment expected for a particular grade in an individual paper. The third was the lack of a common understanding about the standards required to ensure that the overall A-level standard was maintained. I am sure that, having read Mike Tomlinson's report, noble Lords will be reassured that the issues where he firmly places blame will be addressed. I believe that we can take enormous comfort from the words within his statement that the 2003 standards are secure.
Both noble Baronesses raised the issue of the relationship between the QCA and Ministers. As noble Lords will be aware—Mike Tomlinson has been vigorous in saying this—no one, including Mike Tomlinson, has said that there has been any political interference in the work of the QCA. But we accept the need to clarify the relationship with the QCA—hence my saying that we are already working on a memorandum of understanding. We have
1070
absolutely no doubt that the independence of the QCA in its role as regulator must be clear and beyond question.
I agree with Mike Tomlinson that in the day-to-day workings of our relationship we need to have day-to-day working partnerships. I do not necessarily accept the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about secondments. My experience of them has been that people behave appropriately in all cases. However, I accept the underlying principle that has been raised. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is deliberating on this matter and considering whether there is anything further that we should do. I accept that we should produce a memorandum of understanding.
We also agree that the responsibility of the QCA for delivering the key and basic skills qualification needs to be separated from its other responsibilities. We are going to look further at the suggestion that national curriculum tests are also placed in the hands of another body.
I turn to the professionalisation of the examination system. I accept that we have to find markers. A proposal involving £6 million has been put forward to the QCA. We are waiting for its costed proposals which will also tell us exactly how it proposes to go about recruiting. We have been quite interested in the pilot schemes that have been conducted by Edexel and LCR. Graduates and postgraduates have been used and they were found to mark consistently and effectively. We welcome Mike Tomlinson's endorsement of that approach.
We are looking to see how to improve and professionalise the service of examinations. We shall take this matter forward with due rigour and seriousness because it is very important. I believe that I have commented on the timing of exams.
I wish to spend a moment or two on some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Mike Tomlinson has received a number of submissions and had a number of discussions with individuals and organisations. I can say to the noble Baroness that as regards the particular issues that she raised, he has considered very carefully the question of five or six marks on either side. He has rejected the arguments made having carefully considered them. I believe that he is a man of integrity who has done his job well.
As regards psychology, QCA has carried out investigations into complaints from head teachers about the distribution of grades for LCR in psychology, English Literature and history. He found that in each of the three subjects the distribution of course work grades was similar to the examination modules. The QCA did conclude that the course work in these subjects had not been graded more severely. Mike Tomlinson also looked at this matter and found no evidence of systematic manipulation in the grading process in any unit.

1071
However, the regrading exercise did highlight some issues relating to the syllabus design and assessment and the marking schemes for LCR psychology. We have asked the QCA to look into this issue and to make sure that LCR takes effective action quickly, particularly in addressing these issues before the exams next year.
My final point is on the issue of U grades. Mike Tomlinson said in his report that many of the case histories submitted to his inquiry appeared to have affected only individual candidates or groups of students within a school. He said that he was persuaded that such results could not be the result of systematic manipulation of the grading process since that would downgrade all of the students taking the relevant units and in extreme cases it would have led to up to 8 per cent of them receiving a U grade. He said that he had no evidence of that happening in any unit. He concluded that such cases are either a proper reflection of tower than expected performance by the candidate or inconsistent marking and/or course moderation. He has no clear evidence on which to reach a conclusion about the balance between the two explanations and therefore they are issues to be pursued within the QCA.
5.37 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK. I very much welcome the clear and helpful Tomlinson report. I can confirm what my noble friend said about the extensive consultation that Mike Tomlinson undertook during his investigation. I believe that the work which has been done to restore public confidence in the A-level system is valuable. I have no doubt at all that it will help to ensure that this year's problems can be avoided in future.
I welcome and I am delighted at the very positive response of the department, as indicated by my noble friend the Minister. I welcome the proposals for clarification of standards and for enhancing the value of examining within the teaching profession.
I should like to make a brief comment on one aspect to which my noble friend referred—higher education institutions and the importance of supporting changes that would build in greater certainty for students and security for institutions. I refer to the system for post-qualification applications to universities. If that had been an easy achievement we would have reached agreement already. It is not easy and there are all kinds of complications that we need to look at.
Nonetheless, I know that universities, in association with other stakeholders at schools and colleges, will look at the Tomlinson recommendations with a great degree of interest and commitment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her remarks about the work of Mike Tomlinson. We believe that it will enhance A-levels and make sure that the cohort of students going through the system this year can have full confidence. The issue of post-qualification
1072
applications is an important but difficult one. I am delighted that Universities UK will be, and have been, involved in looking very carefully all this matter.
The logic behind the position would be that students would know the results of their A-levels before they applied to university. But the implications for the way in which we design the university year and so forth are immense. This is one of the areas—there are many within the document—where we shall be consulting with colleagues in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Tomlinson report heralds an opportunity to discuss these issues and see where they might take us.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, the report is an example of expeditious and authoritative dealing with an unfortunate situation. I join with other noble Lords in welcoming it.
I have a question involving the unpacking of the expression, "perceived pressure", which occurred in the earlier report, but there is too a general point to be made. The crisis has been waiting to happen. It arises from the annual ritual by which examination results are subjected to massive distrust. It is one thing to want to make sure, if someone is attempting a four-minute mile, that the stopwatch and tape measure are accurate; it is quite another to greet every announcement of a four-minute mile with a suspicion that the watch was wrong and the tape was not correct. We see every year those of predominantly middle-age and beyond, like myself, assuming that it was much better when we were young, that it was tougher, that the teaching had to be much better, and that the exams must have been more difficult. Does the Minister agree that we all need to encourage some self-restraint?
There is a reluctance on the part of preceding generations to admire, affirm and welcome the achievements of the rising generation. I am staggered at what that generation is required to know, learn, study and achieve. Does the Minister agree that the language of perceived pressure must be elucidated to the general population so that we all understand that exam results have first to be received in a spirit of affirmation and welcome rather than be subjected to the annual ritual of suspicion that lies at the root of this year's crisis?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an important point: to admire, affirm and welcome the fantastic work that our students, their families and teachers do year upon year. I agree with him that we must be cautious and careful in our assumptions about the next generation of bright young people who are able to perform to their best. I quote again Mike Tomlinson:
"The standard has not been lowered if an increased proportion of students meet it as a consequence of improved teaching and hard work".
Whatever we do with the system, I wholeheartedly endorse that our objective is to ensure that we celebrate success and recognise it for what it is.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, within the Statement is a suggestion that there was lack of guidance from the

1073
Department for Education and Skills. Will the Minister comment on the lack of guidance in association with the exams? Why were the exam boards unaware of what was expected of them?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the issues of lack of guidance and lack of expectations rest in the main on the relationship between QCA and the exam boards. That does not mean that the department does not have a role to play. The issue seems to be how detailed information and assumptions could be made about what was an appropriate level. The QCA and examining boards are now fully geared up to address that and to make sure that they have clear guidance and understanding of what is required. I believe that in the previous year that was not done to best effect. Mike Tomlinson has been clear about that issue and it has now been dealt with.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, would the introduction of PQA have major implications for the new universities and indeed in certain conditions be damaging to them?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure precisely to which implications my noble friend refers. I have no doubt that in any discussion about whether such a system was possible or feasible we would wish to take on board all concerns about the impact. There is no commitment on the Government's part to introduce PQA, but as Mike Tomlinson has raised the issue we will explore it thoroughly.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I too welcome Mr Tomlinson's report and pay tribute to him and his team for their work. I particularly welcome anything that will restore confidence in A-levels, with the caveat expressed by noble friend Lady Sharp. However, I am most concerned about the young people who have been let down this year.
Despite Mr Tomlinson's best endeavours, there is still a great lack of confidence that all the young people who took their A-levels this year have the grades they deserve. One of the situations that brought forward the crisis was the difference between the AS-level results and the poorer quality A2 results of some students; in particular, the discrepancy between the coursework for the A2 exam and the number of students who achieved an A grade in their AS level the previous year.
There is some concern about teachers' ability to understand what is required from the coursework. What is being done to address that? Unless it is addressed, there will be a continued lack of confidence in the A-level in coming years.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words about Mike Tomlinson's work. I thought noble Lords would be interested to know, in case they have not seen the latest press releases, that 16 students have negotiated a change from universities or colleges where they had originally been accepted. That is the latest information we have.
1074
In addition, 12 students will start at a new institution in autumn 2003. The noble Baroness raises an important point about communication. It is well covered in Mike Tomlinson's report. To save me reading out all of it, I refer her to paragraphs 74, 75 and 76 where he discusses misunderstandings, quality of communication and feedback—the important points to which the noble Baroness referred. They have been picked up in both the first and second reports.
Mike Tomlinson is saying that these problems are separate from the original allegations and therefore the terms of reference but that they need to be dealt with thoroughly. One of the threads running through everything he has said, including at his press conference, is that communication is fundamental. He has kindly agreed to oversee this year's work and communication will be fundamental to the programme's success. He will be keen to watch over it, as indeed will the department.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Blatch asked specific questions about the dismissal of Sir William Stubbs. The Minister made no reference to them. Will she do so now?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I realised that I had not responded as I sat down. I have nothing to add to the comments I made before. My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills—I am not sure how to address her formally in your Lordships' House—made it clear that it was her view, in the light of all the issues presented to her, that the QCA should have new leadership. On that basis she sacked Sir William Stubbs.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if I understood the Statement correctly, we are to have a QCA which will ensure the quality and consistency of examinations, and nothing else. That seems a thoroughly good step forward. The Minister knows that I have an interest to declare as editor of The Good Schools Guide. I would therefore see great benefit to parents in having examination results in which we can all believe carrying on from year to year.
Would the new structure also promise great benefit in allowing the examination boards to innovate much more than they have done to date? The physics syllabus has not changed since I took it 30 years ago; it is just as boring now as it was then. Many other subjects could do with a great deal of innovation. We could do with a history syllabus that had a great deal more breadth and interest to it than some of those currently on offer. If we concentrated on this business of quality and innovation, we could provide an opportunity for such courses to be developed.
Will the noble Baroness also ask her colleagues to ensure that they take this opportunity to do away with some of the old anomalies affecting various examinations at GCSE and A-level? Subjects such as French, for example, have consistently been more difficult—about one grade more difficult—than classical civilisation. As she will know from the

1075
department's own statistics, such anomalies appear consistently and go back to when we finished with norm referencing. If we are having a thorough look at the relative difficulties of examinations as between boards, could we not do the same with the difficulties as between subjects?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that point goes slightly wider than the remit of this Statement. However, I recall with great pleasure, during our consideration of the Education Bill, some very interesting debates with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the relative merits of science, history and other subjects. I recognise the issue for the QCA about ensuring that it has a very clear role. As I said, we support what Mike Tomlinson said, and we are working with the QCA to achieve that. We also have great confidence that we can achieve it. I am happy to take the noble Lord's comments back to the department. However, questions such as how best to teach science are fundamental to our consideration of the curriculum for the 14 to 19 strategy. I hope that he will bear with us until we have completed those deliberations. Nevertheless, I shall feed in his comments.

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [H.L.]
5.51 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is good to get back to speaking about rubbish.
Although the Bill deals with a devolved matter, it extends also to Scotland. I am content with the Sewel motion process in this particular case as the Bill implements an EU directive and there is no opportunity for what the EU would call "sub-national variation". Although the word sub-national is not, as noble Lords will recognise, appropriate to Scotland, it is the necessary EU constitutional speak.
The Bill raises a UK constitutional issue in relation to Scotland regarding the use of the four-year derogation. The Scotland Act requires the Scottish Parliament to implement EU legislation without derogation. We therefore need to have a greater understanding of how this aspect of the Bill will work. The situation is not impossible, however, as the Bill is pretty much a skeleton in how it will affect Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament will develop all the necessary secondary legislation to shape the Scottish response to the directive.
On reflection, this may well prove a textbook example of the sensible use of Sewel motions. The risk in the Sewel motion procedure is that we could lose all chance of a specifically Scottish approach, for this Parliament does only UK-wide solutions. I do not believe that that concern applies here.
Is there a need for this Bill in Scotland and the United Kingdom beyond the blind implementation of an EU directive? I believe that there is. The handling
1076
of waste is pretty crude, with far too much of it going unnecessarily to landfill. In the 1960s, in Clackmannanshire—my historic stamping ground—the county council acquired the latest European technology from Denmark, an incinerator, and bought land from the Mar and Kellie estate as the adjacent landfill site. At that time, the site had a long-term future because both inert material such as rubble which was not incinerated and ash went to landfill. By 1990, environmental measures required closure of the incinerator; and the amount of rubbish increased so dramatically—I believe it increased 15-fold—that the Forthbank tip was filled and had to be closed the following year.
In future, Clackmannanshire—the Wee County—will drive its rubbish to landfill sites in other local authority areas. Perversely, this new operational approach will cost us less money. I have the option of buying back the landfill area which I mentioned, but, faced with 100 years of environmental monitoring, I doubt that I shall be taking it up.
The Bill is both inevitable and modest—probably too modest—and it may not set a sufficient philosophy. Clause 17(3) needs to be sharpened so that the citizen in Scotland can be informed about the more desirable and purposeful options. Although the issue of energy recovery such as the use of waste wood for heating is very close to my heart, even I recognise that some discarded wood can be reused as wood rather than as domestic heating fuel. Citizens would find it more useful to see a hierarchy of waste management in the Bill, both for their own guidance and so that they could evaluate the efforts of their own local authorities.
When I was living in Edinburgh, for my first job, the Edinburgh Corporation supplied householders with ash buckets, expecting people to use the living room fire to reduce dramatically the volume of domestic rubbish. Nowadays, when it is unusual to find a working flue in a house, the volume of household rubbish has increased dramatically.
I conclude with a few observations. First, I could weep when I visit the Forthbank tip or any other rubbish site. I see reusable items in the skips. I would be charged with theft if I attempted to take items out of those skips. This situation is absurd, especially in the context of this Bill. Councils should allow a free exchange of reusable waste. On this matter, I feel an amendment coming on.
Secondly, some Scottish local authorities have further to go than others. I am most impressed by the organisation of the Longman skip site in Inverness. The Highland Council has a good regime for sorting the rubbish which citizens bring in. Even there, however, exchange is not allowed. By contrast, at the Forthbank site, Clackmannanshire has minimal sorting, and what sorting there is operates on a voluntary basis.
Thirdly, the Bill offers no solution to the increase in fly-tipping and the dumping of cars. Inevitably, as a landowner on the urban fringe, I have to deal with plenty of fly-tipping and an increasing number of

