Sitting of 21 June 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day
  Employee Share Schemes Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Employee Share Schemes Bill
    New Clause 1

      DEDUCTIONS: INCOME TAX AND CAPITAL GAINS TAX
      '(1) Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 2000 is also amended as specified in this section.
      (2) In paragraph 88 (income tax), after sub?paragraph (4) there is inserted—
      "(4A) In the case of shares acquired by the trustees by virtue of a payment in respect of which a deduction is allowed under paragraph 112A, the period applicable to the shares is (notwithstanding sub?paragraphs (3) and (4)) the period of ten years beginning with the date of acquisition."
      (3) In paragraph 98 (capital gains tax), after sub?paragraph (3) there is inserted—
      "(3A) In the case of shares acquired by the trustees by virtue of a payment in respect of which a deduction is allowed under paragraph 112A, the relevant period is (notwithstanding subparagraphs (2) and (3)) the period of ten years beginning with the date of acquisition."
      (4) In paragraph 100 (classes of share for the purposes of capital gains tax), at the end there is inserted—
      "(4) For the purposes of that Chapter, any shares which—

      (a) were acquired by the trustees by virtue of a payment in respect of which a deduction is allowed under paragraph 112A, and

      (b) have not been awarded under the plan,
      shall (notwithstanding that they would otherwise fall to be treated as of the same class) be treated as of a different class from any shares held by the trustees that were not so acquired by them."—(Mr. Lazarowicz.]

      Brought up. and read the First time.
      9.33 am
      Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      When I realised a few weeks ago that this morning's debate would coincide with other events thousands of miles away in the far east, I was somewhat alarmed. I was even more concerned when the eventual participants were confirmed a few days ago. I am therefore grateful to the Members who have come to the Chamber this morning and dragged themselves away from the analysis of the
      518
      game. As a Member representing a Scottish constituency, I extend my commiserations on the result to colleagues representing English constituencies.
      Moving quickly to the substance of the new clause, I declare first as an interest support from the Co-operative party and Job Ownership Ltd. in the preparation and development of the Bill, which I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests. If we reach Third Reading, as I hope we will, I shall say a little more about that support.
      New clause I was tabled following a welcome offer by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General in Committee. When the somewhat lengthy Committee proceedings were drawing to a close, I told Committee members that the Government were willing to extend the scope of tax advantages in the Bill—an offer that I and people supporting the Bill both inside and outside the House welcomed. It was not possible to introduce an amendment in Committee, but new clause 1 gives effect to the change proposed by the Paymaster General. As hon. Members can see, the new clause was tabled in her name and mine.
      To clarify the purpose of the new clause, I shall make brief reference to the provisions in the Bill that it seeks to amend. The Bill includes a provision allowing corporation tax relief to be granted upfront where a significant block of shares-10 per cent. or more—is transferred to an employee trust. Under the share incentive plan provisions that give taxation advantages to encourage employee share ownership, such corporation tax relief is available only when shares are transferred from an employee share trust to individual employees. However, such a transfer of shares to individual employees may take a long time when a large part of a shareholding in a company is transferred at the outset for the benefit of employees. As a result, the current taxation concession would not be available in such circumstances, making such a route expensive and in many cases so prohibitive that the transfer of shares would not take place.
      Clause 1(3) allows a period of 10 years in which shares can be held by an employee share trust if it is to gain the benefit of corporation tax relief. That measure makes it much more feasible for an employee trust to acquire shares and gradually distribute them to employees if it wants to do so. The trust will therefore be more easily able to plan the acquisition and distribution of shares in the best way for the development of the business and the trust itself. No doubt it is also in the interest of the employees and may encourage the trust to act as their corporate voice, particularly when the provisions in clause 1(2) are utilised.
      New clause 1 seeks to give a further tax concession to trustees holding employee shares. It does so in two ways. First, subsection (2) ensures that the dividend and other distributed income arising from shares held by the trustees during the 10-year period and not otherwise appropriated will be charged to income tax at the special rates applicable to such trusts as set out in section 686 of the Taxes Act 1988. Secondly, subsections (3) and (4) ensure that such shares will not be charged to capital gains tax during the time in which they are held by the trustees in the 10-year period.
      Mr. Tom Watson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am particularly pleased by his kind comments at the start of

      519
      his speech. I assure him that there is no more solid return to reality than discussing new clause 1, after a heroic performance by England that was none the less disappointing. How does my hon. Friend think the new clause will affect take-up by companies?
      Mr. Lazarowicz: It is impossible to give a precise estimate of the number of firms that might benefit from the new clause, but a number of businesses have told me that they would welcome the package of measures contained in the Bill as a whole. I shall refer to that at greater length on Third Reading, if we get to that stage. There is certainly some evidence of companies wanting to make use of the entire package. I hope that hon. Members accept that we are discussing not just the measure, but a change in the culture and attitude of business, financial institutions and the tax regime to employee share ownership. We are pointing the way for changes in the future which, I hope, many companies will take advantage of.
      Mr. Andrew Love: I add my voice—which may seem a rather strange voice, coming as it does with a regional accent—to that of other hon. Members who have commented on England's sad loss today. The players put up a heroic performance, but the run of play did not quite go with them.
      Does my hon. Friend recognise that there was concern that if we had continued with the tax advantages for only the two and five-year periods, as set out in the original legislation, that would have been a significant disincentive, given how long it takes to set up a trust—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Even on a Friday, that is going beyond the bounds of an intervention.
      Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend makes a good point—so good that I was about to make it myself. As he pointed out, provisions for such tax concessions already exist under the Finance Act 2000 for shares held in an employee trust, but they apply only for periods of up to two or five years, depending on the specific circumstances. There was concern that, with the welcome 10-year concession applying to the company that transferred the shares to the employee trust, but with the trustees not having a similar 10-year concession, the effect of the measure could be restricted. He made that point well.
      The combined effect of the provisions in the new clause is to bring the treatment of shares acquired with the benefit of upfront corporation tax relief into line with the treatment of shares acquired by the trustees of the employee trust, in respect of both taxation of dividends on the shares held by the trust and capital gains for a period of up to 10 years, depending on how long the shares are held. In other words, when the shares are transferred to an employee share trust, the company transferring them gets the up-front corporation tax relief and when the trustees have acquired those shares, they get those advantages also.
      Such a concession will greatly increase the utility of what I might term the 10-year period of grace before shares must be distributed to individual employees by a
      520
      trust. That will make the concession much more attractive and of much greater assistance to businesses and owners of businesses who want to go along this route. I am grateful to the Government for volunteering a further tax benefit to encourage the holding of shares by employee trusts, and I commend the new clause to the House.
      9.45 am
      Ms Meg Munn: I, too, welcome the new clause, which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). I shall not say anything about the football. I do not know much about it, other than the result, so let us move on to more important and long-lasting matters.
      The new clause is complex. When I first read it, I thought that I would never be able to understand it, but fortunately I was a member of the Standing Committee, where my hon. Friend the Paymaster General explained in great detail what the new clause would mean and why the Government were offering the concession to further the aims that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith is trying to achieve. The commitment was made at that stage, and it was most welcome. It clarifies the position, by bringing the extended period of 10 years for shares acquired with the new corporation tax relief into line with other tax provisions. The new rules will improve matters for everybody concerned.
      As we discussed at length on Second Reading, there is an important role for share incentive plans. The measure adds to the incentives for companies to go down that route. The early deduction of corporation tax is particularly important on the money that is provided by the company to a share incentive plan trust. so that it can buy a block of shares that, over the longer period, it can begin to transfer to its employees.
      I support the new clause, which improves a strong and welcome Bill. I hope that the House will endorse it.
      Linda Gilroy: I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn). As a member of the Standing Committee who struggles to understand some of the more technical clauses, I could perhaps say in plain English that the new clause is a way of moving goal posts—if I may make an oblique reference to a subject that we are all trying to pass over—in a favourable way. Perhaps that might have been helpful out in Japan earlier today.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on the new clause. By means of it, probably after some rather painstaking discussions with our hon. Friend the Paymaster General, he proposes to extend income tax and capital gains relief for share incentive plan trustees from two to five years under the current rule to 10 years, to correspond with the time allowed in the Bill for shares to be distributed.
      At present, corporation tax deductions are given when shares in the share incentive plan trust are distributed to employees. The Bill provides for corporation tax deduction to be given earlier, when a company contributes money to a share incentive plan trust to buy a block of shares. I think I have got that right. Under the new clause there will be no risk of the benefit of that early corporation tax relief being eroded by tax changes affecting the shares within the 10-year period.