1077
burnt-out cars. I acknowledge that Clackmannanshire Council has helped me with the latter issue. It also helps with fly-tipped food and restaurant waste.
Locally, it costs the owner £40 to have his car towed away to the scrap yard and £30 at the scrap yard gate. Much of the fly-tipping comes from small firms dodging the landfill tax. The proposals to increase that tax, eventually to £35 per tonne, will have a significant effect on the countryside around urban areas, by filling it with rubbish. That is not the Government's fault, but the citizen's fault.
Fourthly, will the United Kingdom Government keep an eye on future EU environmental directives? I do not believe that we have coped at all well with the fridges and freezers directive, and there are more such directives on cars, tyres and electrical waste just over the legislative horizon.
I finish with a question on Part 2. When the participants first voluntarily signed up to the emissions trading scheme, were they fully aware that the scheme would soon become statutory? Have they been hoodwinked?
I look forward to the Committee stage. The Bill must be effective out in the community. Outcomes are all important and the only real test.
5.59 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I start by thanking the powers-that-be for providing a new Speakers' List and rescuing me from my somewhat transvestite description on earlier print-outs of the list.
I want to confine my remarks to the waste aspects of the Bill and in particular to welcome the just published PM's Strategy Unit report calling for a far greater focus on waste reduction and considerably more recycling—I believe that it recommends a recycling target of 52 per cent, up from the current 11 per cent, one of the lowest in Europe—of the waste that remains.
There have been valiant efforts over a number of years to encourage voluntary action by industry, indeed, by all of us contributing to our growing waste mountain. Certainly that has resulted in some success. But it has become increasingly clear that much more than voluntary action is needed if we are even to get close to the EU directive's agreed targets.
I should perhaps begin by declaring an interest as the chairman of the British Oxygen Company's Foundation for the Environment. This was set up 12 years ago by BOC with an initial budget of £1 million and the promise of 0.5 per cent of its annual UK pre-tax profits. The foundation's aim was to support financially innovative, action-based research and demonstration projects (preferably in "niche", unresearched areas) and, where possible, to find others with the necessary expertise, such as the Environment Agency, as funding partners. Successful projects were required to produce a report on what had been achieved—a best practice guide, if you like—for dissemination. So far the foundation has supported
1078
122 and completed 91 such projects. The total grants raised for those projects amount to £13 million with the foundation's contribution being £3.5 million.
One of the earliest gaps we identified for attention and support was waste minimisation. That was well before the government of the day had begun to realise its importance for the environmental agenda. Together with the Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology (CEST), the Aire and Calder project, named after those two rivers, was set up whereby consultants worked with a range of industrial and commercial companies whose waste was contaminating those two rivers. Shortly after that was under way a second project for companies, Catalyst, followed in Merseyside which covered air and land pollution as well as water.
Those two projects provided clear pointers for the future for they made it very plain that companies had little, if any, idea either of just how much waste they produced or of the cost of its disposal to landfill sites. Still less did they have much idea of their waste's potential value for re-use or recycling, or of how much their waste could be reduced or in some cases completely eliminated from production processes. "Bottom-line" savings which resulted, as well as environmental gains, were considerable. Eleven companies involved in the first project made savings of over £2 million during the first 18 months. I recount a small anecdote that made me laugh. One company found that a hosepipe which had been left on was not needed at all. Turning it off saved that organisation no less than £2,000 a year.
Following the success of those projects the BOCF with other partners, funded a range of waste minimisation clubs by area and also by industry. We turned next to supporting projects alerting whole industries, for example farming, and public services such as the NHS. Their sheer volume of waste showed the greatest potential for minimisation and recycling. Understandably, by far the most difficult group to influence were the small and medium-sized enterprises—other noble Lords have mentioned that—but recently there has been some success there too. In all, I am proud of the fact that BOCF has helped to fund no fewer than 46 waste minimisation projects.
I mention all this because despite the considerable efforts by government and some leading companies in the waste industry, and, indeed, by bodies such as Valpak representing the whole packaging industry, there clearly is not anything like enough action under way to meet our required targets, whether current, intermediate or, indeed, much longer term.
So what needs to be done and how far will the legislation and the ideas contained in the Strategy Unit's report be useful? The Government's Strategy Unit's report points to the relatively small percentage of their profits that companies spend for their waste to be disposed of. The "polluter pays" principle—in use for years now in the United States—must surely, I should have thought, by now be firmly embedded in UK legislation, especially for manufacturers of white

1079
and brown goods and cars. The rightly increasing cost of landfill space, along with much stricter limits on the materials that can be landfilled, will, no doubt, help to concentrate producers' minds. Hopefully, too, we shall see more research done leading to cleaner, sustainable technologies in manufacturing processes.
There is, too, much scope for refurbishing and recycling household appliances. I remember how, as a director of Kingfisher plc, I was greatly impressed by the act ions of Darty, a leading French company, which had just become part of the Comet (white goods) wing of Kingfisher. As part of its social responsibility programme Darty had for some years trained unemployed people to clear the dangerous gases from refrigerators and generally refurbish them. The finished products were sold to those unable to afford new appliances.
And we have only to think back a few months to the impact of our discarded fridges mountain mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the huge financial and manpower burden that that and other forms of dumping have heaped on local authorities, to realise that penalties for those offences need to be made very much tougher.
I turn to the role of local government, which, incidentally, has had a pretty bad role in all this. There have been few incentives for them to play a fuller part. Universal kerbside collections mentioned in the Bill would certainly be an incentive for citizens to hand over their more recyclable waste products. Composting, too, whether within individual homes or collectively organised by local authorities, is still very much in its infancy in the UK and could make a substantial contribution to waste minimisation. However, would there not be considerable problems to be overcome with multi-occupancy premises if, tinder their new powers, local authorities decided to charge or otherwise "incentivise" each household unit according to the amount of waste produced?
Waste, we are told, increases with affluence. Our own waste increases, apparently, by 3 per cent a year despite current efforts to contain and reduce it. Changes in lifestyle, too, have meant changes in packaging techniques. Takeaway food is a good example. Bulky packaging keeps the food warm but, alas, it is all too often disposed of by those who eat, as it were, "on the hoof", by throwing it in the street or into other people's gardens. The "polluter pays" principle should surely come into play here for both manufacturer and the anti-social customer.
I turn now to my last rather different point. Are we sure that the different components that make up our household waste pay the appropriate overall financial contribution to the collection and reprocessing processes? National newspapers are an interesting case here on which it would be instructive to have the Minister's views. Noble Lords must have noticed that these have grown considerably in bulk over recent years. We take two Sunday national newspapers at home and over two consecutive Sundays—not counting unwanted drop-out adverts but including their attached "own label" magazines—they totaled
1080
one week over 600 pages and over 700 the next. That is 30,000 pages a year for Sunday newspapers alone from one household. Of that 30,000, at least 25,000 probably find their way straight into the wastepaper basket.
A substantial amount of newsprint is, of course, not only recyclable but re-recyclable. As newspapers form 7 per cent of all household waste, is the industry paying enough, not only for collection but for the electricity used in the necessary recycling and, ultimately, for disposal, which will be done, most probably, by greenhouse gas-producing incineration? I can understand the incentive—not least the advertising revenue that it produces—for our newspaper industry to continue to increase the size of their papers. However, is there enough of a "polluter pays" disincentive in the environmental charges and other taxes levied?
There is also the important contribution from individual citizens that we have, so far, failed fully to harness. We know from MORI polling that there is considerable willingness on the part of the public to become more involved. Many of the most successful projects that BOCF has backed involved the whole community, coupling expertise with voluntary effort. Children make especially good ambassadors, once their interest is gained. One hopes that the new subject of citizenship in the school curriculum will put considerable emphasis on our responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations, as well as our own.
Finally, I come even closer to home. In your Lordships' House, should not we educate ourselves in the same way? We should think of the reams of paper that your Lordships consume every day. Should not we also minimise our waste?
6.12 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I must say how much I welcome the Bill. I must also apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for not being here at the beginning of her speech. I shall make only a few remarks, mostly in support of the Bill.
For a time, when I first joined your Lordships' House, I had the privilege of serving on one of the Select Committees concerned with environmental issues. During that time, we considered the performance of the UK Government in carrying out the waste framework directive, with particular regard to waste incineration. I was on a rapid learning curve about emissions and waste incineration. Although we were primarily concerned with incinerations and emissions, we were operating within the context of the UK's waste management strategy. It will not surprise your Lordships to hear that we found that the UK Government had a lot of ground to make up.
I was struck by the enormity of the problem that the Bill seeks to address. The UK produces nearly half a billion tonnes of waste each year, which is half a tonne per household. Every week, we could fill Wembley stadium—or, at least, we could if it had not been knocked down. We recycle less than any other

1081
European Union country, as noble Lords have mentioned. It is a huge problem. I echo what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote: the problem should not be addressed just by legislation. It is also a question of culture and personal conduct. In 1997, we recycled 7 per cent of our waste; five years later, the figure is up to 12 per cent. Even with my poor maths, I can see that that works out at about 1 per cent a year. Although welcome, that increase is not nearly enough, so I welcome the targets outlined by my noble friend the Minister in his speech.
To stem waste growth, there must be a change in everyone's behaviour. A MORI poll—probably the same one as that to which the noble Baroness referred—showed that, unprompted, only 7 per cent of households named waste as an important environmental issue. I welcome the recent report published by the Prime Minister's strategy unit about municipal waste, which recommends a package of reforms. Although all those recommendations must be considered over time, it seems that the Bill is part of the drive to make progress in dealing with this huge problem.
I must refer to the performance of local authorities. In many ways, it is at the heart of whether the first part of the Bill will succeed. The performance of our local authorities is uneven. We are talking of recycling performance that ranges from 1 per cent to 42 per cent. That is a huge difference. The setting of targets is important. How local authorities fulfil the targets is up to them. In many ways, the Bill will, indirectly, have a significant impact on the figures. A reduction in landfill means that local authorities must consider more systemically the use of recycling, incineration and other measures to meet the targets.
There are initiatives such as WRAP—the Waste Recycling Action Programme. Its budget has been increased, and, in the spending reviews in 2000 and 2002, increased provision was made available to local authorities for environmental protective and cultural services, including waste. The initiatives are there, as are some of the resources, although probably not enough. The Bill will play an important part in setting the targets that local authorities must meet.
Finally, I refer briefly to the UK's emissions trading scheme. My noble friend has a record of working on and promoting that issue. The fact that we are where we are, with the Bill, is a testament to that record of work. The UK emissions trading scheme is the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme. It is a voluntary scheme, which, as noble Lords will know, was launched in April 2002. It aims to deliver cost-effective emission reductions as a move towards meeting our international obligations and domestic targets and to provide a learning-by-doing experience of trading greenhouse gas emissions. Not only are we doing things that will improve the emissions situation in this country, but we are setting targets and aspirations for many people in the world to follow.
The Bill sets important targets. It is not prescriptive, and I look forward to working on it in Committee.
6.17 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, like every noble Lord who has spoken this afternoon, I welcome the thrust of the Bill and the intentions that lie behind it. I shall concentrate on the law of unintended consequences and matters to which it is wise to pay heed, when legislating.
As we heard, Part 1 of the Bill establishes the framework for local authorities to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill through tradable landfill allowances. However, uppermost in our mind must be the truth that, if a restriction is placed on the legal method of disposing of waste, it must, without any doubt, create an incentive for illegal dumping. We must plan ahead at this stage, when we have the opportunity to frame the legislation, for how we will cope with that.
The problem of fly-tipping—illegal dumping—is significant and growing. Yet, it appears that it is not taken sufficiently seriously by the Government or their Environment Agency. In looking at the likely side-effects of the Bill, we must review what has happened since the introduction of the landfill tax. In its report on fly-tipping, the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs commented as follows:
"We are dismayed that this very serious environmental problem should have been effectively ignored for so long. The possibility that the Landfill Tax would encourage fly-tipping was a major concern for environmental groups, local government and the public from the time before its introduction in October 1996. Regardless of the concerns and of our observations and recommendations on the subject in two subsequent reports, the Government and the Environment Agency have failed to take the necessary action to prevent the illegal dumping of waste".
That is a damning indictment, to which we should pay attention as we consider the Bill. In creating a further strict framework to reduce biodegradable landfill deposits, the Bill will, inevitably, exacerbate the problem. I am with the Government, however, in saying that we should address this issue.
The Government's response to the Select Committee stated that they had put in place strict controls to ensure that waste is disposed of safety. Furthermore, they had made it clear that,
"it expects the Environment Agency to pursue a vigorous policy of prosecuting, where it has the evidence, anyone who illegally disposes of waste. The committee's assertions that the Government has failed to take action and effectively ignored the problem of illegal waste disposal are not supported by the facts".
In the circumstances, that statement is bordering on the complacent, particularly in view of the fact that, in a Written Answer in another place on 13th June 2002, Mr Meacher stated that the total number of prosecutions for the unlawful deposit of waste in the whole country was only 264.
It is widely acknowledged that there is a lack of national information about this important issue. Anyone who drives round the country or who lives in the country, particularly on the edges of cities, will see illegal dumps in lay-bys, woods, Ianes, alleys, and indeed in any other quiet place.

1083
I will return to the question of prosecutions in a moment but, before doing so, it is important to look at the central issue of the effect that the landfill tax has had on illegal dumping. I believe that in this area the Government are, in a sense, in denial. In paragraph 59 of their response to the committee they say,
"The committee's assertion that the landfill tax has encouraged the fly-tipping of waste is not supported by the available evidence. For example, the Tidy Britain Group's most recent report into the effects of the Landfill Tax on fly-tipping confirms that the type of waste most frequently tipped is household waste".
They go on to say that householders are not directly affected by the landfill tax. Quite true, but they ignore the effect, since the tax was introduced, of commercial and builders' material being tipped.
The Government's denial of this problem appears to be directly contradicted by statements on the Environment Agency's website. I quote from one of the statements, dated 21st August this year, that,
"the fly-tipping of waste is a significant problem and is thought to be on the increase. Fly-tipped rubbish is a threat to the environment and health and safety".
Furthermore, it says:
"Nearly half of local authorities surveyed think that fly-tipping is a significant or major problem. About 60 per cent of local authorities thought that levels of fly-tipping had increased since the introduction of the landfill tax".
The agency went on to list the landfill tax as one of the direct causes of this problem. Unless the Government accept that this is a consequence of putting constraints on access to the legal methods of disposal of waste, it will be difficult for them to get a grip on this proposed new framework for implementation of targets—with which we all agree—to reduce biodegradable landfill.
There has been very little serious research work done on this subject but I would commend to the House a detailed report produced by Maidstone Borough Council. Its opening proposition was that there has been an exponential increase in the amount of tipping in the borough, at county level and indeed nationally. In Maidstone in 2001 there were more than 1,500 incidents of fly-tipping, compared with fewer than 500 in 1997. Furthermore, it expected another increase of 50 per cent in 2002.
Angela Howard, the regional director of EnCams—I believe on behalf of the Tidy Britain Group—told the research committee that there were a number of reasons for increases in the incidence of tipping, the main one being the introduction of the landfill tax.
Let us look again at prosecutions. The Maidstone report said that,
"one of the problems with fly-tipping is that there is very little likelihood of the perpetrators being caught and prosecuted".
It concluded:
""At the end of the day, the only thing that will prevent people from fly-tipping is if they feel that there is a likelihood that they will be caught. Sadly, this is not the case at the present time".
Perhaps I may illustrate the problem with a brief anecdote. I was staying at a house in the Home Counties owned by a member of my family. They live down a long and quiet lane through some woods. We awoke one morning to find that builders' rubble had
1084
been tipped over an area of about 150 yards. Clearly a van had opened its doors, driven uphill, and the detritus left on the ground. Frustrated by previous attempts to get the authorities to take action on this, I turned—having watched far too many detective programmes on the television—to doing some sleuthing of my own. I found among the rubble a builder's note that was a shopping list of supplies—guttering materials to be bought from a builders' merchant. It also had the addresses of two houses. I therefore hopped in my motorcar, found out where they were, drove round and interviewed the householders. They said yes, indeed, they had had work done recently, as had their neighbours, by a firm which had come to repair their guttering and they confirmed the type of materials that had been used.
I submitted pictures, the written information and notes of my interview with the householder to the local authority, which was extremely interested because it has to pick up the bill for removing such materials. I pay tribute to the very efficient work that Wokingham District Council does in removing the rubbish. It said that unfortunately the Environment Agency would not prosecute unless someone actually saw the offence being committed. Is that really the case? I would like some guidance on that from the Minister. If it is the case, given that a great deal of this tipping occurs at night, the chance of achieving any successful prosecutions is extremely slim indeed.
As it happens, there was another occasion when there was dumping in the same place. The sleuth went out and rifled through the rubbish again, and found a further name and address. On its submission to the local authority, it said yes, it knew the name and address and, lo and behold, it was the person who ran the building firm about which I had found evidence before. I understand that the local authority gave the information to the Environment Agency, which still declined to prosecute. If this is what we face, how can we get on top of the situation?
Surely, in dealing with the restriction on the implementation of targets, we are looking at only one side of the problem, although an important side? Demand for landfill reflects the supply of goods which will become rubbish and the lack of alternatives for their disposal. Limiting access to landfill is one tool. However, it can be meaningful only if used in conjunction with national and international strategies to reduce waste, particularly with regard to the free movement of goods, and to encourage recycling, and if the authority responsible for ensuring that the whole system is not bypassed by illegal dumping—the Environment Agency in this case—is put under much greater pressure by the Government to deliver more effective enforcement than is currently the case. Unless the Government accept that the Environment Agency has not coped effectively with the side effects of the landfill tax, they will be creating a major problem when access to landfill for household waste is not constrained.
Perhaps I may conclude by looking at how this will work in practice. I would certainly appreciate guidance from the Minister on this point. What will

1085
happen if a local authority simply cannot persuade all parties to reduce waste? Will it attempt to limit the waste output of individual households? How will it do that? If it does do that, it must be accepted that this will create a strong incentive for people to dump this rubbish illegally. The Government must be prepared to deal with that.
The Bill is clearly an important step forward, but we do require some assurances from the Government that the practical framework is in place and that the Environment Agency is ready for what will be the likely consequence.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, one advantage of speaking last from the Back Benches in a debate—the place usually reserved by the usual channels for rebels and expellees—is that everything you want to say has probably already been said. All one can do, therefore, is to support and perhaps elaborate on what has already been said.
I want only to deal with the waste aspects of this Bill. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that the Bill does not include many things which should be included in it, which need to be dealt with and which, indeed, have needed to be dealt with over a very long period of time. Now we are almost in the position of having to take an emergency decision on this problem. Apparently it has arisen because of a European directive. Why on earth we have to wait for the European Community to scrabble about in our waste tips and in the dustbins of individuals, I simply do not know. This matter should have been dealt with decades ago because it has been known for a long time that our landfill sites would become full in the not-too-distant future.
So far as I can see, the Bill does not contain any provisions to help local authorities to deal with this enormous problem. Local authorities' finances are so constrained that they simply cannot deal with it on their own. They need a good deal of government support if they are to build recycling plants and so on. So far as I can see, they are not receiving such help. The support needs to be specific and directly applicable to the problem. Local authorities cannot deal with it themselves because they do not have sufficient money. They are already finding it necessary to increase council taxes by three or four times the rate of inflation. Therefore, they are not able to deal with the problem themselves. It is a job that the Government should be dealing with and one with which they should have dealt a long time ago. However, the Bill is now before us.
As I said, ratepayers, or council tax payers—that is the problem with having been a local authority leader many years ago; one cannot get out of the habit of describing council tax payers as ratepayers—are already under great pressure. But it seems that they 'will now be presented with another bill to enable local authorities to deal with the consequences of the Bill which is before us. We are hearing about individuals
1086
being charged by the bag of rubbish in addition to the charges already levied on them through the council tax for a service that they should, but apparently will not, receive. We have heard about the danger of fly-tipping. If people are charged by the bag, no doubt that will be a great incentive for them to take out their rubbish at night and dump it in forests and fields. Such a situation must be avoided at all costs.
I want to stress a point raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, during debate on the gracious Speech and, indeed, by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, this afternoon. It is not the ordinary people—the householders—who are at fault. It is not they who wilfully generate the excess waste which goes into landfill sites. It is the packaging industry, the manufacturers, food processors and retailers and others who shower them with junk mail.
The newspaper and magazine industry wastes millions of trees churning out free newspapers and weekend supplements to provide work for hack journalists and writers. That industry causes the problem. Householders, who have to cope with the amount of waste, are not the polluters. It is not they who should pay. They are the victims in this crisis of excessive waste and in this era of throwaway products. It is to the generators of this avalanche of material that pleas for restraint should be made. Such pleas should not be made to householders, who are the unwilling recipients of the torrent of unwanted material which they cannot return to those who impose it upon them.
A friend of mine, who is 77 years of age, recently had a rather bulky piece of furniture delivered to her house. In my day, a bulky piece of furniture would normally be placed in a blanket. The delivery men would bring the item into the house, put it in place and then take the blanket away and use it again. But that does not happen now. My friend's piece of furniture was packed with piles of polythene, cardboard and God knows what else. The delivery men dumped the package on the floor and said, "Goodbye, madam". She said, "Just a minute. Aren't you going to unpack this?" They protested but unpacked it grudgingly. The whole room was covered in packaging. She asked, "Aren't you going to take it away?" "Oh no", they said, "that's not our job". Therefore, this lady, who is 77 and has arthritis in her hands, was left with a mountain of packaging simply as a result of having a piece of furniture delivered.
That is the type of problem which we must try to deal with and to which we should pay attention. It is an area that should be explored with manufacturers and retailers in an attempt to place a restraint on the masses of paper which are doled out. Again, I refer to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. We always seem to agree these days; I believe that we agreed on the subject of the BBC in a recent debate. As the noble Baroness said, in this place and throughout Whitehall, the, in most cases, unnecessary, mountains of paper that are churned out cause part of the problem. Therefore, the Government themselves should clamp down on the amount of waste produced.

1087
I also want to mention the problem caused by free newspapers. As though we did not have enough of them, Express Newspapers are to produce yet another free newspaper for London. Noble Lords can imagine what that will do to householders who have one delivered, regardless of whether or not they want it. Therefore, there are great problems.
It seems that in one respect we are tackling the problem from the wrong end—that is, we are tackling it from the disposal instead of the creation end. Therefore, I hope that the Government will do a great deal to stop the creation of the mountain of paper that afflicts us every day, week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out, and decade in and decade out.
6.38 p.m
Lord Greaves: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate with a number of extremely valuable contributions. Members of your Lordships' House seem to have been discussing these matters for a long time. I believe that it was Lord Palmerston who said that dirt is not dirt; it is simply matter in the wrong place. Whether Palmerston had ever heard of the word "recycling", I do not know, but that seems to be the issue at the heart of our discussions.
I thank my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth for setting out, in part, the position of the Liberal Democrats in relation to the Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, who referred to "household flues". I believe that, in our part of the world, they are known as "chimneys". Perhaps he can confirm that following the debate. There were a number of excellent contributions, notably that of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, whom I had never thought of previously as being a cross-dresser. One learns many things in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, raised the question of charges. I take this opportunity to say that we have grave reservations about imposing on householders extra charges related to the volume of refuse they produce. In principle that sounds right, but in practice it seems to be the wrong point in the chain to levy extra charges. The implications for extra flytipping—so ably set out by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen—and illegal dumping and so on, are huge. Certainly, in our part of the world the backyards of derelict houses are the first point of call or, if the amount is too big, it is clumped on the moors. So we have considerable reservations about that matter. We shall want to return to it in Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford—once the Minister had introduced the Bill—started off by expressing disappointment. We share that disappointment. Part 1 is called a "waste" Bill. In many ways it is a waste of opportunity Bill. We would have much preferred to see a Bill which set out a comprehensive waste strategy. This is very much a bits and pieces Bill—taking a bit here and a bit there. I suppose that if it had been a comprehensive waste strategy it might not have started its passage in this House. Nevertheless, it might have been a more useful Bill.
1088
I am fascinated by the formula in Clause 3(2). It is disappointing that no-one has discussed it in detail, taken it apart and explained what it means. I look forward immensely to discussing it and the amendments that may be moved to it in Committee. It would help enormously if, before the Committee stage, the Minister could provide some workings by way of example to show how the formula will work in practice and what it means. That might save a great deal of confusion and thoroughly ignorant discussion by many non-mathematicians.
My next point is in relation to the huge quantity of the Bill that will rely on regulations and secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, read out the relevant part of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. It is clear that a main reason for so many regulations is that implementation of the principles in the Bill will be left to the jurisdictions in the different parts of the United Kingdom or, at least, Scotland, Wales and England. In the case of England, that is the Secretary of State.
It is a very good example of the kind of pseudo-federalism we now have in this country that Scotland has a substantially devolved administration, which could almost be described as federal, Wales is a halfway house, and England is nowhere. There is a difference between the three places. For example, in Wales the National Assembly will be able to discuss the secondary legislation in detail and will be able to amend it in detail—or in considerably more than detail if it wishes. It is only in England where secondary legislation is now presented to this Parliament on a "take it or leave it" basis. That is not satisfactory. It is a constitutional matter that will have to be tackled.
There is a great deal of secondary legislation consisting of one page just changing a price, a figure, a quantity, or so on. That is straightforward. But the kind of legislation clearly required from the Bill will be statutory instruments consisting of 70, 80 or 150 pages. It is not acceptable and satisfactory that they are presented to Parliament on a take it or leave it basis. We shall at least want to return to the matter and discuss it in Committee.
There is a classic "shall" or "may" argument looming on the horizon in Clause 15. I refer to the question of public access to the registers which will be set up under Part 1 of the Bill, where it says "may". I think we shall be batting for "shall" in the classic argument there. I ask the Minister to look at that matter. It is freedom of information. It should be mandatory. It is more than just the normal argument we have on these things.
A larger issue perhaps is the question of whether this country should be taking advantage of the four-year derogation on the landfill directive. Can we really not do all this work by 2016? Do we really have to wait until 2020? I ask rather teasingly how many Members of your Lordships' House will still be around in 2020 to see it—perhaps not many. So it is a long period of time. We are one of the richest countries, not only now but ever, in the world. If we cannot do jobs such as this

1089
in a reasonable period of time, then we should be ashamed of ourselves. We shall certainly want to look at that.
On the theme of missed opportunities—the waste of opportunity Bill perhaps—there are a number of issues that we believe should be tackled as part of the Bill. One is the whole area of incineration. There is a risk that if landfill becomes more expensive and more difficult to use—and it is not just the illegal and the fly-tipping at a low level, which will take place—there will perhaps inevitably be more incentives for people to use incineration. It is our view that there should be a moratorium on new incinerating facilities and perhaps a system of allowances for incineration brought in. Those matters are integral to what is being attempted in the Bill; perhaps they should be tackled at the same time. There is nothing in the Bill about essential parts of a strategy to reduce landfill and particularly landfill biodegradable waste.
I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It is all very well tackling the problem at the end, but the real problems are at the beginning of the cycle. Unless far more attention is paid to that, tackling the problems at the end will be very difficult and will create the kind of bottlenecks which have been talked about.
We should like to see this country perhaps moving towards a real genuine zero waste strategy over a medium term—a reasonable period of time. It may be that zero waste is an unattainable dream, but, like many unattainable dreams, one can get quite close before one actually comes up against an impossible situation. As a party, we have put forward a 40-year strategy for waste. That sounds a long time. It is certainly beyond the life expectancy of most Members of your Lordships' House. But that is the kind of timescale which, if we are looking at fundamental issues, we could be examining.
Waste minimisation should be fundamental to what we are talking about. We are not just dealing with the waste that is produced. If a large amount of waste being produced at the beginning of the cycle has to be dealt with, a zero waste strategy is not the whole answer. Recycling everything is not the whole answer if we are using too many resources already at the beginning of the cycle. Some of those matters may be appropriate for discussion in Committee; some may be too grand or major topics. But we shall certainly be putting forward some amendments.
I was interested to hear my two noble friends who have spoken promising amendments on this and amendments on that. I am not sure whether they were threatening the Minister or me. We shall find out in the next week or two. We are considering whether it is possible to write a provision into the Bill to deal seriously with fly-tipping and illegal tipping. That may be inappropriate and may need to be done in other ways, but it is a major matter that should and, we hope, will be discussed.
1090
I look forward to the Minister's reply. Again, I compliment those Members who have taken part in the debate and made it such a good one. We look forward to some interesting days in Committee.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, "Waste not, want not", is how I was brought up. In those days—quite apart from Lord Palmerston, I am sure that this is true—recycling was not an option. But surely that is where the future of waste management lies, not in vast quantities of mixed rubbish taken down the Thames in barges every day. It is hugely ironic that this great city, which owes its very existence to the river, should now use it to transport only rubbish.
Details of targets, allowances trading and the various powers of the various bodies have been well discussed. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said that we must do much better over the next few years or pay huge penalties to Europe. He is quite right. If we do not do much better over the next few years, we deserve to pay huge penalties to Europe.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith asked a specific question, which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer: under what financial regime will the Bill work? What will be the cost of incineration as a general rule—alleviated as it may be, and is, by the saleable energy created by incineration? My noble friend also told us that transport costs of waste are high, so treatment centres and holes in the ground, if they are to be used, must be close to the producers of waste. My noble friend also mentioned something about nappies into wallpaper, but I shall not go into that.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, made a most interesting speech. My noble friend Lord Goschen emphasised the importance of considering beforehand the unintended consequences of any measures taken. Like many noble Lords, he mentioned how important it is to cope with fly-tipping, to which I shall shortly return.
My main concern about the Bill concerns its strategy. It is fundamentally the same for each of the four countries. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, did not mention Northern Ireland—I could not fail to say that with my noble friend Lord Glentoran sitting next to me. In the words of the newly ennobled but very late Monsieur Dumas, it is a case of my comments being,
"All for one, and one for all".
First, the strategy relates to biodegradable waste. It is undoubtedly true that 63 per cent of 29 million tonnes is an awful lot of reusable, recyclable material going to landfill. It is also indisputable that the situation is unacceptable and must be corrected. However, I am greatly concerned at the implied quantity of inert material going to landfill—especially because, as my noble friend Lady Byford said, so much of it must be plastics. Why is there nothing in the strategy to impel the Secretary of State to set targets and draw up a strategy for reducing inert waste?

1091
Secondly, the strategy is to reduce biodegradable waste going to landfill, which implies that it will cover waste from all sources: municipal, commercial, industrial, hospital, and so on. Yet the first part of the Bill is concerned—it repeats this over and over again—with biodegradable municipal waste. The Local Government Association has pointed out that it has no authority over collection authorities. The landfill operator has a licence to carry on the trade and accepts waste from all sources. The LGA has also declared that it would not want landfill operators to lose out because of the Bill's operation. I am concerned that they may find themselves between a rock and a hard place, because there seems to have been no consideration of their position.
The Secretary of State is required to consult representatives of industry, local government and the public. There is no mention of commerce or of other government departments such as defence and health. If biodegradable municipal waste is intended to encompass biodegradable waste from all sources, why does the Bill carry a separate definition for biodegradable waste? Will the Minister give examples of biodegradable waste that is not biodegradable municipal waste?
The strategy separates biodegradable waste originating within the country from that entering from outside. It does not impose a duty to reduce the volume of biodegradable waste leaving the country. Despite the requirements on the relevant authorities to consult each other about the formulation of their strategies, the omission of such a duty may be a source of considerable friction in the days and years to come.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked the Minister about the chapter on waste management in Wales. Devolution is not my strong point, but I also question the need to go into such detail about Wales in the Bill, when there appears to be no comparable provision for England. Presumably, the Secretary of State will have parallel powers to produce regulations for English local authorities. If so, is he likely to exercise them?
How much research has been done by the department in countries such as Switzerland, Austria and Germany, whose municipal waste management is so much ahead of our own? In each of those three countries, about 50 per cent of their waste is recycled. Our comparable figure is 12 per cent. I understand that we have a target of 25 per cent by 2005. Does the Minister believe that that will be achieved?
I have done some research into the situation in Germany. Each household has separate sacks for biodegradable waste, paper and cardboard, plastics and polystyrene and, finally, for anything that is unrecyclable. In. Germany, the citizen is involved in that management. Some waste is collected free and some, especially unrecyclable waste, must be paid for.
Mistakes in assignment—in other words, putting the wrong waste into particular sacks—are punished by a yellow card for the first offence: one does not receive a collection next week. If one carries on doing it wrong, one receives a red card. One must then prove
1092
oneself to be a proper citizen before one receives any collection. We can imagine how pleasant that is, especially with biodegradable waste.
It is expected that rubbish should be washed before assignment. I cannot see that happening here, but that is what they do. Also, in Germany, one is not allowed to keep bins sitting on the pavement in full sight; one must keep them out of sight. Perhaps that is not right for this country, but there are messages that could make a great deal of difference here if we tried to get ordinary citizens to co-operate. On that I draw a slight distinction between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Quite apart from trying to assign less waste, we have to work hard at the other end as well. I am sure that if we do both we shall get somewhere.
In certain local authorities in England I understand that some progress has been made. In the Test Valley in Hampshire there is a three-bin rubbish system: normal, compostable and recyclable. That sounds the right route. What are the Government doing to encourage that elsewhere? I have done. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I hope that he will be able to answer some of the many questions put during this excellent debate.
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this has been a very informed and informative debate and I thank all those who have participated in it. There have been expressions of disappointment with the Bill, followed by huge expectations of what a piece of legislation can do. The Bill deals with an important part of waste management. It does not seek to deal with a whole range of waste management. There are other instruments already on the statute book. A strategy was developed in 2000 for waste management. Last week, the strategy unit report made further proposals and we also had the Chancellor's commitments on the taxation side of landfill and related matters.
Therefore, many of these measure are more broadly within waste strategy, including hierarchy, other local authority responsibilities, commercial responsibilities and so forth. In addition, part of the programme encourages households and individuals to take responsibility. Not all of that can rest on what is in some ways a modest Bill. However, it is a strong Bill in the sense that it will deliver the key target on municipal biodegradable waste and do so in a way that is a mixture of government targets and economic instruments.
Therefore, it is partially a market system and partially what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to in passing as a "Soviet system". However, I believe that it is somewhat different from that. We need those targets. Although I am all for leaving local authorities to get on with it, as my noble friend Lady Thornton said earlier, the achievements are somewhat variable. Recycling achievements can vary from 1 per cent to 42 per cent and therefore targets must be imposed. How the local authorities meet those targets is up to them.