      521
      All that is relevant only where the trust holds 10 per cent. of the ordinary share capital of the company, which it must do before it qualifies for the deduction, and the shares must be distributed to employees through the share incentive plan within the 10-year period.
      With the addition of the new clause, the Bill will be better designed to encourage the flow of shares from the trust to individual employees over that period. It will thereby meet more fully the key objective of the Bill: to improve productivity by encouraging employees to take out a long-term stake in the company and share the rewards of the company's success. I congratulate my hon. Friend on negotiating the new clause. It satisfies the Treasury, which is no mean feat, as others who have failed in such matters will confirm.
      We have heard how share incentive plans were introduced in 2000 after extensive consultation. Officials worked with an advisory group made up of representatives from large and small businesses, the TUC, share scheme experts and academics to design the plan, which has been well received.
      Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) asked how the new clause might improve the number of those taking up the scheme. We know that almost 600 companies have already applied to set up plans, over half of which have formal approval from the Inland Revenue. The remaining plans are in the process of seeking that approval or are being worked on by the Revenue with the companies to ensure that they meet the legislative requirements and are therefore capable of approval.
      The new clause, along with the other measures in the Bill that is set to come into force in April 2003, will add significantly to that number over time as people become familiar with the new possibilities. The growth in the sector is still modest, but I am sure that it is set to increase. The acorns that are being planted now will become saplings and perhaps, during the millennium, a veritable forest of trees will bear the fruits of the benefits that we all attribute to the potential of employee share ownership schemes today.
      I add my voice in support of the new clause and hope that it will be added to the Bill.
      Mr. Michael Connarty: It gives me extreme pleasure to support the new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) and to put on record my admiration for his consistent pursuit of positive but not extreme measures for the benefit of those in his constituency and throughout the United Kingdom. I also wish to put on record for the first time my great joy at the fact that he has eventually joined a number of us who served for many long and weary hours in local government under the previous Conservative Government, fighting the cause of the Scottish people.
      The new clause is an excellent Government concession that extends the benefits under share incentive schemes to 10 years rather than two. Ten or 20 years ago I would not have viewed encouraging employees to share in the ownership, responsibility and benefits of successful enterprise as a positive move. I would rather have been seizing the commanding heights of the economy than sharing the benefits of such enterprise among its employees. But we have clearly moved on.
      522
      Many employees wish to be involved not just in the information and consultation processes that are coming from Europe but in the incentive of having a share in the capital of an enterprise and the benefits that flow therefrom. If the new clause were not to be approved, some of those benefits would be taken away by the requirement to pay capital gains tax and income tax at an early stage.
      Mr. Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that because the Bill is specifically geared to substantial share ownership transfer, which will take a considerable time, without the new clause there would have been a significant disincentive as the trustees would have had imposed on them taxes that would have detracted from the transfer?
      Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend puts lucidly the benefits that flow from the new clause. The idea is to incentivise share ownership, and the removal of barriers to that, which have been revealed in Committee, will be beneficial, but we still have a long way to go.
      I am a long-term member of the Co-operative party and the Co-operative Society and a former chairman of the Stirlingshire branch of the Co-operative party. Some older members had these ambitions in their early days—
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: Name them.
      Mr. Connarty: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's intervention. We are remaking the co-operative ideal in introducing such Bills, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith for that.
      I hope that the new clause will be supported and will give people the incentive to take up these employee share schemes. It will probably be more difficult to find trustees than we think because they will have great responsibility. As we see in the credit unions movement, convincing people requires much work and is often a slow and arduous progress. The new clause will make it easier to convince people that this is a tax efficient and beneficial way to invest in an enterprise. If the tax man and the Government are willing to help, people will be enthused. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Iain Luke: As a co-sponsor with the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), and one of the five Scots who added their name to the early-day motion, I am disappointed that we will not have the joy of a Bank holiday on 1 July. However, I should like to propose an amendment to that early-day motion to add "and Brazil", so that we have the best of both worlds.
      I support the new clause. As a member of the Committee, which met for only a short time to consider the Bill, I am happy to see the new clause. It is evidence of the collaborative approach that we have witnessed to this small but worthwhile Bill. It is testimony to the thoughtful approach adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who was particularly helpful. That approach demonstrated the Inland Revenue's commitment to making SIPs—share incentive plans—work practically for the benefit of those who take them up. In that regard the measure should be commended. This is a small step. I am not a Co-op

      523
      member—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should be. I do not want to declare an interest at this stage, but I shall certainly join, given the pressure—
      Mr. David Lepper: As we all know, the foundations of the co-operative movement were laid in my constituency in the 1820s and I commend to my hon. Friend membership of that movement. Does he agree that, welcome though the Treasury's co-operation is on the Bill and the new clause, once the Bill receives its Third Reading today, as we all hope that it will, the Government, the co-operative movement, the credit unions, and so on, will have an important job during the next few years in publicising the real merits of the Bill?
      10 am
      Mr. Luke: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's commitment to the co-operative movement. When I was a young boy in Scotland, co-operatives were the only major form of retail store. I remember queueing up with my mother to put the book in the slot at the end of the week and the discount on one's goods that one got for doing so. In Dundee, we called it the "sosh" rather than the co-operative and social society.
      My hon. Friend made a relevant point. Further co-operative and collaborative efforts are needed to bring the industry together and give employees a more vigorous say in how their workplace is operated, which is enhanced by the Bill and the SIPs options introduced in the 2000 Budget. It is worth making sure that people know about it, and we should advertise it more widely. Uptake is the big issue—it needs to be greater than it has been.
      On Third Reading, I hope to address extending such schemes into football clubs. There has been some movement towards that, and we need to give it some attention.
      Mr. Watson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) for clarifying the provision, which is very complex, as every member of the Committee said. They had the greatest minds of the Treasury to unpick it for them; I am afraid that I do not. I was concerned that its complexity would discourage employers and employees from taking up the offer, but clearly that is not the case. The new clause will help to lighten the burden, and it is a welcome concession. Now, those shares acquired with up-front capital tax relief can be distributed over a longer period. That will go a long way to increasing the impact of the Bill. There is consensus in the House on extending the role of share incentive plans.
      In a busy workplace, the employer might have felt that the scheme was another burden on his time, so I am pleased that the Treasury has agreed to this incentive. I have talked to employers in my constituency who have said that extending the period to 10 years means that they will definitely take another look at the provisions. I hope that they will go some way to encourage the flow of shares from the trust to individual employees over time. So far, only 600 companies have applied or shown an interest. I have 4,500 companies in my constituency that would welcome the new clause, and I am pleased that it is before us this morning.
      Roger Casale: I put on record, as have other hon. Members, that this is a very sad day for English
      524
      football. If anything has prepared me to confront that psychologically and emotionally it is the fact that I am only just recovering from another sad day for English football two weeks ago—the Football Association's decision to allow Wimbledon to go to Milton Keynes.
      Mr. Watson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the new clause had been enacted at that time, the players at Wimbledon football club might have had greater direction over the decisions of the club's management, which might have gone some way to ensuring that Wimbledon stayed in its rightful home—Wimbledon?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on cleverly steering his hon. Friend back into the realms of the new clause, but I hope that he will not be tempted to maintain a sporting theme.
      Roger Casale: I will not be tempted, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sometimes refer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) as the hon. Member for West Bromwich Albion. The answer to his question is yes. Perhaps I shall elaborate on that on Third Reading.
      Although I was not selected to serve on the Committee, I welcome the new clause, as I welcome the Bill itself. It will strengthen and widen the benefits of the Bill. The Bill will bring many benefits to those who take up the opportunity of employee share ownership, but also to the economy as a whole. As well as establishing a framework for economic stability, the Government are concerned to use the tax system to change incentives at the micro-economic level in a way that encourages enterprise and boosts productivity. The Government introduced many such tax measures in previous Budgets, and did so again in 2002, many of which enjoyed, and are enjoying, cross-party support and will help to boost Britain's productivity.
      The Government's support for the Bill is entirely consistent with their approach to promoting enterprise and Britain's competitiveness. It is important to frame legislation in a way that accommodates the understandable demand to broaden share ownership consistently with the Government's overall approach to economic stability and to reforming the tax system. That is why I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) has had such good consultations with the Treasury and that the Government have worked with him jointly on the new clause, which is a beneficial measure that will enhance the overall benefits of the Bill. Extending income tax and capital gains tax relief for share incentive plans to 10 years will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith argued so well, make it more likely that such schemes will be taken up, because early corporation tax relief will not be eroded by tax changes on the shares within the 10-year period.
      The Government's support shows that they are prepared to allow, and indeed to encourage, such measures to come forward from the co-operative movement. There has also been support from trade unions, as well as a great deal of input and support from small and medium-sized enterprises—through the Small Business Federation, for example.
      The new clause will make employee share ownership more viable. It will encourage more schemes and encourage more employees to participate in them. Many

      525
      people in my constituency of Wimbledon support the Bill and the new clause, and perhaps some will pioneer such schemes and take them up. The newly formed Wimbledon amateur football club, set up because the professional club is disappearing, will be able to take advantage of these new measures, as well as many others that the Government are introducing, such as the tax relief announced in the Budget for participation in and donations to community amateur sports clubs.
      I am pleased to support the new clause, to have the opportunity for the first time to voice my support for the Bill as a whole, and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith on introducing it. I also put on record my appreciation of the fact that the Government have worked with my hon. Friend and with organisations outside the House to draft the Bill so as to ensure that it works for everybody. I hope that the House will give it its support.
      Mr. Howard Flight: I lend support from the Opposition both to the Bill and to the new clause. The Conservative party has long supported the principle of employee share ownership. As hon. Members will know, we introduced the save-as-you-earn option scheme, the approved profit sharing scheme, the company share option plan and the qualifying employee trust, two of which the share incentive plan replaces.
      In my personal career, extending share ownership of the business that I led and built up for 15 years meant that it succeeded. The mentality of motivating everyone who works for a business to want to make it a success so that they are willing to work extra hours if necessary and pull together makes a dramatic difference. From 1992 until last year, and the sad fall of the stock market after the pensions crisis, the performance of companies that had substantial employee ownership was roughly double that of those that did not. However, I cannot help but make the point that people who had not previously thought about such matters become capitalists once they have an ownership stake. They understand profit and loss and that it is hard to win business; things do not simply drop into one's lap. They adopt a capitalist mentality.
      Mr. Chris Bryant: Is it not true that if everyone shares ownership, we all become socialists?
      Mr. Flight: The hon. Gentleman should return to his political studies because the essence of socialism is not the profit motive, and the essence of employee share ownership is ownership and participating directly in profits and the capitalist mentality that accompanies it. However, the possibility of crossing strands and overlap is interesting.
      Linda Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman sign up to at least one important part of our clause 4, which states that wealth, power and opportunity should be in the hands of the many, not the few? Far from all being Thatcherites now, we are all socialists now.
      Mr. Flight: I shall not stray into the realms of unreality. Business is business. As the employees of the John Lewis Partnership and the other successful businesses that have widespread employee share ownership would tell the hon. Lady, we are not
      526
      considering Utopia. Hard decisions must be made and people have to devolve decision making, just as the socialist Government have devolved decision making to their Ministers. However, hon. Members should be happy that there is widespread support for the Bill.
      The new clause was essential to make sense of clause 1(3) and (4); otherwise the Bill would put in place the block transfer of 10 per cent. and the requirement for attaining an SIP basis in 10 years; but if the business did not receive the same tax treatment, it is unlikely that anyone would use the measure. The new clause is sensible and in line with the Bill's intent.
      A question was asked about take-up. The latest figures that I have seen for SIPs since they were introduced in 2000 show that there are 202 schemes. That is positive, but we would like a great deal more take-up. I shall be interested to hear whether the promoter or the Government have any plans for promoting the achievement of the full mechanisms that enable employee share ownership.
      If I understand the position correctly, the clause that the Government deleted—I call it the John Lewis clause—tried to encourage employee share-owned companies, the shares of which were already held collectively in employee trusts, by enabling the shares to become eligible for distribution to individual employees under the SIP. I also understood that the Government's objection to that was that they did not want the SIP to allow anything other than ordinary share capital to be distributed under its provisions, because of the danger of employees having inferior shares. However, SIP arrangements permit employers to select non-voting shares and it could be argued that voting shares are more valuable and powerful than non-voting shares. The arrangements that the new clause tidies up would, in principle, enable the block schemes with their tax advantages to involve non-voting shares, so I cannot understand the logic of the Government's earlier objection to the John Lewis clause.
      10.15 am
      The Bill is a positive measure. The more widely shares are owned in this country, the more successful we shall be. All the studies that have been undertaken here and in the United States show that companies with serious employee share ownership have succeeded markedly better than those without it. We welcome the new clause, which completes the necessary facilities for companies to put in the 10 per cent. block employee share transfers.
      The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on the contribution that employee share ownership schemes can make not only to involving employees in businesses but to the success of the businesses. I do not want to go down the route on which the hon. Gentleman started and dwell on the definition of the difference between capitalism and socialism, but if he has a spare moment over the weekend, he should examine the proud history of the co-operative movement and the Labour party. He will then realise that social ownership, sharing and wealth creation have been at the heart of the Labour movement's philosophy.
      I shall deal briefly with take-up of SIPs. So far, it has been satisfactory. To date, the Inland Revenue has approved the plans of some 337 companies. Of those,