1093
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, regretted that we are in this situation because we were forced to comply with an EU directive. I know his views on those matters, but he might agree with my view that thank God we did. Thank God the EU put pressure on us because our present system of dealing with waste is totally unsustainable. The timetable imposed, which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, believes is too long, will be difficult for us to manage because of the decades during which we have simply relied on landfill for dealing with the bulk of both biodegradable and other waste. Therefore, a range of other measures has to be brought to bear, but the requirement on biodegradable municipal waste is very important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised a number of specific questions. I shall do my best to reply to as many as I can. We are using other measures in delivering the overall waste targets. The noble Baroness asked whether the targets can be changed. The answer is yes, but the overall targets can be changed only by an agreement to the amendment to the directive. Therefore, we are maintaining the overall target unless the directive is changed. The only way that that can be changed is by the review that is taking place in 2014. Therefore, we are on an established course.
The noble Baroness also mentioned transporting waste over long distances. We shall try to avoid that as far as possible and we can do so in part by the training system and in part by trying to ensure that local authorities and commercial operations meet the least-cost options for dealing with their waste.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others, referred to packaging. That is being dealt with separately by the EU directive on packaging and packaging waste which is being implemented. It requires at least 50 per cent of packaging waste by weight to be recovered by 2001. Further obligations have come into force since then. In part, we have exceeded the target. However, the growth of packaging is a major problem and contributes to the growth of waste.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to catering waste and to the fact that it cannot now be recycled on farmland. That is the case and our consultations on amendments to the animal by-products order will allow for the composting of catering waste—something that I believe we all agree is vital. That will be dealt with through that route, rather than in this Bill.
It is also true that under packaging regulations any firm with a turnover of more than £2 million in its last accounts and handling more than 50 tonnes of packaging must be covered by the regulations. That also applies to the commercial side as well as to the local authority side. However, it does so through the packaging regulations rather than these provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others referred to incineration. That is only one up in the hierarchy from landfill provision. Nevertheless, in order to meet
1094
those targets there will have to be some scope for incineration. Modern incinerators are clean. However, there is a deep degree of "nimby-ism", which I am sure the Liberal Democrat Party spokesman did not slip into in his remarks. Incineration is not popular, but it will have to form part of the solution in terms of meeting those targets and be used appropriately to get rid of some of our waste—preferably transforming it into energy in the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said, that is often done in Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavia.
As regards the targets, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, drew our attention to what he regarded as an over-complicated formula in Clause 3. I thought that it was fairly simple. I have called a meeting of all Peers interested in the Bill for next week, when I shall give a lengthy seminar. The point is that there are several target years and at any point one has to remain on the trajectory. If the algebra is transferred into calculus, one should be able to work that out.
I have already referred to the importance of the strategy unit report on the way forward. It is a complicated but cohesive publication with a lot of recommendations. We are setting up a ministerial group to look at the funding implications. It will report to my Secretary of State and to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and others referred to the problems of funding. Although we have allocated significant additional resources on waste both at governmental level and at local government level in the Spending Review 2002, charging and resource issues have to be faced.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the Minister indicate how soon that consultation will take place? Will we be able to reflect on it before the Bill clears our House?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the totality of the strategy, the answer is no. If further funding implications arise for the delivery of this part of the strategy, clearly that may be touched on during the course of proceedings on the Bill. I do not think that the full assessment of the implications of the strategy unit report will be available before this House has considered the Bill.
There were various comments on the commercial dimension of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in particular gave a number of interesting initiatives and examples of commercial operations that had seen the importance of the approach and delivered outcomes that also cut their costs and contributed to their profits. Before we broke for the Statement, my noble friend Lord Haskel conferred a welcome from the EIC and the benefit for poorly performing industries once they recognised the importance of dealing with the cost implications of their own waste management. Dealing with waste positively in a commercial sense should not necessarily be regarded as a negative; there are great positives for the bottom line in terms of dealing effectively with waste. I refer to waste minimisation and the optimum way in which to dispose of the remaining waste.

1095
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to aspects of consumer behaviour and related that to producer responsibility in various areas, one of the most interesting of which was newspapers. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also referred to that. The House may wish to know that we reached a voluntary agreement with the Newspaper Publishers Association—its members are not always the easiest people with whom to reach agreement—in April 2000 that we would increase the recycled content of newsprint. The first target has been exceeded. We set a target of 60 per cent for the end of last year but the figure was 63.5 per cent. That is a very positive story of co-operation between government and industry.
The option of charging households for waste has been around for some time. There are problems with it; I note what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about the Liberal Democrat position. It is also not our view that we should directly charge individuals for waste. However, there are incentive schemes, which are suggested in the Strategy Unit report, which we will examine. They might help to deliver the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Luke, referred in terms of household differentiation of waste in this country, which is much less developed than in parts of the Continent. That has greatly helped those countries to secure a better recycling achievement than this country.
The Bill involves various quasi-constitutional points. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to the Scottish situation. This is even more an issue of subsidiarity in Scotland; I refer in particular to Clackmannanshire. I do not believe that it is appropriate to delve too deeply into that. As he rightly said, the Bill involves a benign use of the Sewel motion and provides the framework; after that, the Scottish will take their own decisions about how to deliver local authority allocations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Luke, referred to the position with regard to Wales and asked why we needed Clause 2. That spelt out a particular position with regard to waste management strategies for local authorities in Wales. That is in this Bill because, as the noble Lord knows, the settlement in Wales does not provide for primary legislation in Wales and that approach would require primary legislation. After substantial discussions in Wales between the Welsh authorities and the Welsh local authorities, it was agreed that the requirements for waste management strategies should be part of the process. The situation is not precisely the same as that in England. In order to be able to do that in Wales, some primary legislation is required.
Also on the Welsh front, I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that the secondary legislation that would be appropriate for Wales under the Bill will be subject to appropriate consultation with the Welsh Assembly and will have to go through the relevant process there.
1096
Another issue on the waste side is illegal waste fly-tipping. I recognise that that is a major problem. It was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. It is important that the Environment Agency and local authorities have the powers and the ability to enforce in that area. The Strategy Unit's document also covers that and it has recommended more rigorous prosecution of fly-tipping offences. We need to consider that very carefully. Already, we are amending the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 to help local authorities to do more to tackle the problem. Amending them will also help local authorities to pursue fly-tipping offences where they find evidence. My notes refer specifically to evidence that the noble Viscount was pursuing as a community activist in Wokingham and to a business's letter headed paper being connected with a fly-tipping incident. I hope that in future such evidence will be sufficient to lead to prosecution. He was referring to the Environment Agency but those powers relate mainly to the local authority. I will write to the noble Viscount if the situation regarding the Environment Agency is significantly different. We already have it in our sights to tackle that. If the process of regularising the disposal of waste on other fronts leads to illegal tipping, that part of the strategy would clearly need to be developed further.
I accept that some of the increase in fly-tipping may reflect the landfill tax but the bulk of additional fly-tipping appears to involve household waste, which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, accepted is not directly affected by the landfill tax. Measures to change the behaviour of households in disposing of their waste are also required.
I turn briefly to the emissions trading part of the Bill, which was generally welcomed although there were a few queries about it. I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for giving me credit in this area, but I am not sure whether it is entirely deserved. Bringing the market to operate in terms of meeting emissions targets is an important initiative in this country and it is now coming to fruition. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked whether the participants who voluntarily went into the scheme knew that there would be a compulsory underwriting of it. The answer is that that does not make the system mandatory; it means that the penalty—the sanction—for developing a voluntary system has a statutory base. That was understood from the word go when they entered it. They advocated that legislation was needed to ensure that one could apply those sanctions. The Bill does not make the UK emissions trading scheme mandatory but provides a statutory base for the sanctions for a voluntary scheme. The contracts under the scheme, freely negotiated by those who entered it, are binding. The contracts difference between participants and the Government refer to the difference and state that statutory penalties will be introduced as soon as Parliament allows; we are fulfilling our part of that contract.

1097
The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, asked about compatibility with developments in the EU in terms of trading directives. They are not directly related but they are not incompatible either. The UK scheme was designed well ahead of the EU scheme and there are some differences between what is currently being proposed in the EU. First, the scheme will be mandatory when it reaches the end of its development. Emissions from electricity generation will be included or allowed; the EU scheme will apply only to a restricted subset of sectors rather than the industry-wide or economy-wide scheme that we are proposing. We believe that the potential incompatibility is being ironed out and there should be no basic incompatibility between what eventually emerges from the EU and our scheme. Britain will therefore be leading in this regard. As I said earlier, the approach will bring great benefit in terms of our emissions targets and it will provide British industry and the City of London with great experience in dealing with a trading scheme well ahead of the rest of the world.
Finally, I touch on the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Greaves, about the points in the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The first point involved the fact that this was a skeletal Bill. Both noble Lords will recognise that it is skeletal because it provides for the devolved functions and therefore does not contain as much detail as if it had been solely an English Bill.
There are not a huge number of regulations under the Bill. No doubt when we come to discuss the clauses under which regulations are proposed we shall discuss the nature of the regulations at that point, but it should not be accepted that there will be a huge swathe of new regulations. The points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee related to the penalty provisions rather than any other powers under the Bill. As I said, I have no doubt that we shall debate those when we come to the appropriate clause in Committee.
I look forward to Committee stage. I hope that noble Lords who have participated in the Second Reading will feature in the Committee stage debates. It is an important Bill. It may not be quite as ambitious as delivering the totality of the waste strategy—as some noble Lords requested it should—but it is a very important building block towards delivering an effective waste management strategy in this country, in fulfilling our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and for meeting our emissions targets.
The Bill does so in a way which allows the market to operate rather than, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggested, by Soviet-style direction. Quite the opposite. It is a mixture of government initiative and the operation of the market. In that sense, I hope that the Bill will commend itself to all sides of the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Medical Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 2002
7.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before the House today will bring about major reform of the General Medical Council. In essence, these reforms have been designed to achieve three important objectives. First, to provide better protection and improved safeguards for the public; secondly, clearer and more straightforward procedures in relation to fitness to practice which are in the interests of both the medical profession and the public at large; and, finally, greater accountability and transparency around the working of the GMC itself.
I pay tribute to the GMC for the work that it does and for its specific work on reforms. I particularly mention Sir Donald Irvine, the former President of the GMC, and his successor, Graeme Catto.
The new GMC will be smaller and able to work more quickly in the public interest. It will have quicker and simpler procedures, particularly where a doctor's fitness to practise is in question. There will be far greater lay representation than before and, for the first time, the GMC will be able to link registration with performance through the introduction of revalidation for all doctors.
Proposals for reform have been developed by the GMC itself following careful and widespread consultation with patients and the medical profession. There was overwhelming support for reform in response to the consultation on the draft order.
The order makes a number of amendments to the Medical Act 1983 rather than replacing it altogether. We have tried to keep the drafting as simple as possible but the fact that we are amending the primary legislation in this way means that the order is inevitably a rather complex document.
We said in the NHS Plan that, as a minimum, regulatory bodies must change so that they are smaller with much greater patient and public representation in their membership; have faster more transparent procedures; and develop meaningful accountability to the health service. The order represents a big step forward in meeting those needs.
The order reduces the size of the General Council—or paves the way for such a reduction—from an unwieldy 104 to a maximum of 35. A smaller council will inevitably be required to work in different ways. For example, members of the new council will not have the same role in fitness-to-practice cases as their predecessors. Cases will be heard by panels made up of

1099
non-council members and will include both doctors and lay people. The effect of this, together with the opportunity for more non-council members to sit on working committees, will result in a welcome increase in the number of members of the public taking an active role.
The new council will meet more frequently, and this will help the new GMC to respond more rapidly to change and to take forward business more effectively. Lay members currently form only 25 per cent of the members of the General Council. In future, they will make up no less than 40 per cent—14 out of 35.
The links to Parliament are important and the GMC, as a statutory body, will continue to be accountable to Parliament. We have strengthened this link by ensuring that the council reports to Parliament, through the Privy Council, on an annual basis. The Act as revised by the order will now require that the report be laid before each House of Parliament. Like other regulatory bodies, the GMC will come under the remit of the new Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals. This new body will report to Parliament and so help us to hold regulators to account more effectively.
Though detailed, the order does not go into every detail of the governance of the council. A great deal will be dealt with in secondary legislation and will be subject to scrutiny by both the Privy Council and Parliament. The first of these statutory instruments will be the General Medical Council (Constitution) Order. We have already published a draft of this order. The constitution order sets out the numbers of members, how they get selected and their terms of office, including that of the president. It also covers the termination of office for existing members and sets the quorum at 25. These orders will be subject to the negative procedure.
The order places a new duty on the GMC to cooperate, as appropriate and where practicable, with other bodies concerned with the regulation of healthcare professionals. As new clinical roles develop in the health service it is vital that the GMC plays a full part in ensuring that professionals working closely with doctors, perhaps taking over some of the roles traditionally delivered by doctors, meet similarly high standards expected of doctors.
In recognition of the new spirit of partnership with patients and the public, the order places a duty on the GMC to inform the public about its work.
From a public protection point of view, the medical register is perhaps the most fundamental part of the GMC's work. Keeping the register will be at the centre of the new GMC's functions. The order clarifies the GMC's freedom to publish the medical register on the Internet and, at the same time, abolishes the requirement for the GMC to publish an annual register.
But patients today want to know far more than whether a doctor is simply on the register. They want to know whether he or she is up to date with current practice. An important change that this order will bring is the introduction of a licence to practise. In
1100
future, only doctors who have a licence to practise will be able to treat patients and prescribe drugs. The licence may be withdrawn if doctors fail to maintain their fitness to practise or do not demonstrate, through the GMC's new validation procedures, that they are up to date and fit to practise.
The introduction of revalidation for all doctors is therefore a key feature of the changes we are debating. In future, every practising doctor will have to submit evidence to the GMC, collected over a five-year period, that their practice is up to date and of sufficiently high standard. Provided that they meet those standards they will retain their licence to practise. Those doctors who choose not to take part or who do not meet the required standard will not be issued with a licence to practise.
That process will be supported by the separate introduction of an appraisal system for all doctors working in the NHS. All NHS doctors will be discussing their practice with their employer or a recognised NHS appraiser on an annual basis.
Revalidation will help all doctors to show that they are giving good medical care and will support them to develop and improve their practice. It will also enable doctors to identify and correct any weaknesses they may have. If concerns are raised about a doctor's fitness to practise during the revalidation process, he or she can be referred to the GMC's fitness-to-practise procedures. These procedures—for handling concerns about a doctor's conduct, performance or health—are perhaps the most prominent aspect of the GMC's work.
I should stress that even though the number of complaints against doctors increases year on year, the vast majority of people receive excellent service from committed and caring professionals working to very high standards which the GMC helps to maintain. When things go wrong—as they inevitably do from time to time—it is important to have effective procedures in place for dealing with them.
The role of the GMC is to make decisions on those cases where a problem is so serious that a doctor's registration is called into question. The new GMC will concentrate on the most serious cases, and on those where local action is unable to secure adequate public protection.
It is in everyone's interest that procedures are fast, fair and efficient. The order provides for important changes to the GMC's fitness to practise procedures to ensure that they are just that, and that they maintain the right balance between the legitimate expectations of patients and the rights of individual doctors.
In effect, these changes will mean simpler proceedings and rules, speedier processes, the more meaningful involvement of those who bring cases to the GMC's attention and keeping interested parties informed of progress.
Streamlined fitness-to-practise procedures, together with the changes that we have made to the constitution and governance of the GMC and the introduction of revalidation for doctors fully meet the aims for modernised professional self-regulation. I believe that

1101
it is consistent with the changes that are being made with the other regulatory bodies. The new GMC will be more open, more accountable and more responsive to change than ever before.
The GMC has undertaken a tremendous amount of work in engaging the profession and other stakeholders in determining the future of professionally led self-regulation for doctors. Events at Bristol and the publication of the Kennedy report gave this exercise an additional imperative and urgency. Again, I pay tribute to the GMC for its work in taking this agenda forward.
The case for reform in this area has been debated extensively with stakeholders and has been widely accepted. The reforms before the House will ensure not only that the new GMC will be able to respond to the need for reform but that, crucially, it will be able to set the pace of reform. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation of the order. It is clear that it is basically non-contentious, and it has the support of the General Medical Council, which is itself the object of reform in the order. Indeed, it is fair to say, as the Minister has generously pointed out, that the GMC has been active in the development of the ideas behind the order. The GMC is keen to see these reforms progress.
Let me make it clear that we on these Benches support the important principle underlying the order; namely, self-regulation. Control of regulatory processes has always been one of the hallmarks of a profession, and we are glad that the solution agreed between the Government and the GMC does not impair this fundamental rule.
It would be tempting to stop here and say, "Thanks very much, all agreed". The Minister will know, however, that life is rarely that simple and I should like to address three aspects of the order.
The first is the restructuring of the GMC. It will be a much smaller council—the number of members will be reduced from 104 to 35 and the proportion of lay members will be increased from 25 per cent to 40 per cent. All of that seems to be going in the right direction of travel. But I do question whether the journey has gone far enough. In particular, when the Government set up the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals and the Nursing and Midwifery Council earlier this year they chose a different end point for those bodies; namely, a council size of 23 and lay representation just short of 50 per cent.
Will the Minister explain why it is that doctors are different? Is there not just as much need for lay representation on a body involving doctors as there is with other healthcare professionals? And while the reduction in the number of council members to 35 goes some way towards streamlining the GMC's
1102
deliberations, I rather doubt that any objective study of the effectiveness of organisational structures would endorse as many as 35 on the governing body. A number of the bodies consulted by the Department of Health came to that conclusion. Indeed, I would not even point to 23, as on the HPC and the N MC, as being the last word in organisational fitness. Can the Minister explain the rationale behind the figure of 35?
Can the Minister give some idea of whether the new structure will be reviewed; and, if so, when? The objectives are clear—greater lay involvement and speedier processes in the public interest. But what if this largish body, with its rather individual governance structure, does not deliver the goods? When will the Government look again at this?
I now turn to a second aspect of the order; namely, the new processes around fitness to practise, and in particular the new investigation committees and fitness to practise panels. I think it fair to say that much of this has met with general approbation, but it has been recognised that much of the detail of how the panels and committees will work in practice will not be known until the rules themselves are published. Will the Minister give an assurance that those rules will be subject to public consultation? The Consumers' Association in particular made this point.
The Minister will be aware that the issue of a warning for less serious offences is a controversial one. This new sanction may not easily be understood by the outside world. Does it mean that a doctor is not guilty, or only a little bit guilty, or what? It does not necessarily sit easily alongside existing clinical governance processes that have been introduced into the NHS with much care and effort over the past decade or so. The Government have pressed ahead with this aspect of the reforms despite the concerns of, for example, the Joint Consultants Committee. Will the Government be keeping this new sanction under review? If so, when does the Minister expect the first review to be available?
The third aspect on which I wish to focus is the issue of revalidation. We fully support the thrust of this proposal, but the devil is in the detail of the rules, as several consultees pointed out. When will the detailed rules be published and will they be consulted on? Again, the Consumers' Association feels that it is important to expose this area to public scrutiny before finalisation.
My principal concern in this area is a practical one. Over the next few years, over 100,000 doctors will be seeking revalidation, plus the new intake from the medical schools and from overseas. The revalidation exercise will work well only if there are robust systems in the NHS on which revalidation can be based. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that NHS appraisal systems will be fit for that purpose, including achieving the elusive element of consistency? Are the Government satisfied that the necessary resources will exist within the GMC to undertake this task?
The Minister will be aware that when the Nursing and Midwifery Council attempted its ambitious process of registration earlier this year, it got itself into

1103
a bit of a pickle and the registration timetable went off the rails. Is the Minister sure that nothing of the same ilk could happen with this revalidation exercise? What would he the position of a doctor whose revalidation had been held up for some reason outwith his own control—perhaps as a result of imperfections in registration processes?
I am conscious that this is quite a long list of questions for the Minister, but these are important issues. I stress that we very much want to support the order and hope that the Minister will be able to give constructive answers to our questions.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, as the GMC admits in its annual report, it has suffered criticism over the years. I agree with the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Given the speed of changes in medical practice and the new elements of regulation that have been needed, many of us admire how the GMC has reformed itself, starting under the presidency of Sir Donald Irvine and then Sir Graeme Catto. Most of that reform has been instigated from the inside. 'With some caveats, therefore, I congratulate them on what we have before us today, the extensive consultation process that they engaged in throughout 2000 and 2001 to get there, and the principles that they have enunciated as being central to the reforms—effectiveness, inclusiveness, accountability and transparency—allied with the principle of professionally led regulation.
Throughout, however, we must remember that the essence is to ensure good medical practice and that the system has the confidence of the public, patients and professionals. We welcome the changes, rather more unreservedly than the Opposition Benches in terms of the changes to governance. Specifically, I do not believe that one size for a regulatory body fits all. We welcome the fitness-to-practise changes and the introduction of revalidation. We also welcome the fact that the GMC will now have its report laid before each House and that the protection of the public will now be explicitly at the heart of the GMC's activities.
Key, too, is ensuring that there is no duplication with other clinical governance, appraisal systems and quality assurance systems, whether carried out by the Royal Colleges, the NPSA, the National Clinical and Assessment Authority, health authorities or NHS trusts; otherwise, that will simply add to the burden on doctors without producing benefit. Professor Ian Kennedy, the new chairman of CHAI, talked of doctors being free of the "confetti of interference". As he said, they must be free from the pressure of multiple visitations by a variety of bodies. I am reassured by the conversations that I have had with the various agencies, but I would like to hear the Minister's assurance on that point.
My one serious regret about the order is the way in which it is drafted—the Minister touched briefly on that. It is a nightmare. I speak as a lawyer quite used to reading regulations. The drafting, without any available concordance, is a model of how not to draft
1104
legislation. It has not been made easy to comprehend the changes made; it has almost been made as difficult as possible in the circumstances.
My concerns about the order are essentially practical. I wish to discover what groundwork has been done to introduce it. I have a series of questions, and I apologise in advance for throwing them at the Minister. I know that, in his usual capable fashion, he will have anticipated half of them and I have no doubt that he will be able to answer them.
To what extent were the revalidation process pilots carried out? How many doctors took part? How much time have the Government calculated will be taken up by assessors and individual doctors during, and in preparation for, the assessment? How many, and what percentage of, doctors failed the revalidation pilot process and subsequently were offered warnings, additional guidance and advice by assessors? That is an important factor in assessing the benefits of revalidation. What extra resources have been, or will be, made available by the Government for the revalidation process? The process requires locums to be engaged to meet patients needs. Will the GMC have the requisite resources to deal with fitness to practise cases in a timely fashion?
Under the new electoral system, why is the GMC setting up different regions? Will the GMC handle future complaints on a regional basis also? An important point relating to Schedule 4(3A)(1) on page 36 is that the continuity of the presence of members of the investigation committee, the interim orders panel or the fitness to practise panel is not required when hearing cases. So it appears that members of the panel do not have to be present throughout a hearing. How can that be valid? Surely, in those circumstances, a defendant has the right to know that those hearing evidence against him or her have heard all the evidence and have been present throughout the case. That may be a misinterpretation, but I hope that the Minister can clarify it.
I notice that now, consistently throughout the legislation as amended by the order, as a result of the interpretation Act being changed, the definition of registered medical practitioner in every case includes a fully registered person who holds a licence to practise under the Act. Is that consistent throughout the legislation? The very long list of legislation makes that point in a very confused manner.
I shall now discuss registration and changes to Section 19 of the Medical Act 1983. We had a lively debate in this House in June as part of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill prompted by St George's University School of Medicine in Grenada. As anticipated in the reply to my amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, Section 19 is indeed being changed so that there will no longer be the status of recognised university qualification for EEA nationals. This means, I assume, that under the terms of the new section all students who are UK nationals, since they are not exempt, will have to take PLAB and IELTS rather than the GMC being satisfied that certain institutions have provided

1105
sufficiently high-quality pre- and post-clinical medical training. As I pointed out in the debate in June, it seems perverse to do that when there are high-quality institutions around the world where quality of training can be assured. I very much regret—both for those institutions, which could attract many more UK aspirant doctors, and for the individuals themselves, who will now have to jump through more hoops—that the approach that we on these Benches suggested back in June has not been adopted.
I have two final comments. First, the consultation on these regulations has been a model. I very much hope that the consultations carried out over other medical reform, such as the establishment of the medical education and training board, which will have major implications for doctors, will follow a similar process.
Secondly, it is deeply ironic that, while we are establishing an important new fitness-to-practise regime for the United Kingdom through the order, the proposed new directive on mutual recognition of professional qualifications will potentially drive a coach and horses through the regime and allow totally unregistered doctors to work here for 16 weeks. In contrast to some member states, the Government have not been energetic in resisting these proposals. I hope they will become much more vigorous. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I support the order. I shall try to be brief. I declare my interest. I am a fully registered doctor and a member of the council of the General Medical Council. For the past four years I have been a member of its education and professional conduct committee and I have also been a member of the interim orders committee.
The medical profession supports the order and the amendment to the Act, which will introduce a streamlined structure reducing the size of the council. It will also introduce revalidation for a doctor's licence to practise medicine and streamline the current fitnessto-practise procedure, including the separation of investigation and adjudication.
All the changes proposed have been discussed and discussed. I remember the many hours and days that we spent doing that. They have gone through an extensive consultation process. The medical profession is keen to have a system of professionally laid regulations that command the confidence of patients and doctors.
I will conclude by quoting the GMC president, Professor Sir Graeme Catto, who said:
"This order is an important milestone in the GMC reforms. We are on schedule to deliver the changes that we have proposed".
The current officers and the council are well aware of the need to deliver all the changes on time. I have no doubt that the changes required to registration and recognition of training and experience of overseas doctors will be addressed by the GMC in the light of the changes proposed in the order.
1106
It is not my role to answer many of the questions raised, but I assure your Lordships that most, if not all, have been discussed by the GMC and it will deliver them.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I speak as a former lay member of the General Medical Council. I served for a five-year term and was present at the beginning of the discussions on the reform of the council. I fully support the order and congratulate the GMC, the Minister and the Government on it.
Reform of the council was long overdue. Decision-making was tortuous, because of the time taken by having over 100 people present. The reduction in size will assist in the speed of decision-making. The increase in lay membership is also important.
Will the Minister clarify that the lay membership does not exclude other health professionals participating? Healthcare practice today is a team process. There is value in having other health professionals participating on bodies. Just as the nurses and midwives council has other health professionals present, I hope that the presence of lay members on the new council will include some healthcare professionals, although not many, because it is important that the lay representation covers the wide public interest.
The provisions in the order for the revalidation of doctors will benefit the practitioner, the patient and the public. That is crucial in any regulatory body. Fitness to practise is the key with the regulatory system. The order sets that out. There is much still to be done on regulation, but it is a miracle that we have got to this stage. I support the order.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, too, support the order. I declare an interest, as I am also registered with the General Medical Council as a practising doctor. I commend the Government on their open approach to consultation in drawing up the order. It has been not just consultation, but reconsultation with open channels of communication, resulting in the whole profession understanding why the changes are happening. These changes are being introduced remarkably peacefully and with a wide degree of understanding. They are also being welcomed by the profession.
I reiterate the request from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this open process of consultation should be built on and used when other changes, such as those relating to education, are being looked at. The smooth transition that we have seen has much to commend it and will bring about the necessary changes to raise standards across the board.
The revalidation processes are a major step forward and are recognised as necessary within the profession. They have to be done with sensitivity and with sense so that clinical time is not eroded. Those women—two thirds of our graduates are now women—who wish to should be able to have time out to raise a family for one, two or three years and then re-enter the

1107
profession. Those who wish to pursue other educational avenues should be able to broaden their horizons and then continue with their clinical practice.
All the evidence that we have seen over many years is that those who take time out and then return to clinical practice do so with their clinical practice enhanced. The practitioners who have caused concern are those who have not taken time out from clinical practice, but have continued to practise without updating themselves and without auditing their own practice. Flexibility will be very important to maintain a vibrant workforce.
There are some exciting examples of appraisal already occurring—not simply straightforward appraisal, but 360 degree appraisal and learn appraisal, with input gained from all members of the team. The flexibility to allow that innovation and creativity is important.
It is also important to reflect the wide range of duties and responsibilities that exist within the enormous envelope called medical practice. It goes from very high tech and complex practice right through to broad, generic, front-line practice, as one sees in some areas, particularly in the community. It would be impossible to transpose one set of practice into another where there are very highly specialised areas of scientific practice, particularly those doctors who work in specialised areas of laboratory medicine.
To conclude, I commend the processes that have gone on behind the order and I support it. There is one small area that I should like the Minister to clarify, because it may not be as clear as might be helpful. Article 6(2) concerns full registration of EEA nationals by virtue of overseas primary qualifications. Will the Minister confirm that the General Medical Council will not be obliged to grant full registration in every case and that the order gives the council discretion in deciding whether it thinks fit to grant registration to the applicant, to ensure that the process of registration is truly based around fitness to practise?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome all noble Lords who have contributed to this interesting debate. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that there is broad support for the proposals in Parliament and among the medical profession, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has indicated. I again pay tribute to the GMC, to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who has played a positive role, and to members of the GMC past and present. The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has played a distinguished role.
There is clearly support for the concept of professional self-regulation to ensure public confidence. The Government also support that wholeheartedly.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the drafting issues that he raised. I agree that this is a lengthy and complicated order, because of the way that it has been done, through amending the Medical Act. I hope that the broad thrust of our proposals comes through clearly.
1108
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, thought that a committee of 35 was too much. Indeed, I believe she considered a committee of 23 too much. Sometimes a committee of two is too much. Clearly, there is a delicate balance to be drawn between enabling us to have enough lay people to carry the profession with us and having some people nominated from the medical education world. Inevitably, one arrives at a figure higher than might be desirable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that one size does not fit all. In picking up the point raised by the noble Baroness as to why the GMC has only 40 per cent lay members while the NMC and HBC have 49 per cent, I believe that there are two points to be made. The key change is that the GMC will have a substantial and much increased lay voice. The exact arithmetic would matter only if regulators took decisions by votes which divided along lay versus professional lines. Experience shows that that does not occur.
The main reason why the GMC's proportion of lay members differs from the NMC and HBC is that, unlike them, it has separate places reserved for educators. In view of the discussions we have had over the past 12 months about the importance of medical schools, I believe that noble Lords will agree that it is right that it should have places. But we wanted also to ensure a majority on the council for elected medical members in order to preserve the principle of professional self regulation. It is for that reason that we have reached a figure of 40 per cent of lay members.
The question of the electoral base was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I understand that the Liberal Democrats are obsessive in their interest in the minutiae of electoral matters. Indeed, I am reliably informed that it is considered that the GMC took a rather Liberal Democrat approach to the proposals it is making for its electoral system.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it is much more like an old-fashioned gerrymander to me.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, noble Lords would know more about that than I. The point is that the body has arrived at a system of five election areas in England based on postal districts. That is because it is taking the postal codes of every member of the GMC. It was divided up into five areas and that is why there are some quirks with Coventry and Warwickshire not appearing in the same electoral division.
But that surely is matter for the GMC rather than we politicians. I believe it is best left to it. One of the reasons it followed the route of regional election constituencies is that at the last election I believe over 300 candidates stood and all electors were given a list of over 300 candidates. That proved to be somewhat trying for the electorate. This system will be much easier. For the noble Lord's interest, they are multimember constituencies using the single transferable vote system.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, that as regards a definition of lay membership, it has always been possible—and remains so—that other members