      527
      160 never previously had an all-employee share scheme. That is well on track for meeting our aim of encouraging approximately 1,750 companies to adopt an all-employee plan for the first time. Forty per cent. of the approved plans are from unlisted companies and 45 per cent. are small or medium-sized enterprises, with fewer than 250 employees. I am delighted with that progress.
      Linda Gilroy: I am interested in my hon. Friend's progress report. Does she hope and expect that there may be increased employment in those small businesses because the business has prospered?
      Dawn Primarolo: Indeed, that is the hope and intention of all hon. Members in supporting the Bill, which was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). That echoes the point that the Member for Arundel and South Downs made about his direct experience in his company and his broad experience in the City. All the research demonstrates the contribution that these companies make to productivity and growth, and the Government place great value on that.
      The broader question that hon. Members touched on earlier—[Interruption.] Bless you! I have just saved the soul of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. That is a superstition; I should say, for the benefit of those not watching the debate, that the hon. Gentleman has just sneezed, and it is an automatic reaction from my childhood to be polite and say such a thing. I am digging myself into a hole here. I hope that I have now converted him to socialism.
      The campaigning and information provided by the Inland Revenue, including the roadshows that have been undertaken with those in the industry, are contributing to the successful take-up of share investment, and I hope that they will continue to do so.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend not think that there will be a role for Members of Parliament in the campaign on the benefits of employee share ownership, following the passage of the Bill, to celebrate not only the benefits of the Bill but the wider benefits of employee share ownership? I am sure that she will have confidence that that could happen on this side of the House. I see the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) sitting behind the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman. I understand that he used to be a director of Asda. Perhaps he will want to intervene on the Minister to say how he thinks his side will champion employee share ownership.
      Dawn Primarolo: I urge all hon. Members to view the Inland Revenue website, which lays out the details of the share incentive plans and the benefits that they can bring to companies. I am sure that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is aware of those and plays his part already in encouraging companies to be productive, to grow and to employ more people; he already has a certain reputation for that.
      In Committee, I offered to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith to table a further beneficial amendment to the Bill. The new clause eliminates the possibility of share incentive plan trustees
      528
      having to pay tax on shares secured with the benefit of the early corporation tax relief during the 10-year period they have to award the shares to employees.
      Under the current share incentive plan rules, tax is charged on dividends received by trustees. In the case of shares that are readily convertible into cash, the trustees will be charged income tax if the shares have not been awarded to employees within two years. For shares that are not readily convertible into cash, tax will be charged if they have not been awarded within five years.
      In the same way, trustees may also become liable to tax on capital gains when they award shares to their employees. Again, if the shares are readily convertible into cash, and they are not awarded within two years of their acquisition, capital gains tax may be charged. If the shares are not readily convertible into cash, the trustees may become liable if the award takes place after five years.
      The new early corporation tax deduction allows the trustees 10 years in which to award to the employee beneficiaries the shares acquired with the benefit of the deduction. This would not work well with the existing charging rules, to put it mildly. Tax charges arising after two or five years would reduce the benefit of the corporation tax relief. Smaller companies trying to fund the transfer of shares into employee ownership would be particularly badly affected.
      I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) who asked whether this provision was another way of ensuring greater take-up of share incentive plans. The amendment secures the benefit that the Bill seeks to provide, because it protects the interaction with the rest of the tax system.
      I am pleased to support the amendment, because it will remove this awkwardness. In wishing to see the Bill progress, the House would be a little concerned—I put it no more strongly than that—if we passed the Bill, only to find that the capital gains tax system clawed back what had appeared to be an award of benefit to encourage share incentive plans. As soon as we realised that that was a possibility when we checked the Bill again, I suggested, in Committee, that we should table this amendment. I apologise that we were unable to deal with this in Committee, but it is important that we do so now. The amendment will extend the tax exemptions that share incentive plan trustees now have for two years or five years to 10 years, to match the period allowed for the distribution of shares acquired with the new relief.
      The new clause makes three changes to the existing legislation. I apologise for the fact that it is a rather complex clause, but that is necessary to ensure that we deal with this matter properly. The first change is to the rules in paragraph 88 of schedule 8 to the Finance Act 2000, and concerns the exemption for dividend income. The new clause extends the period from two or five years to 10 years for all shares acquired with the new corporation tax relief.
      The second change is to the rules in paragraph 98, exempting the trustees from capital gains tax on plan shares that they hold. Again, a change is required to extend the period from two or five years to 10 years in the case of all shares acquired with the benefit of the new corporation tax relief. These exemptions require rules for identifying the plan shares in respect of which the

      529
      exemptions are to be claimed. So the third change requires plan shares acquired under the new corporation tax relief to he identified separately from all other plan shares.
      We estimate that the cost of the new clause is likely to be negligible to the Government, although, as I have tried to explain, without it there might have been no cost because we would have recouped it, but that was not our intention. We believe very few share incentive plan trustees are likely to be holding shares beyond the two or five years which give rise to charges on capital gains and dividends under the normal rules.
      Finally, it falls to me as the Minister to confirm to the House that the Bill, as amended, is compatible with the European convention on human rights. I therefore commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Lazarowicz: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Today's proceedings are the end—or rather, this is the beginning of the end—of a very long process, stretching back to June of last year when I decided, in my enthusiasm after the general election, to enter the ballot for private Members' Bills. As a new Member, I did not fully appreciate the task that I had set myself when I drew a high place in the ballot, but it has been a rewarding experience and I have learned a lot about parliamentary procedure and the passage of legislation. It has also been illuminating for me to learn the degree to which Back Benchers can influence the legislative process—and the strict limits on their doing so.
      The fact that the Bill has reached this stage is testament to the staunch support that I have received from a large number of organisations and individuals with an interest in promoting wider employee ownership in the United Kingdom. As we heard from the philosophical exchanges earlier, the approach to employee ownership comes from a number of different perspectives and traditions. The wide interest is to be welcomed, and I am glad that, as well as being of value in itself, the Bill has been a useful way of highlighting the employee share ownership movement to a wider audience, as well as to Members of this House.
      Although support for the Bill has been most evident among Labour and Co-operative Members, many of whom are present in the Chamber today, it exists also among some Opposition Members. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) in his place; he has supported such a Bill in the past and was unable to be here on Second Reading. Hon. Members from other parties are also present.
      Support for the Bill from Ministers and officials in the Treasury and the Inland Revenue has been crucial. I would have had to say, even if it were not true—but it is—that their support has been helpful and, indeed, essential in getting the Bill to this stage. It has been productive for me in so far as I was involved, and those advising me on the Bill have been in contact with the Revenue on many occasions.
      530
      Third Reading is not the time to go into great depth about the detail of the legislation—
      Mr. Love: Oh, why not?
      Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend tempts me to do so. In matters involving the complexities of tax law, it is not advisable to go into too much detail; otherwise hon. Members who have joined me in the Chamber might decide to take a short break from our proceedings.
      Let me say a little in broad terms about the Bill's provisions, to bring hon. Members up to date with some of the developments in Committee and to paint the full picture of what the Bill seeks to do. I also want to set out the wider context in which the Bill has been introduced.
      The Bill can be summarised as consisting of three main provisions. The first gives a clear pointer, in the share incentive plan, that employees can elect the trustees of the trust that holds the employee shares. It is not a compulsory requirement; no one is forcing companies, or employees, to have the trusts managed by employee representatives if they do not want to. However, the provision makes it possible for a number of the trustees to be employee representatives.
      We debated whether the clause was absolutely necessary, and some officials believed that such an arrangement was possible under existing rules. However, the Bill's supporters felt that it was important to make it absolutely clear in legislation that such appointment of trustees by the employees was competent within the legislation, that it would not be challenged and that tax concessions would not be at risk. From their experience from talking to people who were interested in going along this route, businesses and even officials had responded that arrangements in which employees were involved in appointing trustees were at least questionable. If one is engaged in setting up a structure for a company that one wants to last for a long time, one does not want to risk a challenge at a later stage from the Inland Revenue; one wants to he sure of what one is doing from the start. That is why this provision was regarded as so important.
      Mr. Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of evidence suggests that employee involvement in the non-financial as well as the financial aspects of share ownership brings benefits to the company and the employee?
      Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend has the ability to foresee exactly the points that I am about to make. Once again, he has helped me to move on to my next point. I thank him for that assistance.
      Numerous case studies have shown that the most successful results arising from employee share ownership are where employees have real involvement and participation in the non-financial as well as the financial aspects of share ownership and, as a result, feel a greater sense of ownership not just of the shares but of the whole company structure, ethos and direction. Appointing employee trustees can be an extremely effective way of achieving that. It is also to be hoped that, as a result of such involvement by employees in the culture of a company, the wider objective of increasing productivity, which is a main objective of the Government but one that

      531
      the whole House would endorse, is much more likely to be achieved, particularly when the non-financial aspects of ownership are supported and encouraged.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: Is not my hon. Friend being a tad too modest about the benefits of employee participation? There is considerable evidence to suggest that genuine employee participation in the running of a company brings much greater benefits, and those companies are more successful on average than companies that have no active employee participation.
      Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is right and in a moment I hope to come to some examples of concrete improvements in the performance of companies that have taken that route.
      The clarification of rules that encourage the appointment of employees as trustees of the trusts that hold the employees' shares is one important provision of the Bill. The second, even more significant, provision is the way in which the Bill seeks to support the position of companies, and particularly the owners of businesses, that want to make a significant move towards employee ownership. The provision assists that change by allowing corporation tax relief to be made up front where a significant block of shares—10 per cent. or more—is transferred to an employee trust.
      As we heard in our earlier debate, such relief is currently available only when the shares are transferred to the individual employees under the scheme. However, there is plenty of reason to believe that, in many cases, the requirement as provided for in legislation discourages businesses from going down that route. A few months ago, I attended an interesting conference organised by the Scott Bader company and a number of presentations were made by companies involved in that area.
      It was pointed out, for example, that the owner of a business who wants to transfer ownership to his or her employees, and who recognises the value of involving employees in that way, might want to conduct the transfer gradually, perhaps to retain some interest in the running of the company in future years. After all, if the business had been built up over many years, it would be unsurprising if the owner did not want completely to let go of the reins of control on day one in the process. However, such a person would find that the gradual transfer of shares is not encouraged by the current regulations. If they took the route of transferring the shares initially to the employee trust, they would be hit by a large corporation tax bill at that stage of the process. Clearly, that is a great inhibitor to such transfer of business ownership.
      In some cases, the transfer of shares from the current shareholders to an employee trust may require a certain degree of financing by the employees themselves. Employees are often asked to make a certain contribution towards the purchase of the shares. Again, they might not be able to provide the necessary finance from day one. The current provisions ensure that, if the shares are held in the trust for a period sufficient to allow them to accumulate the funds necessary for acquisition, the shares' transfer to the trust does not attract corporation tax relief at the start of the process. That can obviously
      532
      inhibit the transfer of shares in the first place, so a very important aspect of the Bill is the way in which corporation tax relief is allowed up front.
      The Bill also contains the important qualification that the shares must at some stage be transferred from the employee share trust and to the individual employees. There was some discussion about this matter among hon. Members, Ministers and officials. Views were expressed in some quarters about organisations in which it might be desirable to hold employee shares in the trust indefinitely and allow a block to be maintained in the trust's ownership all the time. A strong view was expressed to the contrary, and I can see its strength, which is why the Bill was amended in Committee. It was important to ensure that the shares are eventually distributed to employees, precisely to maintain the link between productivity and employee benefits.
      In my view, the Bill makes the right compromise between those two factors. It allows the shares to be held by the employee trust for a considerable period, but also requires eventual transfer by providing that 30 per cent. of the shares acquired with a payment in respect of which deduction is made be distributed under the share incentive plan within five years. The balance should then be distributed within a further five years—10 from the initial acquisition—and the Bill also provides that if the distribution does not take place within those limits, the deduction will be withdrawn and a charge to corporation tax will follow.
      I am grateful that the Revenue and the Government were happy for the Bill to provide that if all the shares in question are subsequently distributed, the deduction will be reinstated at that time. That provision allows the tax benefits to be reinserted if the transfer cannot for any reason be completed within 10 years of the initial acquisition. The Bill also contains provisions to prevent double relief and allows for the various concessions to be withdrawn if the Inland Revenue withdraws approval of the company's share investment plan. It also contains various formal and anti-avoidance provisions.
      As hon. Members who have followed the Bill's progress are aware, it could have contained a little more. As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) mentioned, concern was expressed in some quarters about the clause that has come to be known as the John Lewis clause, and which was removed in Committee at the Government's request. It was designed to enable companies controlled by an employee trust and/or a charitable trust on the employees' behalf to set up a share incentive plan from which ordinary shares could be distributed to individual employees. Unsurprisingly, there was considerable support for the provision among employees of the John Lewis Partnership, but it was also supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
      I fully appreciated the Government's concerns about the way in which such a provision might operate in practice and their view that there would be tax-avoidance consequences that had not been fully appreciated by those who drafted the Bill on my behalf. For that reason, I was happy to accept their concerns as valid. As hon. Members will know, my hon. Friend the Paymaster General gave a helpful commitment on Second Reading to
      "continue actively to consider whether there are other ways of extending the share incentive plans to trust and employee-owned companies that wish to use the plan as conventional companies do,

      533
      in ways that preserve the aims of improved productivity and do not allow scope for abuse."—[Official Report, 18 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 580.]
      I welcome that commitment, and I am sure that it will be welcomed throughout the House. I know that it is welcomed by the John Lewis Partnership. Many of the organisations that are interested in this matter intend to follow up with the Government and the Revenue that commitment, which my hon. Friend was happy to make.
      In some respects, the provisions in the Bill might be considered relatively limited, but in my view they are important none the less. They will give a clear boost to any company that seeks to establish the principle of employee share ownership firmly at the heart of its corporate ethos. They are also being introduced at a time of great cultural change for business. Traditional ownership structures are ripe for change and many businesses are now recognising the benefit in productivity terms of participation by employees in the ownership and running of firms.
      The changes that the Bill seeks to introduce go alongside much other work that is taking place elsewhere. Some hon. Members may be aware of the excellent contribution to employee share ownership issues made by the work that the special share taskforce, consisting of various experts, has been undertaking along with the Revenue. I hope that measures such as those in the Bill will further encourage those working in this field.
      The Bill should be seen not in isolation, therefore, but in its wider context of greater movement towards employee participation in both the ownership and management of firms. There is a wide range of types of financial participation by employees in the ownership of businesses. They include direct employee ownership, workers' co-operatives and simple profit-sharing schemes. Employee share ownership schemes themselves can also perhaps be divided into two types. The first is the narrow-based scheme that is limited to only a small percentage of the work force—typically the senior management. Secondly. the type of scheme that I want to promote and that the Bill is designed to encourage is the broad-based scheme that can be opened to 80 per cent. or more of employees, or indeed to the entire work force.
      It is that type of broad-based involvement of employees in the ownership of businesses that presents an exciting opportunity for business in this country. That is why I hope that the Bill goes some way towards encouraging that trend. Notwithstanding the relatively limited take-up of some such schemes, in comparison with our European neighbours and partners, the UK is the leader in broad-based share schemes.
      The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions recently carried out a study of 2,500 businesses in the European Union. It found that the United Kingdom was the leader in these schemes, followed by France, the Netherlands and Ireland. It also found that in the past decade there had been an increase in the number of schemes in those EU states, although profit-sharing schemes remained much more widespread.
      Mr. Connarty: I am very buoyed up by my hon. Friend's comments about the position of the UK, but is he sure that that analysis of the share ownership spread is not similar to the analysis of wealth increases, in that because many people at the top have become richer it looks as though people have done much better across the spectrum?
      534
      Since the last Government's privatisation programme, large tranches of share options have been handed out to Members. One Member who is present was formerly a director of a company—in fact, she was the head of it—and probably benefited from the large tranches that went to the board. Could not such factors distort the proportion of shares going to the work force on the shop floor?
      Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is right to be sceptical about any over-simplistic statistical comparison, but I do not think his fears are justified. If he wants to pursue the matter I shall be happy to give him a copy of the comprehensive report, which will doubtless allay those fears.
      Nevertheless, my hon. Friend may be right to express concern. The survey showed that, both in the UK and in other EU countries, it was often the larger companies—particularly those in the financial and service sectors with a large proportion of white-collar workers—that had implemented employee share ownership schemes. I hope that the Bill will go some way towards extending the benefits of the share incentive plan to smaller businesses.
      Mr. Watson: Could not some of the older industries—I am thinking of small and medium—sized engineering firms in my Black country constituency, for instance—benefit as much as, dare I say, some of the greenfield newer technological companies in the information technology and communications sector? How can we promote the Bill to the more traditionally run companies?
      Mr. Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that he has contacts with business in his constituency. It is possible that, as others have suggested today, Members themselves could play a part in encouraging awareness of the Bill among businesses in their constituencies.
      There is strong evidence that employee share ownership has a positive effect on business productivity. There are examples of that in both the EU and the United States. As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs pointed out, the productivity of companies with such schemes is about double that of companies without them. For instance, a £100 investment on the FTSE index in 1992 would be worth only £186 today, while the same investment in a company in the employee ownership index, with more than 10 per cent. of capital held by employees other than directors, would be worth £370.
      Another recent study, by Conyon and Freeman, shows that while UK companies giving shares only to directors or senior managers experienced an increase in productivity, companies that went further and spread share ownership to all their employees achieved a productivity boost of nearly 50 per cent. more. Similar studies conducted in the US show that the increase in sales, employment and total sales per employee in companies with employee share ownership schemes is between 2.3 and 2.4 per cent. per year above what would have been expected in the absence of such schemes. The US studies also confirm that the companies experiencing the highest productivity gains combine elements of both ownership and participative management. That bears out something said earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love).
      Mr. Love: My hon. Friend made a comparison with other European countries. We could also make a