1109
of other professions could be nominated as lay members of the GMC. The balance of views which we have received in the consultation is that the nomination of lay members should be for those who speak up best for the public and patients. But that in no way rules out the possibility of a nurse being appointed. No doubt that will be very carefully considered.
As regards the question of restructuring, I was quite surprised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, wishing us to review urgently and perhaps restructure again. Usually, she accuses me of restructuring far too many times. But the point to be made about that and her comments about fitness to practise is that it is one of the joys of a Section 60 approach. It does allow for changes to be made in the light of experience without having to go for primary legislation. I assure her, and I have been assured, that all these matters will be kept under review by the GMC. The noble Baroness is absolutely right in that these matters need to be reviewed in the light of practice. If the GMC comes forward to the Government and indicates that more changes need to be made, we shall listen to that very carefully indeed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about appraisal and revalidation. I very much agree with her. The appraisal of all doctors and the revalidation process is a mammoth task. I would not underestimate the challenge facing the GMC, individual members of the profession, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has indicated, and the NHS itself. Clearly, we have to do all we can to make sure that this system is bedded down as effectively as possible.
The GMC is planning to issue instructions, information and guidance about the new arrangements in April 2003. I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she requires that the GMC is required to consult professional bodies representing the medical professions. In addition, it has given a clear indication that it will consult more widely, as it has done already in developing the proposals in this order. I certainly agree that the amount of time spent on appraisal and revalidation is important. I am told that the actual time for appraisals differs from individual to individual. But anecdotal evidence suggests that the average time commitment for appraisal is a minimum of four-and-a-half hours up to six-and-a-half hours. That includes between two and four hours for preparation. We recognise that there will be a learning curve and that the time commitment in the first year of appraisal may be higher as trusts and individual doctors adapt to the new system. But all of us who have been involved in appraisal will recognise that it does take time and probably ought to do so, and that the benefits are there both for the individual and the organisation provided that it is done effectively.
I do not have all the information that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked for such as the number of doctors in the pilot schemes. I shall try to get that information. Perhaps I may ask the GMC to write to the noble Lord directly in relation to revalidation. I am told that the pilot schemes have
1110
been very valuable and that the GMC is still considering some of the results. I shall seek to find as much information as I can on that matter.
I agree with the noble Lord on the issue of duplication. In my opening remarks I referred to the need for the GMC to pick up the most serious cases, but we must hope that NHS trusts will be able to take a more vigorous approach at local level to sorting out some of the issues that would not be classed as serious but nevertheless can become a running sore.
I know that noble Lords have been concerned for a long time about the number of doctors suspended. The establishment of the NCAA is an important process of trying to turn that around. I am convinced that it is to the benefit of the NHS and doctors to try and nip some of the problems in the bud at an early stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked what would happen to a doctor whose revalidation was delayed through no fault of his own. I am advised that the doctor would retain the licence to practise unless it had been withdrawn if the doctor had been referred to a fitness-to-practise panel. The licence does not expire; it is not time limited. It is clear that the intention is that revalidation should take place on a five-year basis, starting in 2005.
The cost to the GMC of operating revalidation is estimated at approximately £8 million per year. The cost to individual doctors is a matter to be decided. As your Lordships would expect, when it comes to fee structure the GMC will be seeking doctors' views. I have no doubt that there will be a healthy response.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I confirm that the GMC has discretion in the matter. That discretion must be exercised reasonably, but it is clear that the GMC must have regard to its responsibility to protect the public interest by ensuring that only those doctors fit to practise are allowed to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about admission to the register. The practice in the UK is that a doctor needs to be placed on the medical register by the GMC. That can be through the UK primary medical qualification, plus a satisfactory preregistration house officer year. For a person with a primary medical qualification from outside the European Economic Area, the GMC is required by law to satisfy itself that he has the necessary knowledge and interest. That is normally done by requiring such doctors to pass the International English Language Testing Scheme examination.
EC law prevents us from applying such a requirement to people qualifying in the EEA, but employers have a responsibility to ensure that anyone they appoint knows enough English to do their job properly. I can reassure noble Lords that the GMC has begun a fundamental review of registration, due to report in May 2003, which will lead to consultation on any changes recommended. I can also assure the House that if the law needs to change, the Government would consult on a draft of any new provision under the Section 60 order procedure.

1111
I know that there is concern about the 22 Commonwealth medical schools, graduates of which up to now have had privileged access to the UK as if they were graduates of UK medical schools. I am aware of some of the issues and problems that that policy entails. It has discriminated against all other medical graduates from the Commonwealth, from Canada, Nigeria, or Pakistan, and against doctors from anywhere else in the world. It has often amounted to indirect racial discrimination. There has never been objective evidence that those 22 medical degrees were better than one, say, from Harvard. In future, all doctors from outside the EEA will have to provide the same objective evidence of competence at the point of entry to the register.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to St George's University School of Medicine. That issue has been raised with the department before. I will chase up the matter and respond to him directly, as it is important.
I was asked about delays in registration. I understand that noble Lords want to be assured that some of the problems that the NMC inherited from the UKCC., which I am glad to say are now being tackled with vigour, do not arise in the case of the GMC. I have two points to make. There is no doubt that currently in proceedings against doctors there have been long delays within the GMC. Our hope is that the restructuring brought about by the order will enable many of those delays to be tackled.
I am assured that if a doctor's paper is in order, registration from the UK or the EEA can be accomplished by the GMC within a fortnight. The problem seems to lie with doctors outwith, who are having to prove their specialism, which can cause delays. No doubt the matter will be looked at by the GMC and other regulatory bodies. Not only the GMC is involved in those cases.
I very much welcome the spirit of consultation which noble Lords have commended, and for which I thank noble Lords. There is a suggestion that this spirit should be applied to the Postgraduate Medical and Training Board. I do not quite understand why noble Lords should think that the Government's spirit of openness and consultation has not applied to discussions on the Postgraduate Medical and Training Board. I reassure noble Lords that there is a joint working group with at least six royal college presidents in membership. We shall be working very hard through the joint working group to ensure that, when we bring the relevant order before your Lordships, it will have been thoroughly tested and consulted upon.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised an issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has raised before—the issue of mutual recognition. I did not quite understand the noble Lord's suggestion that the Government have been slow to act. As I said when this issue was raised previously in your Lordships' House, we have concerns which we are raising in Europe.
1112
I hope that I have covered most of the points raised. This is a very good order, and I thank noble Lords for their support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Burma (Myanmar)
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what their response is to recent developments in Burma (Myanmar).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank very warmly all noble Lords participating in this debate, especially as the date has been made available at relatively short notice, so soon after the opening of Parliament. I am sorry that some noble Lords who wished to contribute—such as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who speaks with great authority on this subject—are unable to be here except in spirit. I am especially grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject today as I returned last week from the region and am deeply concerned about the situation.
Despite token gestures by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) regime, such as the release of some political prisoners, it continues to perpetrate gross violations of human rights, such as the use of forced labour, human minesweepers, child soldiers, military offensives against innocent civilians, rape, torture and massacre. Such atrocities in the Karen, Karenni, Shan, Mon, Chin and Arakan states continue unabated. The violations are so systematic, ruthless and comprehensive that they can justifiably be designated as ethnic cleansing or genocide.
The SPDC has taken no steps towards democratic reform since the release from house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on 6th May 2002, and it continues to support or condone widespread brutality, corruption and trafficking in narcotic drugs.
I shall focus primarily on the plight of the ethnic minorities, as the recent visit to the Karen, Karenni and Shan people provides first-hand testimonies of the desperate plight they encounter. I will not disclose locations as the SPDC is notorious for its policies of retaliation, but I would naturally be willing to supply details to your Lordships on request.
First in this dreary and disturbing catalogue of human rights violations is the widespread and persistent use of forced labour. Civilians are arrested by the Burmese army and forced to work in such harsh conditions that some, especially the elderly, die or are beaten to death. The requirement to undertake forced labour as porters carrying food or ammunition for SPDC troops can be so frequent that villagers cannot adequately tend their own crops or sustain their families.
A typical account was given by a 45-year-old man who had fled his village three months ago because SPDC soldiers had killed his brother and were looking for him. He was afraid that they would kill him, too. He had fled with his family, and they are now living in very harsh conditions as internally displaced persons

1113
within Karen state. When asked how many times he had been forced to act as a porter, he laughed rather sickly and said that he had lost count, but that he had been compelled to undertake forced labour so often that it had been impossible to look after his own crops and to maintain a living.
Second in this catalogue is the use of human beings as minesweepers. SPDC troops force civilian porters to walk ahead of them so that they will be blown up if there is a mine in the pathway. One victim of this policy is a Buddhist farmer, aged 38, with one leg amputated below the knee and the other severely mutilated. He described how, eight months ago, he had been injured when forced to carry food for SPDC troops. The soldiers had forced him to walk ahead, and he had trodden on a landmine which blew off his right foot and severely wounded his left leg. The soldiers left him to die in the jungle. Word of his plight reached his village and his uncle came to rescue him. However, his uncle stepped on a mine and was killed outright. Two days later, other villagers came to take him back to the village. They could not take him for treatment in Burma as they would have had to pay prohibitive costs, so he was taken across the border to Mae La camp, where he was given a below-knee amputation. He subsequently returned to Karen State.
He described how he had had to undertake spells of forced labour at least 20 times, carrying ammunition weighing about 40 kilograms. When he was hit by the landmine, his wife was pregnant. She gave birth just two days before we spoke with him. However, they could not return to their village because he could not work and because they fear that the village may have been mined. Four other people from his village had also been killed by landmines in recent months. He also described how SPDC soldiers maltreated the porters undertaking forced labour. If they became weak or ill or were not strong enough to carry the heavy loads, the soldiers would beat and kick them to such an extent that many died. Although he is a Buddhist, he claimed that the SPDC tends to treat Christians worse than Buddhists because it wants to force all people to become Buddhists.
Thirdly, I turn to military attacks on villages, in which villagers may be killed, tortured, raped and their livestock stolen or killed, their crops burnt and homes destroyed. For example, in central Dooplaya district in Karen state, from April to June this year over 5,000 people have been displaced, six villages burnt, six schools destroyed, three churches burnt, 15 villagers murdered, including women and children as young as two years old, three pastors captured and tortured for five days, their whereabouts still unknown, and over 28 villages attacked and looted and the villagers forced to relocate. So, over 1,000 of these people are hiding in the jungle attempting to escape through Burma army patrols to safety in Thailand.
There is also concern that retaliatory attacks are carried out regularly against Karen villages by SPDC troops after they have engaged in military action with Karen soldiers in the vicinity. This policy of reprisal is obviously totally unacceptable.
Fourthly, there is evidence of an SPDC campaign of sexual violence, including gang rape, especially of women in Shan state. Colleagues interviewed 12 Shan women who had been subjected to such gang rape and one described how her two daughters had subsequently been killed by SPDC soldiers.
Fifthly, I refer to the abduction of children by SPDC soldiers and their conscription into the army. We interviewed two recent defectors from the SPDC army. They are both Burman Buddhists who had been abducted at a very young age and forced to serve in the army. One boy is a young Buddhist aged 14 from a town in Yan Gon area. He had been captured by SPDC soldiers when he was just 11 years old. Those soldiers grabbed him when he was standing at a bus station going to visit his aunt. They took him to Ta Kyin Koe First Battalion Camp. He has not been allowed to contact his parents for the past three years.
He said that there were many boys of similar age in that camp. After eight months he was sent to a training camp for regular soldiers for the fifth battalion where he underwent basic training for four to five months before being sent to Light Infantry Battalion 341 in Karen state in Papun township. After a few days he was sent to the front line. In a unit of 30 soldiers, 15 were about his age. They were treated like adult soldiers, having to undertake regular military activities. They were sometimes beaten by the NCOs. During seven to eight months at the front line, he saw villages being attacked, local villagers rounded up and having to work for the army or pay fines to avoid such work.
The SPDC told him and the other boy soldiers that the Karen people would kill them if they ran away. He believed them, but he was so unhappy that he did escape, preferring to die rather than to remain in the army. In the event he found that the Karen were extremely kind and looked after him extremely well.
Sixthly, we were told that the SPDC is building a dam in Tho Tom district which will flood seven or eight Karen villages. The river is a tributary of the Swaleen river. To add insult to injury, the villagers are required to provide the labour for the construction of the dam which will destroy their homes, their land and their livelihood. Each household has to make available one member of its family every day to work without payment. If they refuse, they have to pay a fine of 500 kyat. The SPDC authorities have not provided any alternative land or homes, and the people who will be displaced have nowhere to go for shelter or to feed their animals, when the dam is completed next year. The authorities claim that the dam is needed to supply water, but the local Karen categorically claim that there is no water shortage in the region.
The cumulative effect of such policies can, as I said, be described as genocide, in the sense that they are designed to clear the peoples from their homelands by killing them, terrorising them, destroying their means of subsistence and denying them the basic essentials for physical and cultural survival.
Gestures made by the SPDC, such as the recent release of political prisoners, must be understood in context. Those prisoners have, allegedly, been

1115
brainwashed during their incarceration and released on condition that they do not speak out against the regime. It is also claimed that they will be closely monitored and that their continuing freedom will be conditional on their compliance.
May I therefore ask the Minister, first, what pressure Her Majesty's Government have brought to bear on the SPDC to implement a nation-wide ceasefire and take forward a genuine dialogue with the democracy movement in general, and with the ethnic minorities in particular, to try to achieve a political solution and peace with justice for all the people of Burma? Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government raise with the SPDC the violations of human rights to which we have testified and which have been documented by many other organisations? Thirdly, will the Government urge the International Labour Organisation to pursue further its investigations into the SPDC's continuing policy of forced labour and associated brutalities? Fourthly, will the Government work with the international community to require the SPDC to allow access to all parts of Burma by independent, international humanitarian aid and human rights organisations? At present, many people die from lack of food and essential healthcare. If the SPDC has nothing to hide, why does it not allow unfettered access to all its citizens? Fifthly, if the SPDC is not willing to allow such measures, will Her Majesty's Government consider encouraging the international community to increase diplomatic sanctions and to consider other policies, such as economic sanctions, as a matter of urgency? Finally, will Her Majesty's Government request China, India, Pakistan and Singapore not to sell military weapons to the SPDC while it continues to use them to kill its own people?
Many Karen and Karenni people regard Britain with respect and affection. They remember with appreciation the dignity that they were afforded by the British administration, and they recall how many of them died fighting alongside British forces and, sometimes, for British soldiers. The international community in general, and Britain in particular, have a moral imperative to help to save the lives of thousands of innocent civilians who are suffering and dying in Burma today at the hands of a brutal regime. One IDP asked:
"The SPDC tortures, kills, burns and steals—what kind of government is this?".
They will be listening to the reply from Her Majesty's Government tonight to find out what kind of government we have and how they will demonstrate a commitment to human rights, peace and justice for the people suffering so much in Burma today. It is my fervent hope that they will not be disappointed.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, once again the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for drawing our attention to the continued persecution of minority groups in Burma. We are
1116
particularly fortunate to have the benefit of the firsthand report that the noble Baroness brings to us following her recent visit to the region.
During a previous debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on 2nd October, 2000, I expressed the hope that Her Majesty's Government would press for co-ordinated international action to assist the non-Burmese minorities who daily suffered the denial of basic human rights. I said that the United Nations—the Security Council, in particular—should act with urgency. I also expressed the hope that,
"in considering what they can do, the Government will act as quickly as they can to press for a fresh international initiative which will bring before an international criminal tribunal those responsible for crimes which they have committed, and are continuing to commit, against humanity".—[Official Report, 2/10/00; col. 1214.]
Here we are, two years and two months later, still pursuing the same demands. It is clear that little or no progress has been achieved. More, much more, must be done by the United Nations. At the same lime, Her Majesty's Government should press for a common European Union policy of sanctions. The need for immediate and meaningful international intervention is overwhelming. Report after report from the areas mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, confirms that the atrocities take place in a systematic and ruthless manner.
As recently as last month the General Assembly affirmed that the establishment of a genuine democratic government in Myanmar is essential for the realisation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. That draft resolution, distributed on 12th November, referred to the release of a number of political prisoners and, among other matters, welcomed the appointment by the International Labour Organisation of a liaison officer in Myanmar as a first step towards the establishment of full and effective representation of that organisation in the country.
While the international community can draw some comfort from the words contained in the draft, it should also take serious notice of the grave concerns expressed, in particular the grave concern about the ongoing systematic violation of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the people of Myanmar; the extra-judicial killings, rapes and other forms of sexual violence carried out by members of the armed forces; the use of torture; and renewed instances of political arrests and the continued detentions, including those of prisoners whose sentences have already expired. There is concern about forced relocation; the destruction of livelihoods; forced labour; and the denial of freedoms of assembly, of association, of expressions and of movement.
The United Nations has also said that it has great concern about discrimination on the basis of religious or ethnic background, widespread disrespect for the rule of law and lack of independence of the judiciary.
These very grave concerns of the United Nations deserve our attention. It is of little comfort, however, to those who exist in very unsatisfactory conditions,