      535
      comparison with the United States, where share ownership is much more widespread than it is here. I think that is partly due to widespread cynicism among ordinary UK employees, engendered in part by the privatisation programme of 1980s and 1990s. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we could convey the benefits of this kind of share ownership to employees rather than directors, we too would see a widening of share ownership?
      Mr. Lazarowicz: Yes—and the benefits could extend to entire communities. They should certainly not be restricted to directors.
      Let me now give an example that may answer a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson). Earlier this week I was contacted by David Erdal, executive director of the Baxi Partnership Limited, which is wholly owned by the Baxi Trust. The Baxi Trust has a substantial sum that it intends to use to encourage the growth of employee share ownership. Mr. Erdal told me that his organisation had recently invested £1.3 million in helping Woollard and Henry, a specialist engineering company in Aberdeen employing 26 people, to transfer shares from retiring owners to employees. He said that if the Bill had been in force, Baxi would have used the share incentive plan to buy a significant proportion of the shares, which would have greatly facilitated the financing of the buy-out.
      If the buy-out had not gone ahead, the consequences for the company and indeed the area would have been dire. The only alternative to the proposal to finance an employee ownership scheme was a trade sale to a competitor who would have had no interest in maintaining the Aberdeen operation. That would probably have led to a rundown of the operation, and unemployment for the workers. The employee buy-out anchored the company in the local community, allowing it to generate extra wealth through the productivity improvements accompanying employee share ownership and to spread that wealth in the community. Over time, each employee will amass a significant amount of capital. Because of the financial strength of Woollard and Henry and the Baxi Trust, employees' savings are not put at risk.
      There is a lesson to be learned from the success of the buy-out. The Baxi Trust has now been contacted by a number of companies interested in achieving a similar buy-out. In each case the aim is to use the share incentive plan as part of the financial structure. Mr. Erdal believes that the Bill will make partial transfers to employees, or complete buy-outs, much more likely. That will protect businesses and employees but also, crucially, will often help to support small and medium-sized enterprises that would otherwise be closed or run down. In so doing, the Bill may help smaller businesses, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East referred, and the community as well.
      It is useful to refer to the example of Wilkin and Sons, which hon. Members might recognise as the makers of Tiptree jams. The company is privately owned, has an annual turnover of about £10 million and employs about 170 people. It set up an employee benefit trust in 1989 to build up a substantial shareholding to be held on behalf of the employees. Indeed, that trust now holds 25 per cent. of the company's shares and it can benefit from the Bill's new, upfront tax reduction measures, which will make it
      536
      easier for it to buy shares from any shareholders who want to sell. Many of its shares remain in the hands of the Wilkin family.
      Those are examples of businesses that may benefit from the Bill and thereby help to spread the employee ownership model from larger companies to many smaller and medium-sized companies in the UK. However, the context of the Bill is more than just encouraging the growth of employee ownership and share ownership, important though they are. It reflects a year of work in which the co-operative movement, of which I am proud to be a member, has made a genuine impact on this legislative process.
      The support of the co-operative movement has been vital, not only for the Bill, but for the success of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), which makes important changes to the regulation of industrial and provident societies and which I understand has passed through the House of Lords.
      The success of my hon. Friend's Bill and of mine is a tribute to the support and hard work of the wider co-operative movement. I pay particular tribute to Peter Hunt, national secretary of the Co-operative party, and Matt Ball, the party's parliamentary officer, who gave advice and assistance on each stage of the Bill's passage through the House.
      Support for the Bill is extensive and it has been shown in sectors far beyond the co-operative movement. Important backing has come from those involved in the employee ownership movement, and I thank in particular Ann Tyler of Job Ownership Ltd. and Graeme Nuttall of Equity Incentives Ltd., a subsidiary of Field Fisher Waterhouse, for their tireless support during lobbying for and drafting of the Bill. That work went far beyond any obligations that might arise from their posts or duties, and they have helped me to understand the minutiae of the tax legislation provisions to which the Bill refers.
      I thank also Peter Townsend of Cobbett's solicitors and, above all, I pay tribute to the broad coalition of people and organisations that have backed the Bill and its aims. Many hon. Members across the House received hundreds of letters from members of the John Lewis Partnership in support of the Bill, which it has continued to back, even though the measures that might have been of direct benefit to it were removed in Committee. The partnership has continued its support because it recognises that the Bill is important not just for what it does, but for what it says about Government and public backing for employee ownership and involvement.
      The Baxi Trust has been very supportive, as has the Scott Bader Company Ltd. and many mutuals in the financial sector. Standard Life, which is a major company in my constituency, supports the Bill, as do the Industrial Society, the Trades Union Congress and many consumer and co-operative societies the length and breadth of the country. The Arup group, Tullis Russell and many others were also part of the wide coalition of support.
      The Bill is particularly significant because it reflects a revival and, indeed, a realignment of the co-operative ideal and philosophy, which have inspired Labour and Co-operative Members in particular, although I accept that they can be shared, to a greater or a lesser degree, by many Members across the House. We have heard about the co-operative movement's history, which I thought

      537
      went back to Rochdale in 1844, but my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) apparently makes a claim for Brighton in the 1820s.
      Mr. Love: Do not forget the Fenwick weavers.
      Mr. Lazarowicz: Indeed. My hon. Friend reminds me of the movement's Scottish history. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) for explaining the derivation of the term "sosh" for a co-operative movement in Dundee. I was aware of the term, but not of the derivation, so I thank him for that illumination.
      Although the co-operative movement has that long, proud history, it is hardly a secret and it must be admitted that success has not, in recent decades—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Third Reading debates are about the content of a Bill. Diverting though this history may be, the hon. Gentleman is straying outside the rules of order.
      Mr. Lazarowicz: I apologise for straying from the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall draw my remarks to a close.
      The Bill seeks to link the employee share ownership movement and a host of other initiatives such as the profit motive, social commitment and consumer interest to encourage economic efficiency and support for business as well as support for building strong communities, especially in areas that have suffered from economic deprivation over the years. As was said many times on Second Reading, this is a movement whose time has come.
      I congratulate the Government on responding to those calls by taking employee ownership further forward through their backing of the measure, and I thank those Members who are present today. I urge the House to support the Bill on Third Reading.
      11.8 am
      Dr. Vincent Cable: I want to add a few words of support for the Bill and warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), who introduced it. on getting so far. I am taking a private Member's Bill through the House and although I have not so far been troubled by amendments, let alone perilous negotiations with the Treasury, I know from my more limited experience how difficult it is.
      I strongly support the principles underlying the Bill. It tends to be forgotten that the principles of employee share ownership are long-standing, but over the years it has been difficult for them to progress. I was born and brought up in the city of York, and my parents started their working lives on the shop floor—my father at Rowntree's and my mother at Terry's. Those liberal, Quaker-owned companies believed passionately in the principle of employee share ownership—getting the divvy was a major feature of the life of many working families in the city, as it often financed the annual holiday—and it created a distinctive approach to business.
      There were few strikes, if any, despite the difficulties in changing manning systems and industrial structures, which would have created conflicts in other environments, and there was a wider impact in that the companies were
      538
      much more socially responsible. We try to legislate for social responsibility, but it was embedded in those companies' values.
      Sadly, many of those companies have found it difficult to progress. The two in York were taken over many years ago, as the families were unable to retain ownership. Much of the idealism was lost, and the system wound down. Relatively few companies—I think Clarks Shoes is one of the few that continues—have been able to maintain those values on the back of a committed family owner. One of the lessons to be learned is that, if employee share ownership is to be sustained and grow, it must be embedded much more securely and not depend on the enlightened attitudes of one or two owners. It must be embedded in the system of corporate governance and in the tax system.
      Share options are widely used to incentivise senior management. Some big companies have operated share ownership schemes with some success. Before coming to the House I was with Shell, which offered one of the more imaginative schemes that worked. The fact that the shares outperformed the FTSE for many years was a major incentive for people to join the company and to stay with it. People in the company understood the problems of the accounts. When it got into some difficulties in the 1990s and needed major restructuring, there was probably more understanding of what management had to do than there would have been had the employees not had a stake in the ownership.
      Such schemes do work, so it is frustrating and disappointing that employee share ownership has not spread more. I welcome the initiatives that have been taken, initially by Lord Lawson and then by this Government, whose recent share incentive plan is a positive step forward. However, those initiatives are limited, and the value of the Bill is that it takes a few extra steps in opening up the share incentive plan to a wider group of people and companies. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith would acknowledge that the Bill is not revolutionary, because it does not make massive changes, but it represents a welcome increment.
      As the hon. Gentleman said in his closing remarks, the Bill gives a small boost to mutuality. In the early and mid-1990s, the mutual movement was in retreat, but the position has been stabilised. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) has played a major part in that by pointing the way to practical initiatives that can be taken to strengthen mutual ownership. This Bill and the measure promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) are good, practical ways of making mutual ownership worth while.
      Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, I am disappointed that the problems of the John Lewis Partnership have not been addressed. My constituency draws heavily on the John Lewis Partnership. Our big retail department store across the river in Kingston is John Lewis, and in the past three years the town centre of Twickenham has been transformed by Waitrose, which has made a success of a store that defeated all the other supermarkets chains that tried it. We have satisfied customers and committed employees, who have lobbied me to see whether we can break this problem with the share incentive plan and its relationship to trust-owned companies. I am disappointed that that has not happened,

      539
      but the language from Treasury Ministers gives some encouragement. I shall take that back in a positive spirit, and I hope that it is followed through.
      I should like to register my strong support for the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith. I hope that the Bill completes its passage through the House.
      11.13 am
      Mr. Adrian Bailey: My association with the co-operative movement has been declared on many occasions in this Chamber. I was employed by the co-operative movement for many years. I have long been an evangelist for the principles that are embodied in the Bill.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on introducing the Bill, and on piloting it through the labyrinthine processes that are necessary for a private Member's Bill to be successful. In doing so, he has had to work with the Treasury and get its acceptance of the implications of some of the clauses. That is no mean achievement for any Back Bencher, but for a new Back Bencher it is a significant success. The Bill shows that, even in these so-called cynical times of business management, it is still possible for a Back-Bench Member of Parliament to introduce significant legislation.
      The Bill is simple in principle, but complex in practice. When I read the explanatory notes on the clauses, I wished that there were explanatory notes to explain the explanatory notes. In spite of those complications, which were lucidly explained by my hon. Friend, parties have been signed up to this simple principle for a number of years; it is the recognition that, to get the best out of employees, they have to have a stake in their company. That stake should not be confined to the payment of wages for their weekly work, but should involve a mechanism that enables them to benefit from the capital growth in the company to which they are committed.
      There is also considerable evidence to show that when that stake is extended and employees have some say in the management of the company, its productivity, output and growth are even better. I am old enough to remember the days in the 1960s and 1970s when industry was dominated by an "us and them" attitude—the underlying belief that the interests of ownership and labour were irreconcilable. We all know what impact that had on British industry, and the reputation that this country had for strikes, low productivity and low economic growth. The Bill reflects the change in culture that has taken place since then, and it promotes a change in culture that few of us would have dreamed of 10 or 15 years ago.
      On Second Reading, it was interesting how many Members read out letters from employees of the John Lewis Partnership—a company oft cited in this debate—and other companies that have adopted such management structures, principles and ownership. There could not be a clearer demonstration of enhanced commitment than that shown by those employees to their company. Many employees of the John Lewis Partnership who wrote to us recognised that, even though the Bill may not in the end be relevant to their specific interests—and irrespective of their own self-interest—their work and experience in the company encourage them to believe that this practice is good for everyone and should be promoted.
      540
      The problem is that, for far too long, companies such as the John Lewis Partnership and Scott Bader have been regarded as little models of a different culture within industry, and looked upon almost as oddities and not part of the industrial norm in our economy. Too few owners of businesses, employees and trade unions have been prepared to consider the culture that has developed in those companies to see what relevance it has for other industries. That has been changing. I compliment the former Tory Government on beginning to adopt that process, and particularly the current Government on the way in which they have developed it. I see this legislation as—I was going to say the culmination but I hope that it will not be the culmination of the process. I hope that future legislation will do even more, but the Bill is certainly a major step towards improving the culture in industry and promoting democratic participation and management, with all the economic benefits that go with it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith went into some detail about the surveys on companies that adopt these particular principles and the economic benefits that have been derived. I will not go into them in detail, but in the United States, where employee share ownership is quite widespread, there has been a lot of research and all the indications are that there are marginal improvements in productivity when employees have just a capital stake in the company, and significant improvements in productivity when they have both a capital stake and some say in the management of that company. Studies both in Europe and in the United Kingdom substantiate the findings in the United States.
      This is one of those rare Bills that benefits everyone. There are advantages for all. There are advantages for employers in gaining upfront tax incentives to put money into trusts for the purchase of shares for employees. I think that by now they can be confident that improved commitment, productivity and output will be generated as a result of this Bill.
      The Bill provides an incentive for employees because they know that, by working within this structure and being part of it, their benefits from the company are not limited to the wages that they get at the end of the week. They know that if they do that little bit extra and come up with ideas that may be adopted, in the long term, they will share in the benefit to the company that will accrue. That is obviously part of the underlying reason why such companies have done so well.
      The Bill also gives employees a share in the challenges that a company faces—the market—and the problems that have to be worked through in any successful company. It gives them confidence and an insight into investment. No longer will people regard themselves just as employees who spend their money and play no part in the capital wealth-creating process of industry. They will be part of it, and they can use the experience that they gain in other areas to invest in other ways.
      Above all, the Government, the country and the economy will benefit from the surge in productivity which, on all the evidence that we have, should take place as a result of this measure. I am told that we are in advance of our European neighbours. I hope that, arising from this legislation, schemes will be adopted elsewhere. and we will see the benefit feeding through into our economic performance, which will benefit everyone.

      541
      I hope that the Bill marks a surge in this type of ownership. A number of people have raised the issue of how we advertise it and get companies to sign up to it. I was encouraged by the figures provided by the Minister, which show that 45 per cent. of share incentive plans were from small and medium-sized enterprises. In constituencies such as mine of West Bromwich, West, the huge major employers have disappeared. The backbone of the economy in West Bromwich is small and medium-sized enterprises. Indeed, if we look at the proportion of the national product generated by them, we realise that it is very high. With this legislation being so beneficial and relevant to smaller businesses, I hope that it will have a disproportionate effect on output in that particular sector.
      There are big issues of how to enlighten local companies about the potential benefits that will accrue from the legislation. Members of Parliament have an important role to play in their day-to-day contact with companies. The Government have an important role to play in promoting it. Those among us with business contacts must also play their part.
      I have campaigned for 20 years for the adoption of principles such as are embodied in the Bill. It is a major step forward. I am pleased that there appears to be a high degree of cross-party support for it. I hope that everyone will go out to ensure that it is translated into real benefits for our industrial structure, and that the whole economy benefits as a result.
      11.26 am
      Mr. Flight: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on steering this Bill through successfully, and pay tribute to the speech by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey). Most hon. Members share the same ground. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his efforts over the past 20 years in promoting wider employee share ownership, and for his kind giving of credit to the efforts of the last Conservative Government.
      The hon. Gentleman made the point about small and medium-sized companies, which the Bill is really all about, and which are the economic backbone of the country. Its application is reasonably limited and there is a separate issue as to how to achieve employee share ownership in larger quoted companies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) did in his stewardship of Asda. I hope that he may have something to say on that subject in due course.
      While I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the number of companies that have applied for SIPs is up—to 330, I think she said—overall it has been a bit slow going. As I understand it, the number of employees covered by employee share ownership plans—ESOPs—has been fairly static for three years. The National Centre for Employee Ownership reported that about 8.5 million employees were beneficiaries of ESOPs and stock bonus plans in 2001, the same figure roughly as in 1998, so I hope that the Government will put their efforts where their mouth is and give employee share ownership a greater boost.
      I am sorry that the Minister is not here. I would have hoped to hear her give a pledge that the John Lewis issue will be solved in another way. I am still not clear whether the Government's objection to the proposed provisions
      542
      was a tax objection—that it could have been used more widely in potential tax-avoidance schemes—or whether their objection was to the potential use of inferior share classes. It seems wrong in the case of companies such as John Lewis, with employee share schemes set up by charitable trusts, for shares not to be eligible for distribution to individual employees under SIPs, with the resultant tax benefits for both the employees and the company.
      I return to the theme of making it all succeed, so to speak. It is a powerful mixture of employees feeling part of the business, being involved in it, being involved in decision taking, having their hearts in it, feeling as if they are employee owners, which is my phrase; and businesses being well led.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith referred to the Baxi Trust. I remind hon. Members that the Baxi company, which is owned by an employee trust, has now become fairly commercial, having been somewhat unsuccessful as a result of fuzzy strategic thinking and not particularly good management. It is crucial for a company to have good, well-motivated management as well as involving the work force in the company.
      Mr. Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Obviously, I am aware of the history of the Baxi Trust. Does he agree that although employee share ownership will not be suitable for all companies, it is more likely to produce the benefits that I highlighted in my speech.
      Mr. Flight: Yes, that is axiomatic. However, there is a point to be made about employee share ownership. In my personal experience, we made widespread use of the approved share option scheme and it is quite mistaken that that remains limited to a maximum of £30,000, particularly for medium-sized companies that compete with large companies for top management, as we did. It afforded a way of paying regular salaries that were significantly below what top managers could obtain from a large competitor, but locking them into the business with the incentive of a significant equity upside if the business succeeded. It is well overdue that that figure should be reviewed and increased. I should point out that the last Conservative election manifesto included a commitment to increase it to £100,000 for companies with capitalisation up to £100 million. We are talking particularly about small and medium-sized companies that need to compete for good management but may not be able to pay for it on an ongoing basis—and for locking them in likewise.
      Without causing offence, I should say that one of the saddest commercial non-successes in my lifetime has been the co-operative movement. When I was a boy, my grandparents and parents participated actively, but the movement faded away because it was not a commercial success. Success requires good management as well as the co-operative spirit.
      Mr. Bailey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that although some sectors of the co-operative movement have withered away, it is still a major organisation? It is the largest farmer in the country, a major retailer, one of

      543
      the largest funeral operators and a bank. Although there is an element of truth in what the hon. Gentleman said, he did not give the full picture.
      Mr. Flight: I did not wish to cause offence. I grant that the co-operative movement still has the opportunity to become a big success in some sectors. However, the hon. Gentleman would agree that in food retailing, for example, commercial supermarkets dominate the market and the Co-op missed a great opportunity. The formula for success includes employees feeling that they are part of the business and able management who potentially have a larger ownership stake in it.
      The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) felt that employee share ownership had been damaged by privatisation. The majority of privatised utilities have been successful and their employees have shares in the business. Some have sold them, but a hell of a lot have not and are happy with the situation. However, recent events have been damaging. Hon. Members will recall that Railtrack employees used their dividends to invest in more shares just a few days before Railtrack was put into administration and it is increasingly apparent that the intent of the then Minister was to do just that. I have raised the matter with the Financial Services Authority because, under normal circumstances, that would have been an offence under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The FSA is of the questionable legal view that Ministers have Crown immunity, but the Government should remember that in the privatised utilities sector huge numbers of staff are share owners as well as being involved in pension schemes and so on, and if there is no legal obligation to act in accordance with the Financial Services and Markets Act there is jolly well a moral obligation so to do.
      Mr. Lazarowicz: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real lesson of the Railtrack experience as far as employee share ownership is concerned is that had employees been given more shares earlier on and been able to deal on a collective basis, they might have had more influence on the management of Railtrack and therefore its direction, and life could have been very different?
      Mr. Flight: I know that you will stop me very quickly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I go on for more than a second in response to that question. There was significant employee share ownership. In essence, the problem with Railtrack affects the whole public-private partnership structure in which businesses have safety requirements and depend on subsidies from central Government, and there is sometimes a lack of clarity about their obligations. Time will tell, but the biggest issue about Railtrack was that the management responded to Hatfield with massive expenditure and effort which eventually led to the Government being able to put the company into administration. However, that is an aside.
      My main point is that there is plenty of employee share ownership within the privatised utilities. Most of it has been successful and has made employees much more active participants in their operations. Would there were a way within the public sector to achieve the same participation that employee share ownership has brought and can bring within the private sector.
      544
      In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and repeat my request to the Government to say whether or not they will find a way of sorting out the Peter Jones, or rather John Lewis issue—hon. Members can tell which I prefer—which in part the Bill was about. In fairness, it would be a great pity if the Bill were on the statute book and the Peter Jones situation remained unresolved.
      11.38 am
      Mr. Iain Luke: I rise as I did on Second Reading to support the Bill into which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) has put a great deal of effort to get the provisions contained in this slim document into law. I pay tribute to the way in which he and his staff have handled the Bill. Having shared an office with him, I know that he has worked extremely hard. I also gained a unique insight into what goes into presenting, preparing and promoting a private Member's Bill. It is my fervent hope that there will be a successful conclusion to his efforts and that, when the Bill becomes law, it will benefit those to whom its clauses seek to extend the possibility of profiting from the share scheme option.
      As a new Member, I found the process instructive, educational and profoundly satisfying. In observing the progress of this Bill, participating in its brief Committee stage and serving on the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill, which will conclude next week, I have been privileged to participate in Treasury law making in detail and in the round, and I have benefited from being able to see the bigger picture. Although the proposals are detailed and technical, the Bill has underlined for me how Parliament can have a beneficial impact on the lives of the ordinary people throughout the country whom we represent, as has being able to view at close quarters the help that my hon. Friend received from officials of the Inland Revenue and the Treasury, and from Ministers.
      It has been uplifting to witness the official Opposition playing such a constructive part in supporting the Bill's principles and making pertinent and sound comment on how the detailed proposals could be improved. I have seen more evidence of that attitude from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) during his excellent contributions on the Finance Bill, although there is one point that I want to take up with him. He says that companies such as his aim for profit, but he will surely agree that companies can have a range of different objectives, which often means that companies give up profit to satisfy social objectives. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned his employment with Shell, a company that spends a lot of money on ensuring that the environmental issues that confront it are dealt with properly.
      Mr. Flight: I am pleased to assure the hon. Member that capitalism is about a lot more than profit. As I see it, capitalism is about building wealth, and short-term profit often needs to be sacrificed. Building wealth is about many things, but the idea that capitalism is solely about profit is mistaken.
      Mr. Luke: Perhaps we might describe the hon. Gentleman as the more acceptable face of capitalism in Parliament. Although some of the hon. Members who sit behind him might be less acceptable in that respect, I accept the tenor of his comments.