1117
many of them detained against their will, children who are forced to become soldiers, and those without proper medical care and educational facilities. For these unfortunate and long suffering people, words in resolutions and reports are meaningless unless accompanied by action. This evening we can do more than just sympathise. We can insist that our Government redouble their efforts within the European Union to support fully the recent call from the United Nations for the Government of Burma to fulfil their obligations; to restore the independence of the judiciary; and to take immediate action fully to implement concrete legislative, executive and administrative measures to end the use of forced labour.
We have heard much in recent times about the need for independent and effective examination—this in relation to other parts of the world. I suggest that it is just as important to the people we are talking about this evening.
We should ask our Government to press for safe and unhindered access by the United Nations and other humanitarian organisations, as called for by the UN. They should be allowed to go and see what is going on for themselves, so that the world can have its eyes opened, as this House has again had its eyes opened this evening through the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. There is no lack of evidence to support the need for action.
Last month, Christian Solidarity Worldwide—an organisation I support and admire—published a report containing horrific details of the brutal use of systematic rape practised by the Burmese military. Perhaps I may describe two accounts. The first concerns a young woman aged 22, Nan Ei. She was looking for dock fruit—a kind of jungle fruit—when she came across column commander Captain Ye Htut and second-in-command Lieutenant Htin Kyaw. The soldiers took Nan Ei and her companion to their army base in Pah Klaw Hta in Nyaunglebin district. I hope that I have pronounced the names of those places correctly. The noble Baroness will tell me later if I have not; I am always willing to learn. However, they are in the Karen state. That night, on 10th June, Nan Ei was brutally gang-raped by 20 soldiers. On her release the next day, Nan Ei recounted her ordeal:
"I was raped by the column commander, Captain Ye Htut, first, then he ordered his soldiers to rape me. He said, 'You must all rape that Karen woman. Those who refuse to rape will be shot and killed'".
Nan Ei killed herself that night when no one was around. She died alone after going through that ordeal.
The second account is from Naang Yord. She told of the time about two years ago when her village in Shan state was forcibly relocated to a new site where the land was less fertile. Together with her eldest daughter and her niece, Naang Yord sneaked back to the family's old rice fields. They wanted to harvest some rice to pay for the funeral of her husband, who
1118
had just passed away. But they were spotted by a Burmese patrol and a nightmare began. Naang Yord said:
"They put a plastic sheet over my head and then, one by one, they assaulted me".
Holding back her tears, she continued:
"I didn't see what they were doing to my two girls. I could just hear continuous moaning. Then two gunshots. Later, I found their bodies not far away. Their fists were still dug hard into the grass. They laid there, naked, motionless. The only things left on them were their sarongs folded up to their waists".
I want to repeat to the House a question posed by an elderly Catholic nun. She works with the internally displaced ethnic people who told of how women and children were "living like animals" in the jungle. This wonderful nun said that she admired, but despaired of, their bravery in making dangerous and difficult journeys, dodging Burmese soldiers to come for small handouts of rice and salt. She spoke of their fear and suffering and also of the gratitude in their eyes. She said:
"Why doesn't anybody care?".
She also asked:
"What do we have to do to make the world realise how bad the situation is?".
How do we answer her question?
The answer, however inadequate it may seem, is to support and endorse the six measures outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. In her moving and thought-provoking speech, the noble Baroness gave us a way forward, however inadequate it may seem to the people who are suffering. Again, I pay tribute to her for her dedication to the suffering minorities in Burma and, as this House knows only too well, for her concern for other parts of the world. I hope that the Minister can reassure your Lordships that these measures will be pursued with energy and determination.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, over the two years since this House last met to debate the subject of Burma, some observers have had cause to express hope. There have been cracks in the once firmly locked doors of the offices of democratic groups. We have seen the release of some 350 political prisoners. Optimism has been generated by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's release on 6th May. There has been hope that, at last, the SPDC will not break promises to move forward in its transition to democracy. Hope has been vested in the authority of UN envoy, Tan Sri Razali Ismail, whose reputation as an outstanding diplomat has been widely recognised.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, said, such hope has, sadly, been forlorn. It is no surprise that a fortnight ago, our Foreign Office Minister, Mr O'Brien, welcomed the adoption of a resolution of the third committee of the UN General Assembly that expressed grave concern over the human rights situation in Burma. The resolution, which was cosponsored by the European Union, expressed concern about the ongoing, systematic violation of human

1119
rights, including the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the people of Burma. Particular concern was expressed about the continued detention of political prisoners and the human rights abuses in the ethnic minority areas of Burma that were alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. That strong reaction from the Government was both welcome and necessary.
We have heard similar views, not least from the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Mr James Kelly. He said that nothing demonstrated that more clearly to him than the SPDC's reaction to allegations of extensive, systematic use of rape by the military in Shan state and its manipulation of the International Committee of the Red Cross's efforts to expand its work in ethnic regions.
The report License to Rape, which has been alluded to, was issued in May of this year. It lists in detail the Burmese military regime's use of sexual violence in the ongoing war in Shan state. It is essential, if horrific, reading, not least as a terrifying exposé of the systematic use of terror and violence in the modern world. Under the heading, "Rape condoned as a weapon of war", it lists the systematic and widespread incidence of rape, officers committing rape, further torture, the killing of raped women, and gang rape. There are also sections on militarisation leading to increased vulnerability to rape, forced relocation and forced labour—and so, tragically, it goes on.
The regime in Burma persists in a twin approach of brutal violation of its ethnic minorities and repressive policies against its political opponents. The Myanmar Government continue to rule by the law of terror and oppression. Democracy, political pluralism and opposition have no place under that regime. The ethnic and religious minorities who live within the borders of Burma, and who, by their very nature of minority status, should most merit the protection of the government, are routinely terrorised, while those who are brave enough to stand up for their beliefs risk arrest, detention, torture and murder.
So I am glad that my noble friend Lady Cox has led this debate. She has described the horrific abuses of human rights in Burma, the effects of which she has witnessed on so many occasions. This is humanity at the nadir of its existence.
What has happened in the years since we last debated Burma? There has been a continuation of gross abuses and shocking violations of human rights. The systematic deportations of the Karenni to relocation camps where foreign NGOs have not been allowed access and the ethnic cleansing of the Karen, akin to genocide, defy description and words to condemn them are not strong enough.
Summary executions; deaths in custody; absences of due process of law; inhumane treatment of political detainees, particularly in the notorious prisons outside Rangoon; forced civilian labour, which the US Embassy in Rangoon estimates generates 3 per cent of Burma's GDP, and which is often used for infrastructure projects such as roads and airports
1120
intended to promote tourism in that country; child labour; disappearances; executions; civilians, including young girls and boys, forced to act as porters and carry supplies and ammunition for the tatmadaw—these are all part, as we have heard today, of daily life in Burma.
At the turn of this century, Amnesty International's Country Report opened with the paragraph:
"Scores of people were arrested for political reasons and 200 people, some of them prisoners of conscience, were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. More than 1,200 political prisoners arrested in previous years including 89 prisoners of conscience and hundreds of possible prisoners of conscience, remained in prison".
With Britain's record of strong links with Burma, it is hard to stand by and watch as the country is brought to its knees. Economic and social collapse—the bedfellows of a strangled democracy—are fast beckoning Burma towards a future of yet more chaos and misery. In a recent report, the UN special rapporteur confirmed that when he said:
"No concrete progress, most unfortunately, can be reported on the general situation of human rights in Myanmar. On the contrary repression of political and civil rights continues in Myanmar, including summary or arbitrary executions. abuse of women and children by soldiers and the imposition of oppressive measures directed in particular at ethnic or religious minorities, including the continuing use of forced labour and relocation".
The ethical dimension to the Government's human rights policy raised many expectations when first elucidated to the House. Many critical comparisons were made between the Government's hardline policy towards Burma and their "softly, softly" approach to China, whose human rights abuses many considered to be equally egregious. Despite those double standards, if the ethical dimension to foreign policy had any backbone whatever, its force should first and foremost have been felt by a regime as steeped in blood and tyranny as that of Burma.
Human Rights Watch has called for a. new multilateral policy towards Burma, which would include dialogue with the Burmese army, the democratic opposition and the ethnic minority organisations, combined with co-ordination on common interests between Western donors. Japan, the Association of South-East Asian Nations, and China, as well as seeking actively to engage China in finding a solution to the Burmese impasse, on the basis that neither the international community's policy of isolation on the one hand nor constructive engagement on the other were working.
The winds of change are sweeping across south-east Asia. We must do more than cross our fingers and hope that Burma does not remain immune to the process of democratic reform that is taking place around her. Will the Minister outline how the Government are seeking to harness those forces of reform to bring them to bear in Burma? What active measures are the Government taking to sustain the Burmese opposition, and what progress is being made to resist the regime's efforts to wear down international resistance to its undemocratic rule, given the continuing oppression of the National League for Democracy?

1121
The challenge for the international community now lies in matching our goals for Burma's future with the tools available. It is not inappropriate to ask why we do not apply equal attention, resources and rhetoric to those who possess weapons of mass destruction and those regimes that enact torture, rape, fear and humiliation on their own people. If this is to be a century in which we recognise and promote human rights for every man, woman and child, we could do worse than to turn the cameras of Cable News Network on Burma and the attention of packed, influential parliaments in the West to man's inhumanity to men, women and children wherever it exists.
Our tools of persuasion are limited and we have few calibrations of subtlety and balance. The tools of condemnation and isolation are blunt and heavy, but they are justified if, and only if, they achieve a result. That result would be a peaceful and stable government in Burma who reflected, not rejected, the will of the Burmese people; a government who turned their energy to fighting the battle against poverty, rape, corruption and despair, rather than fighting their own people; and a government who are an engine of growth and a full participant in the global economy, rather than the outpost of condemned isolation that they are today. That is no easy task, but it is one that we must today, once again, pledge ourselves to fulfil.
8.49 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing this important debate, which she did with appalling clarity. It would be good to able to say that we can see the situation in Burma improving. Can we see a chink of light? If so, it is surely distant. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, argued, little has changed in recent times. Yet, the country's current economic plight, after years of economic mismanagement, may present an opportunity for the international community to do more to bring pressure to bear on the country to democratise and put an end to its widespread human rights abuses. As the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, put it, words are not enough. We need action. We cannot stand by while atrocities such as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have described are carried out.
It is welcome that Suu Kyi has been released from house arrest and that she has had some freedoms restored to her. But that means little to ordinary people unless democratic rights are extended much further. Her release has clearly been used as a smokescreen covering further human rights abuses, as the international world concentrates on her and not on what is happening to the vast majority of the oppressed population.
As the New York Times put it on 28th November, six months after her release, Burma's,
"military rulers seem to have lost interest in political compromise".
1122
They have released only a trickle of political prisoners from among more than 1,000 who are behind bars. They have dragged their feet on a pledge to open substantive talks with Suu Kyi and her political party, the National League for Democracy. One of the top generals has stated that,
"the process is moving forward. But such movement can only occur at a pace with which we are comfortable".
The world should not wait until such generals feel "comfortable".
There is a feeling among some that international opinion is focusing chiefly on the need to democratise Burma and expecting human rights abuses thereafter to be curbed. Those working in that field argue that human rights abuses must be tackled now. I believe that has come across clearly in this debate. It simply cannot wait.
As we have heard, the particular concern is with the Karen and Shan people, among whom guerrillas have been based and against whom the military authorities have taken vicious action. As the Jubilee Campaign explains, the Burmese Government have pursued what is known as the "Four Cuts Policy", designed to deprive the guerrillas of any possible food, funds, recruitment or intelligence from the civilian population. To quote the Jubilee Campaign:
"Especially since the 1990s the Four Cuts Policy has amounted to an intense, deliberate and systematic targeting of the civilian populations of the Karen, Karenni and Shan people by the Burmese military, resulting in widespread atrocities. One observer has described the Burmese military's tactics as draining the ocean so that the fish can't swim—the ocean being the civilian community and the fish the guerrillas".
As we have heard, above half a million people have been forcibly relocated, away from their villages to areas controlled by the military. Those who flee are likely to be shot on sight if discovered and, of course, fleeing from place to place means that they cannot cultivate crops or adequately support themselves. Healthcare is virtually non-existent. Those who are relocated are often forced into labour or the army. There have been massacres, again as we have heard, as people seek to flee across the border with Thailand.
The government in Thailand, in recent times, have sought to return some of those refugees as they seek to improve their own relations with the government in Rangoon—although once refugees are in the refugee camps, overseen by the international community, they are likely to be safe.
I should like to ask the Minister what assistance is being provided to such people—the dispossessed? Is the aid in the form of financial support for those still within Burma, rather than simply within the refugee camps in Thailand, welcome though that is? Will the Government work closely with NGOs on the Thai/Burma border to send cross-border humanitarian aid from Thailand to the half million internally displaced people in eastern Burma?
What pressure is being brought to bear on the Burmese Government to halt those atrocities and what are the British Government doing to raise the cases of the Karen, Karenni and Shan at the United Nations? In addition, what pressure is being brought on the

1123
Burmese Government to admit people from those oppressed communities to the talks, limited though they are, with the National League for Democracy? And if, as seems to be the case, the Burmese Government deny that atrocities are taking place, will they agree to admit human rights monitors to the Karen, Karenni and Shan areas of Burma, as has been suggested, to investigate and monitor the human rights situation?
Besides the human rights problems in the eastern region of the country, there has long been a problem with forced labour. The ILO brought out its report last year and now has someone in Rangoon monitoring its implementation. We would welcome the fact that pressure continues to be applied by the ILO. The Burmese Government have agreed to put an end to the practice of forced labour, issuing edicts to that effect. As others have said, nevertheless the practice continues, particularly in the rural areas, but on a more informal basis.
In terms of how pressure may be brought to bear, we need to look at the effect of economic sanctions. Clearly, that is a problematic area. There surely must be widespread support for "smarter" sanctions against repressive regimes, such as the EU arms embargo and severance of defence links with Burma. Britain must take more action to combat arms brokers. However, I note that the International Development Select Committee recently reported in The Future of Sanctions that there is evidence to suggest that economic sanctions often do not target those truly responsible while increasing the suffering of civilian populations. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that issue. We would certainly like to see the establishment of a UN body with responsibility for targeting financial sanctions and the establishment of an office of foreign assets control so that individuals and states are more effectively targeted. But in the case of Burma it can be argued that since any company seeking to work in Burma must work with the military regime, it is the military regime that benefits first and foremost. Could the Minister comment on whether the Government are maintaining a policy of discouraging investment in Burma, and what do they do when companies ignore that recommendation?
I note that BAT Industries is one company that is established in Burma, and of course Kenneth Clarke is on its board. That is surely one industry which has no place in Burma in any capacity or, for that matter, any role in any developing country; or—dare I say—anywhere. The terrible toll of illness and death that has resulted from the use of tobacco in western countries should simply not be visited on developing countries. Burma has enough health problems among its population without incurring further harm.
It is clearly a great challenge, given the nature of the regime in Burma, to get international assistance into the country so far as health problems are concerned. There is of course a strong link between poverty and ill-health, and between poverty and reproductive health. A report in the Lancet recently has detailed how Burma's health is in crisis. The infant mortality rate is at least twice as high as that in Vietnam and
1124
Thailand. One million children are poorly nourished, and malaria, TB and diarrhoeal diseases are widespread. Women in Burma face particular health problems because of poor living conditions, inadequate health services and lack of education. We have already heard this evening how rape is used as a weapon of war. Healthcare is even more deficient in ethnic minority regions where constant relocation and heavy losses of life among men have left women with the complete responsibility for raising children. Maternal mortality rates are about 580 per 100,000 live births compared with about 80 for Malaysians. Abortion is used by a very large proportion of women as a means of birth control in the absence of other means. AIDS is an increasing problem, particularly on the Thai border.
As the United Nations Family Planning Association declared in a statement issued with the publication today of its report People, Poverty and Possibilities: Making Development Work for the Poor,
"addressing population concerns is critical to meeting the UN's Millennium Development Goals of halving global poverty and hunger by 2015, reducing maternal and child mortality, curbing HIV/AIDS, advancing gender equality, and promoting environmentally sustainable development".
It designates Burma as a category A country where there is the most urgent need of assistance. And yet, because of the regime in Burma, it cannot get that aid in. It has therefore been unable to channel adequate funding into Burma. The kind of action that UNFPA has been able to take in China, for example, has proved impossible in Burma.
Robert Templer, writing in a recent report for the International Crisis group, stated that it was not certain that attempts to avoid a health disaster in Burma would succeed, but that certainly Burma could not turn the tide,
"without immediate, substantial and sustained financial and technical support".
I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government have found any means to deliver this kind of aid and what other assistance is feasible to try to improve the health of the Burmese people, and thus to help lift them out of poverty. The Government's preference is, as I know, to work with governments. They must not in a case like this, when they do not wish to deal with a government like the Burmese Government, neglect the people of Burma. What are they doing through NGOs to try to change things?
Burma is clearly in the grips of a social, political and economic crisis. Human rights abuses abound, as we have heard, and democracy looks as far away as ever. And yet now just might be a time of opportunity. The military regime in Burma does respond to foreign pressure, if only to step up its propaganda efforts. It is in dire need of economic assistance, and this may just open the possibility for the international community to influence events. We have to hope that the international community is ready and willing to do just that and that the abuses that we have heard about will shock people into action.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for this opportunity to debate the current situation in Burma.
Last month the EU reaffirmed its position on Burma—an arms embargo, bans on supply of equipment that would be used for internal repression, no defence links, no non-humanitarian aid, no high-level visits, a visa ban and an asset freeze on members of the regime. These sanctions share one clear objective—to place the military regime on notice that it must seek a peaceful solution to resolve the political deadlock in Burma and cannot continue to ignore the aspirations of the people.
The Burmese people have shown admirable courage and resilience in refusing to give up hope of democracy. They deserve our support. Today the House has been united in its condemnation of the regime in Burma.
The human rights situation in Burma offers just a glimmer of hope. The junta has recognised that change is necessary. The International Labour Organisation has established a liaison officer in Rangoon, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said. We welcome the re-opening of some NLD offices and a reduction in the restrictions applied to the NLD and other political groups. The release from house arrest of the opposition leader, Daw Suu Kyi, is perhaps the biggest step taken to date. This has been accompanied by her increased freedom to travel, with less but by no means no restriction on behalf of the authorities. We also welcome the dissemination of human rights standards for public officials, some governmental organisations and ethnic groups through a series of human rights workshops. But now we need to see the end of politically inspired arrests, the release of all political prisoners and the establishment of a genuine government in Burma.
As my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, pointed out in excellent speeches, the regime is still systematically perpetrating gross violations of human rights. Children as young as 11 are being snatched off the streets, given military training and then coerced into battle and barred from contacting their families.
My noble friend Lady Cox spoke very clearly of the terrible suffering in Burma's border areas, and particularly of attacks on the Karen, Karenni and Shan people. My noble friend has also drawn the attention of the House to the persistent and widespread use of forced labour, the use of human beings as mine-sweepers and the continual attacks on villages and the displacement of villagers. Indeed, recent UN estimates indicate that up to 600,000 Burmese may be internally displaced.
We on these Benches express our grave concern at the murders, rapes and other forms of sexual violence and torture carried out by members of the armed forces. My noble friend Lord Moynihan described this rightly as humanity at its nadir of existence.
1126
In May this year, the Shan Human Rights Foundation published a shocking report detailing the rape of 625 girls and women in Shan state by Burmese government troops in the past five years. According to the report, Licensed to Rape, 83 per cent were committed by army officers. The rapes involved extreme brutality and often torture in the form of beating, mutilation and suffocation. Twenty-five per cent of the rape victims were killed; 61 per cent were gang rapes. Out of a total of 173 documented incidents, only one perpetrator was ever punished.
Two years ago, the military regime began talks with Daw Suu Kyi, ostensibly to discuss political transition. Since then, the regime has released 550 political prisoners, citing this as proof of its goodwill. However, of these, less than 150 were released early. The others had either been detained without charge or had already completed, or even exceeded, their sentences.
Furthermore, the releases that have taken place are not unconditional. Nearly every one of the released prisoners has been forced to sign an agreement that they will not engage in any further political activities. The regime does not hesitate to re-imprison those who refuse to be intimidated into inaction.
Currently, there are 18 members of parliament in prison; 38 have died there since the 1990 election. Conditions in Burmese prisons are dire.
Last month, U Maung Ko died in Thyawaddy prison. He was the 82nd political prisoner known to have died since 1988. The situation is not improving; he was the fourth to die in the past four months.-Many prisoners remain desperately ill and without due medical attention. A 72 year-old journalist, U Win Tin, a senior member of the NLD, has been in prison since 1989 and is suffering from serious health problems. The current charge against him is that he tried to send information on poor prison conditions to the United Nations.
Others may die in prison due to the length of their sentences. Thet Win Aung has been in Kale prison since 1998. He has a 60-year prison sentence, yet he appears to be innocent of any crime. There are 26 other prisoners whom the regime has labelled as subversives. They are set to remain in prison indefinitely, despite the fact that their sentences were completed years ago. The best known is student leader Min Ko Naing, who has been kept in solitary confinement since 1989. His sentence expired in 1999, yet still he remains in prison. In September last year, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention made public its opinion that he was being detained illegally.
In February, a 75 year-old professor, Dr Salai Tun Than, was given a seven-year prison sentence for peacefully handing out letters in Rangoon calling for elections to be held within a year. This summer, a law student, Thet Naing Soe, staged a peaceful protest in front of Rangoon city hall. He was arrested and given a 14-year prison sentence for making speeches and displaying posters. Days later, another student, Khin Maung Win, who was arrested with him, was given a seven-year sentence. Will the Minister confirm that the