      545
      I am sure that this process will conclude successfully, with the Bill taking its rightful place on the statute book. It will extend the benefits, and encourage the spread, of employee share ownership to a much wider range of businesses. We must work to ensure that its provisions are well publicised and that there is greater take-up in the years ahead, building on the encouraging start since the improved concept was announced m the 2000 Budget. The useful and beneficial improvement to the SIP schemes introduced by the Government in that Budget has gone some way to encourage employees to hold shares in the company or group for which they work, and to use them for the collective benefit of all concerned.
      The furtherance of the aims of the Bill has, I am glad to say, gained wide support that crosses the business and political divide, which fits well with the highly commendable aims of the Co-operative party and movement whose goals and activities acted as a catalyst for the Bill. The Bill is firmly anchored in the belief that it will help co-operative and mutual forms of economic organisation based on the principles of mutual ownership and democratic control. It represents another small step in the work of that excellent collaborative movement, which was formed as a party in 1917 to promote a stakeholder economy, a one-nation Britain, and to protect the rights of citizens as both consumers and employees.
      The movement has a long history of consumer-employee involvement. Its example of co-operative effort here in the UK has been taken up by some 800 million co-operators worldwide. In a 1995 report, the UN estimated that the number of livelihoods throughout the world made secure by co-operative effort was approaching 3 billion—close to half the world's population.
      The Bill fits well into the co-operative movement's work by promoting provisions that create fairer and more equal opportunities in the workplace for all employees. In a small but important way, it also supports a national economic strategy aimed at promoting worker co-operative action, and creates the potential for successful employee share ownership plans in future. That will, I hope, result in greater employee involvement in the running of the companies and businesses that employ them and provide them with the money—the wages—on which they and their families depend for a living.
      The Bill would make it easier for employee trustees to gain a direct voice in the ownership and management of the business at which they work by facilitating the transfer of shares and allowing tax incentives for employee trusts set up by companies that want to take a significant step towards employee ownership. The new clause agreed this morning will help that process on its way to a significant extent.
      Mr. Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important facet of the Bill is that the transfer of share ownership will be significant? Whereas under the ordinary SIP scheme the transfer can consist of any number—small or large—of shares, the Bill will facilitate the transfer of a significant number of shares to employees. I hope that all hon. Members support that aim.
      Mr. Luke: I am happy to acknowledge that. Reference has been made to the involvement of small and medium-sized companies. I contend that in future,
      546
      substantial share transfers will help to ensure that larger companies do not indulge in the sort of footloose decisions on location that have so often blighted many areas of the country.
      Without being coercive, the Bill as amended will provide companies that set up SIPs with more coherent guidance that elected employees may become trustees. It will also encourage employees and their representatives, giving them confidence to request representation on the trust body without fear of legislative uncertainty. That is without doubt the way to give employees a stronger sense of ownership, which will lead to better productivity and employee-employer relationships. Benefits will accrue to both shop floor and boardroom in companies that take up that positive and progressive type of organisational structure. Ultimately, that will bring them far closer together than they have ever been in the past.
      As well as small and medium-sized companies, we must look for ways to extend share ownership schemes through the whole range of companies. I believe that once a company gets involved in that way, the decisions made within it will become more collective in character, and the community of workers will have a bigger say. It will become less likely that a company will move out of a town, or even the country, to reduce costs; instead, decisions will be made according to what best suits the workers and efforts will be made to continue production at the company's existing location.
      We have been talking about participation in management and a collaborative mode of running business concerns. I hope that they will be extended far more meaningfully to other organisations, such as football clubs. The Bill offers the model of employee representation on a SIP trust, and I hope that that model will be extended to groups of football supporters who, through trusts and co-operative action, seek greater influence on the way in which their local football team is run both as a business and as a sporting concern.
      The work of supporter directors should be encouraged. Supporters Direct was the result of a Government initiative. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned his efforts to create different forms of mutualisation. When launching the Supporters Direct initiative in September 2000, when he was the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), said:
      "football and sport in general offers a fertile ground for the development of mutualisation".
      Let us hope that the example of big foreign teams such as Barcelona will be promoted as widely as possible in the United Kingdom. In Scotland, Glasgow Celtic, a team of national standing, has created a trust board on which my predecessor, John McAllion, sits. As well as encouraging more supporters to get more involved in clubs, perhaps the Bill will also help clubs that are companies to give players a stake by giving them shares rather than paying them vastly inflated salaries. That should increase players' productivity and give a better result at the end of the season for the money that the supporters have put in.
      I hope that the House will forgive me for digressing into the sporting aspect of mutualisation. With the recent saturation coverage of football on the television, it is difficult to avoid the subject. I urged my fellow Scots to support England, in the hope that we would end up with an extra bank holiday—but without success.

      547
      I am happy to have made a modest contribution to the Bill's progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith set out its aims clearly in January and said that he wanted to widen the application of tax relief on employee shareholdings in a greater range of companies. He said that he hoped to enable employee shareholders to play a greater role collectively in the management of the shares, and to make it easier for companies to transfer to employee share ownership schemes. Those are laudable aims and I believe that the Bill has gone a long way towards promoting them.
      Ministers, the Treasury and the Inland Revenue have given a great deal of help, and it is clear that the Government are happy to support these efforts to give employees a greater stake in both their working lives and the way in which their workplace interacts with the community.
      Although the provisions relate to the private sector, I believe that the Government can also do more to give a share to those in state employment in the running and management of the services that they deliver, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said.
      The concept is not new. On leaving school, I was employed as a civil servant in the Inland Revenue. I was a tax collector in London for some time. As a union rep, I was involved in the Whitley councils, which I believe have now disappeared. The principle was to bring workers face to face with management. If the better productivity and employment relations that we have talked about in the private sector could be brought into the public sector, that would be a positive benefit. However, one step at a time is a good motto in this context.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the promoter will be glad, at the end of this debate, to know that his Bill has become an Act. I would gladly join the Co-op party if a member of it would give me a membership form—and slip me the fee. Despite my non-membership, I can safely say, as a long-term trade union member, that there has been a spiritual home for me and many like me. I follow the Co-operative party in believing that people will achieve more by working together than they can by working alone. By increasing co-operation, we will achieve a sustainable future for our economy and the businesses in it. I support the Co-operative party's efforts and those of my hon. Friend the promoter to bring about the empowerment of individuals and communities through this move towards more co-operative self-help economic initiatives.
      The Bill rests on three major foundations. The first is enterprise, ensuring that we can continue to build a sustainable economy. The second is that we continue to promote empowerment, with a culture of citizenship and involvement in business decision making. The third is accountability, ensuring that we create a society in which business acts in a socially responsible way. There has been a lot of talk about corporate responsibility in this Parliament. I believe that the Bill will promote that concept, and I commend it to the House.
      11.55 am
      Mr. Archie Norman: I cannot resist taking this opportunity to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith
      548
      (Mr. Lazarowicz) on promoting the Bill and steering it through all its stages in the House. Unfortunately, I could not be here for Second Reading, but he has demonstrated an outstanding grasp of the subject, and it is no doubt largely because of his perseverance and skill that we have arrived at a highly satisfactory and consensual resolution today. I also congratulate the organisations that have contributed to the Bill's success, through skilful lobbying.
      I want to place it on the record that I have been an active practitioner of wide-scale employee share ownership. I would like to think that, when the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) referred to me—I think it was me—as the less acceptable face of capitalism, he was doing me a minor injustice, but I shall take his remarks in the humorous way in which they were intended.
      When I was chairman and chief executive of Asda, which is a much larger company than those that will benefit from the Bill but which provides an interesting example, we sought to change the whole ethos of the business, and one part of that process was creating a very large employee share ownership trust, which made shares available to more than 65,000 employees. I think that it ended up as the largest employee share ownership trust of its kind in Britain at that time. The benefits were substantial.
      The effect of such share ownership schemes is entirely a function of the extent to which they rhyme with everything else that the management do and the way in which the company is run. Simply distributing share benefits to employees, particularly in an organisation such as Asda, which employs a very large number of part-time working women and so on, will have no effect whatever unless people are invited into the management process as well. One needs to create a culture in which ownership is part of the way of life and of the workplace community. We set out to achieve that, although this is not the time or place in which to say how that was done. However, we had the biggest employee suggestion scheme in Britain for five years—we received more than 40.000 suggestions—which suggests what sort of organisation has to be in place.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith on introducing a Bill that is part of a broader change in approach to management in this country, which, as many other hon. Members have said, is leading other countries in western Europe. It reflects the fact that most good employers recognise that employees no longer come to work simply to earn a daily crust but because they want to do something worthwhile and belong to a socially responsible organisation that is seeking to help them achieve that and is prepared to listen to what they say. Their contribution is far broader than their immediate job definition within the organisation and helps to create a single-status business culture in which everyone is equally valued regardless of their role. Obviously, we recognise that people are paid differently and perform different roles, but that does not mean that they are not equally valued and respected for their worth and contribution to the company.
      That is a much broader set of changes than some hon. Members have acknowledged. I accept the points that they made about the co-operative movement, which in some respects is a forerunner of share schemes and parts of which remain successful. Hon. Members also referred to mutual organisations, one of which, the Tunbridge Wells