1127
Government continue to take every opportunity to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all those prisoners of conscience?
Burma is one of the world's largest producers of heroin. It is a trade from which the Burmese regime profits and from which Britain suffers. A great deal of heroin ends up on British streets. The supply of dangerous drugs will continue so long as the rule of law is absent in Burma.
In recent months, there has been an apparent decrease in the amount of opium cultivated in Burma, but this may be due to the fact that methamphetamines are replacing heroin. Unlike heroin, taking these pills does not carry the risk of HIV. Their production in Burma is astronomical. It is estimated that between 900 million and 1 billion methamphetamine tablets, worth £2 billion, will be shipped across the Thai border next year.
I welcome the efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to establish a robust EU common position on Burma. In particular, trade with the SPDC is not to be encouraged. Exports from the EU to Burma have fallen from 150 million euros in 1996 to only 81 million last year. However, imports from Burma have increased in the EU more than fivefold over this period, with the UK as the chief offender. Can the Minister account for this trade, which is contrary to the EU position and which goes against the call for economic sanctions by Daw Suu Kyi and those working for democracy in Burma? We must continue to deprive resources to the regime, which is currently allocating more budgets to defence and the internal security apparatus.
Last month, the Indian military attaché to Burma supplied Burmese brigadier-general Tin Mating Oo with 30 truckloads of weapons and ammunition, including heavy artillery shells. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will request the Indian Government to stop supplying the SPDC with weapons.
I look forward to the Minister's response to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Cox about what pressure the Government will bring to bear on the regime to take forward a dialogue with the democracy movement. India, Malaysia and Singapore have particular influence with the Burma regime. I also hope that the Government will work with other countries to enable international humanitarian aid and human rights organisations to visit different parts of Burma.
The government in Burma are looking for increased international aid, foreign investment and a lifting of trade restrictions. These clearly cannot be granted at the moment. However, we hope that the international community can offer incentives with joint problem-solving initiatives, such as humanitarian co-operation on HIV/AIDS campaigns, without prematurely withdrawing effective sanction leverage. Clearly, any assistance for appropriate humanitarian aid projects must be properly monitored.
1128
Finally, I understand that the British embassy in Rangoon runs a small scholarship programme in Burma. What action are the Government taking to encourage Burmese students to attend universities in the UK?
9.16 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for the opportunity that she has given us tonight for a serious, thought-provoking debate on the plight of the people of Burma and the Government's response to that plight. I wholeheartedly agree with much of what has been said tonight. The overall picture so movingly painted by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is depressing and all too accurate.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, pointed out, the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest in May should have been the platform for national reconciliation, respect for human rights and a transition to democracy in Burma. Sadly, it has not. Instead, regime leader Than Shwe continues to refuse to allow substantive political progress. It now looks as if the nascent political process that has struggled to unfold in Burma over the past two years is running out of steam and may be on the point of collapse.
The past two years have seen some very modest positive movement. This has included the release of the 400 or so prisoners referred to by noble Lords, the reopening of branch offices of the National League for Democracy and some relaxation of restrictions on Aung San Suu Kyi, who can now travel around Burma. These changes are welcome, but they do not go anywhere near far enough, nor do they mean that the military authorities are committed to national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy.
While we welcome the release of the 400 prisoners, we remain gravely concerned about the plight of the 1,200 or so political prisoners who remain in detention, including MPs-elect from the 1990 elections in Burma. The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Astor of Hever, referred to the appalling conditions in prison.
Acting on behalf of the European Union, the British Ambassador in Rangoon met the Burmese Foreign Minister on 20th November to express concern over the fresh political detentions and arrests there and the continued detention of large numbers of political prisoners. He also raised our concern to the regime's No 3, Khin Nyunt, on 26th November. We will continue to press for the immediate release of all political prisoners. We are pleased that NLD offices are reopening, but we are under no illusions about the restrictions that remain on democratic groups. The National League for Democracy is not allowed to publish a newsletter and its officials are subjected to constant surveillance and harassment. We also welcome Aung San Suu Kyi being allowed to travel around Burma. Since May she has visited Mandalay, Mon, Karen and Shari States where she has been received by large crowds.

1129
Repression, violence and human rights abuses cover all corners of Burma, from the Muslim Rohinghyas in Rakhine State to the Christian and Buddhist groups in Karen, Karenni, Shan and other states. To Thet Naung Soe, the student mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, was sentenced to 14 years on 15th November for making a peaceful protest outside Rangoon City Hall.
Credible reports detailing instances of rape by the armed forces, again movingly recorded by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the use of child soldiers and violence in the ethnic minority areas have been published by NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide. However, the regime has chosen to dismiss many of these reports as the work of insurgents or political opponents. As a Government we strongly disagree and have expressed our concerns repeatedly. We welcome the fact that the United Nations Third Committee passed a resolution on Burma earlier this month and condemned the ongoing systematic human rights violations there. My noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead, in his impressive contribution, acknowledged the importance of this latest UN resolution, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
Of particular concern were reports of torture, extrajudicial killings, rape by members of the armed forces, forced labour, the continued use of child soldiers, forced relocation, denial of freedoms of assembly, association, expression and movement, and discrimination on the basis of religious as well as ethnic background. The EU drafted and co-sponsored the United Nations resolution and we as a Government were very proud to play our part in that process.
As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my honourable friend Mike O'Brien said in a public statement on 21st November, the resolution is an accurate account of the Burmese regime's record.
We have been talking about forced labour. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, forthrightly pointed out, the regime's record on forced labour remains stubbornly abysmal. The European Commission has suspended Burma's trading privileges in response to the use of forced labour. The UK has been a staunch supporter of the ILO's efforts to get the Burmese regime to address the problem. We have welcomed the appointment of an International Labour Organisation liaison officer in Burma.
The European Union most recently voiced its ongoing concern in Geneva at the ILO on 20th November, the details of which are on the FCO website. The ILO's action on Burma is unique. It is the only time in the 83-year history of the organisation that such action against an individual country has taken place, representing the concern over forced labour in Burma.
The political developments must also be set against a background of ever-worsening economic and humanitarian situations in Burma. The Burmese
1130
economy is in a mess. Corruption is endemic. Foreign investment has fallen to almost nothing. The few remaining established companies are leaving. Electricity shortages mean that many parts of the country are routinely without power.
The former rice basket of Asia now struggles to feed itself. The regime spends under one per cent of GDP on health and education combined while over 40 per cent goes on the armed forces. It is an awful record of self-induced suffering for which Senior General Than Shwe and the other leaders must take full responsibility.
The Department for International Development is working hard to help those suffering under the misrule of the regime. As we know, large parts of the country remain off-limits to the UN and to NGOs. Access is a major problem particularly to those internally displaced. We are pressing for freedom of access to all parts of Burma for the UN and NGOs.
Noble Lords asked about current UK policy. The UK has been at the forefront of international action in pressing for urgent progress towards respect for human rights and the return of democracy to Burma. With our European colleagues we have a strong EU common position, acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that includes an arms embargo, a ban on defence links, a ban on high-level visits, a ban on non-humanitarian assistance, a ban on sales of items that can be used for internal repression and torture, and a visa ban and asset freeze on regime members.
The UK does not encourage trade, investment or any tourism in Burma. We support the excellent work of the UN Special Envoy to Burma and his efforts to promote political change there. We are active in countries all around the world, including those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to bring about the widest possible pressure on the Burmese authorities.
My honourable friend Mike O'Brien confirmed our commitment to political change when he spoke on the telephone to Aung San Suu Kyi on 1st November. Senior General Than Shwe has it within his power to take substantive steps now to move towards a more prosperous, peaceful future for all the people of Burma. We call as a Government upon Senior General Than Shwe to exercise the necessary political will and leadership to break through the present stalemate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, kindly gave me notice of some questions she wanted answered. She asked what pressure Her Majesty's Government have brought to bear on the regime to pursue dialogue. We have been at the forefront of a strong EU common position, including sanctions. We do not encourage trade, investment or tourism, and we have been active in the UN and other countries to bring pressure to bear on the regime.
The noble Baroness asked whether Her Majesty's Government would raise with the regime human rights accusations. We regularly raise concerns over human rights with the regime and in the UN. The Foreign Office was putting our concerns again to the Burmese

1131
embassy only two days ago. Will we urge the ILO to keep investigating forced labour? Yes we will. Most recently, we did this on 21st November at the ILO meeting in Geneva. Will we press for access to all areas of Burma for NGOs and the UN to help deliver humanitarian aid? The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also raised that matter. The answer is yes, we do, and yes we will.
Will we pursue further sanctions? I cannot at the moment add to the measures I have outlined, but we wish the regime to be under no illusion that Burma's links with the international community can and will get worse if its rulers do not urgently pursue a transition to civilian rule.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked whether we would request China., India, Pakistan and Singapore to stop selling weapons to Burma, as did the noble Lord, Lord Astor. As I said, we are in contact with those countries to try to bring about the widest possible pressure on the regime. I will take back to the Foreign Office the noble Baroness's concern on that aspect of weapons sales, which has been raised by other noble Lords. We are actively trying to persuade China and other countries to do more to promote change in Burma.
My noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead asked about a strong European common policy of sanctions. I have outlined that, but I wish to say to him that maintaining and strengthening an EU common position is an area of policy on which the Government are extremely robust.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked movingly about the dreadful situation of rape in Shan state. He is absolutely right; there is credible evidence that this is a serious problem. The EU has pressed for many years for action in UN resolutions. We say that this issue must be addressed by a credible independent investigation.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also talked about China and all the countries in South-East Asia, all of which have an important role to play. We are actively—bilaterally and multilaterally—bringing the widest possible pressure to bear. He also asked about help for the opposition, the National League for Democracy. As he knows, the regime makes such help
1132
very difficult. However, we support civil society in Burma, including the NLD, within the very tight restrictions set by the regime.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, talked about aid for internally displaced people in Burma. We give money to the UN and to NGOs to support those suffering from the regime's misrule. She also raised cross-border aid issues. The fact is that internally displaced people have difficulty accessing aid. We fund the ICRC and the UNHCR, but the existing cross-border programmes are not transparent or accountable. As she knows, the transparency and accountability of aid programmes is a very serious issue for DfID. It is therefore still a very difficult issue. I hope that she will be patient with me if I write to her on the other points that she raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, specifically mentioned the case of U Win Tin. U Win Tin is on the FCO priority list of prisoners of conscience around the world. The noble Lord also raised the issue of trade with Burma. As he will know, in 1997, the EC suspended Burma's trading privileges in response to the use of forced labour. He also raised the issue of drugs and the increase in the opium trade—an issue which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised in a Written Question—and I shall reply to him in writing.
The international community would be willing to support a genuine process of transition to civilian rule in Burma. However, the Burmese authorities should not underestimate the resolve of the democratic groups in Burma and the international community. Burma's standing in the eyes of the world can and will deteriorate further if promises from the Burmese authorities about pursuing a transition to civilian rule are not kept. We will not let up until Burma is irreversibly committed to lasting change.

Tax Law Rewrite Bills
A message was received from the Commons that they have appointed seven Members to join with a committee of this House as the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  Chief Surveillance Commissioner: Annual Report
  Chief Surveillance Commissioner: Annual Report
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Updated Drug Strategy
  Updated Drug Strategy
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Lighthouses
  Lighthouses
  European Bus Directive
  European Bus Directive
  Civil Defence Grants
  Civil Defence Grants
  HMS "Nottingham"
  HMS "Nottingham"
  Armed Forces: Invalidity Pensions
  Armed Forces: Invalidity Pensions
  Social Work: Awards of Undergraduate Qualifications
  Social Work: Awards of Undergraduate Qualifications
  School Admissions: Consultation Document
  School Admissions: Consultation Document
  Foot and Mouth: Research into Emotional, Social and Mental Health Consequences
  Foot and Mouth: Research into Emotional, Social and Mental Health Consequences
  NHS Managers: Early Retirements
  NHS Managers: Early Retirements
  NHS: Cost of Temporary Workers
  NHS: Cost of Temporary Workers
  Primary Healthcare: Rural One-Stop Centres
  Primary Healthcare: Rural One-Stop Centres
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business and Major Events
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business and Major Events
  Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste
  Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste
  Tourism: Regional Development Agency Staff
  Tourism: Regional Development Agency Staff
  DEFRA: Public Consultation
  DEFRA: Public Consultation