      549
      Equitable, started out successfully in my constituency. Mutual organisations, too, partly reflect the ethos of the Bill. Fundamentally, however, we are looking at a change in attitudes to management in the boardroom and share schemes are part and parcel of helping to facilitate that cultural change. The more that we can push those ideas and that management approach and encourage smaller companies, industrial companies and so on to adopt them, the better.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said, there is no reason why share schemes should apply just to white collar employees in the financial services and so on. At Asda, most of the people whom we employ are part-time working women who have come back to work after bringing up a family; some of them are in their first job ever. Of course, we recognise that such employees are not well versed in the nature of the balance sheet, earnings per share and so on, but there is no reason why the company cannot make an effort to explain the relationship between financial performance and employee benefits. Such schemes require the company to do that and encourage that virtuous circle.
      I welcome the idea that has been built into the Bill that employees can be trustees of share ownership trusts, which helps to bring employees into the management process and encourages feedback and involvement. The hon. Member for Dundee, East made a good point about public services. There is no reason why the idea behind share ownership cannot be extended to public service organisations. In fact, because they are often vocational in nature, they are susceptible to higher levels of employee ownership. A former colleague who is now chairman of the Royal Mail or Consignia has talked about introducing a shadow share scheme for Royal Mail employees, which may be a pioneering example of the way in which such schemes can be extended to the public services.
      Finally, I welcome the Bill, which has tremendous support on both sides of the House and outside. However, a number of hon. Members believe that it should not be the final step in the process. I hope that, after today, the Minister will consider what more can be done to extend share ownership to accommodate the John Lewis point, which has been made on a number of occasions. It would he very sad after all the efforts that that organisation has made and its support for the process if it were left out in the cold. We also need to consider whether we can extend the benefits in the Bill to larger as well as smaller companies. Several hon. Members rightly said that small businesses are the backbone of their constituencies and, in many ways, the economy, but the 10 per cent. requirement effectively precludes such schemes from applying to larger companies with a high-value total shareholding.
      There are changes to be made, but they are a matter for another time. We should extend the proposals so that large public companies in Britain such as Asda could benefit if encouraged to adopt such schemes. There would be other benefits too—not just employee motivation, but changes in attitude to boardroom pay. However, the Bill is welcome and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith has done terrific work. I support the Bill completely as does everyone in the House. I hope that we can go on to consider what further steps can be taken in the same spirit.
      12.4 pm
      Ann McKechin: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) in his bid to secure this important Bill. The measure will play an important part in strengthening and extending the concept of mutual and co-operative ownership in all types of businesses, and will encourage a constructive partnership between employers and employees. The Bill shows the increasing sophistication of the mutual and co-operative principle.
      Like many hon. Members, I am sure that our earliest memories of co-operative ownership are as children visiting co-op stores in our local towns and villages, and learning about the mysterious concept of the divi and, more importantly, the ability to quote one's divi number as readily as one's own date of birth. The basic principles and benefits of shared ownership could be readily understood by children barely of school age.
      I was brought up in Paisley, a town steeped in the principles of co-operative ownership. We had co-op grocers, co-op butchers and co-op chemist shops, not forgetting the Co-op's ability to look after us from beyond the grave. In Paisley we even benefited from two full Co-op department stores, which both survived for a good number of years, even though they faced each other in the same street. One belonged to the Paisley Co-operative Wholesale Society and the other to the Paisley Co-operative Manufacturing Society. In a town famous for having a church to represent every schism of the Protestant faith, it is hardly surprising that for a very long time the community could support different retail co-operatives.
      The reason those shops survived is that so many people, particularly the less well-off, depended on them and put their trust in them to assist in their basic requirements. No private organisation would ever be able to enjoy such a continued level of community support and trust. As the years have passed, the co-operative organisations have had to show increased management skills, innovation and technical expertise to allow them to survive in a complex and competitive environment. The remarkable transformation of the Co-operative bank in the past 10 years is just one example of how co-operatives can compete with large multinationals in the tough financial services market.
      Despite those changes, the principle of shared ownership remains at the heart of co-operatives' enterprise. That concept of ownership deserves a strong and permanent place in our society, to ensure choice for consumers and to provide strong links with local communities and a different way of working which avoids the old-style class base.
      For 10 years before I entered Parliament, I worked as a staff partner in a legal firm, which had about 40 employees when I left. Because of the specific nature of our work, no other form of ownership was available. There are obviously freedoms attached to partnership ownership, but there were also drawbacks. Many of our staff had skills that were in high demand, so staff retention was a permanent issue, particularly with a business growing year on year. We had no direct mechanism to offer them a real share in the business, which I believe would have acted as a substantial incentive to them to remain as long-term workers in the firm.

      551
      The use of annual salary increases or a one-off bonus does not have the same direct effect, when an employee is often not aware of the level of profit generated in a business. Shared ownership would also have changed the employer/employee relationship to allow a greater degree of consultation and a better spread of responsibility, making possible a greater appreciation on either side of the work of the other. The results would give a higher level of productivity, along with an improvement in staff retention and staff morale.
      Even in today's world, with the increasing presence of powerful multinational companies that are often wealthier than entire nation states, many people are looking to the concept of mutuality and shared ownership to provide a new way forward that is more flexible and responsive to their wishes for a more satisfying form of work, allowing them to contribute, often in new and innovative ways, to the fortunes of the organisation for which they work, as well as having a direct share in the rewards.
      For partnership to deliver, it must be genuine. We as parliamentarians need to put in place the appropriate structures to ensure that partnerships are demonstrably real and equal. Collective shareholder trusts could signify a shared interest in the long term success of the enterprise, while providing a collective voice at boardroom level for the members of such a trust—namely, the employees who generate wealth for the company.
      This small but important piece of legislation will, I hope, significantly increase the attractiveness of employee share schemes, particularly for smaller companies where the current heavy administrative costs in forming a mutual ownership structure can be a strong disincentive.
      Figures from a recent EU study showed that the organisations most likely to have some form of financial participation by employees are larger companies, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) said, with more than 5,000 employees, usually through the narrow-based schemes open to only a relatively small minority of workers, and firms with a high proportion of white collar workers.
      I am certain that the principles of mutual ownership could be extended further to reach small and medium-sized enterprises, which form the bulk of employment opportunities in Britain and which, in many instances, are ideally suited to this type of scheme.
      Take, for example, the small family-owned firm whose owners wish to devote less time to the day-to-day running of the operation, perhaps because they are retiring or want to work part time. This type of scheme offers a method of retaining a strong interest in their original enterprise while handing over more of the control and responsibility to their staff, thereby giving the company the advantage of continuity and stability, both internally and to their market and financiers.
      By providing corporation tax relief up front for share distribution into an employee share ownership trust, and making it easier for employee trusts to elect employees as trustees, thereby encouraging a direct say in management and ownership for employees, the Bill goes a substantial way towards achieving the Government's ambition to double shared ownership. As many are aware, employee shared ownership is widespread in the United States, in
      552
      some cases involving large organisations with global markets, particularly in agriculture. A good example of that is Ocean Spray, the major exporter of cranberry juice. I believe that the cranberry is the United States only indigenous domestic fruit.
      On a vacation a few years ago, I do not say that I was forced to, but I visited Ocean Spray's cranberry museum in New England where not only does one receive a full tour of the various agricultural methods used in harvesting the crop and its range of products, but one is made aware of its proud history of shared ownership and the success that that has brought the company. It is viewed as its strength and one of the main reasons why it has achieved a consistently high quality product, recognised throughout the world and able to compete in an aggressive market and to export world wide. Each of the farmer producers has a direct share in the future of the business.
      Most of the recent research on such organisations in the United States has shown that this type of ownership, crucially combined with other means of active employee participation, has a positive impact on productivity and corporate performance. Such structures promote stability and encourage good working relationships by combating short-termism in management decision making.
      As well as congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith—he has just left the Chamber, I am sure temporarily-on introducing the measure, the Government should also be commended on their support for the Bill and their encouragement of shared ownership, particularly in giving corporation tax relief up front and the share incentive plan introduced previously, providing important and essential financial assistance for greater flexibility in ownership structures. The new clause is accordingly welcome and I trust that the Bill will receive the support of the House today.
      12.14 pm
      Ms Munn: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), I entered Parliament just over one year ago, and although most hon. Members once they have been here a while might expect to have had some influence on legislation, those of us who were fortunate enough to have been elected in the 2001 election did not necessarily expect to be having such an impact so early on.
      Unlike my hon. Friend, I hesitated before putting my name into the private Member's Bill ballot. I was a bit daunted by the prospect of what it might mean, but having found out a little more about it I too had a go. However, unlike him, I was not lucky enough-or perhaps I was lucky, depending on how he now views it-to be drawn in the top 20. In reality, that is where the luck runs out, because it is difficult for ideas from Back-Bench Members to reach the statute book. Having closely watched the progress of two such Bills-those of my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, North and Leith and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas)—there seem to be several key elements in ensuring that one's Bill has a better than average chance of reaching Third Reading and the statute book.
      Choice of subject is important. My hon. Friend has had a long-term interest in this issue, and as we have seen today and during previous debates, he is supported in that by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. His attention to detail has also been important, as has the

      553
      support of organisations such as the Co-operative party and other worker co-operative interests. The Treasury's helpful assistance was also crucial.
      I welcome the Bill, whose overall purpose is to encourage wider employee share ownership. We have heard a lot today about how it will do that. Hon. Members emphasised the importance of promoting the schemes to organisations in our constituencies and others with which we have contact.
      The Bill has two key elements—first, the move to have employee representatives on share incentive plan trusts, and, secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) said, allowing early corporation tax deduction on money provided by a company to a share incentive plan trust to buy a block of shares to transfer into employee ownership within 10 years. The first of those elements is crucial as regards how employee share ownership can help businesses to be more successful. In itself, the measure would not necessarily encourage wider employee share ownership. However, if employers look at what has happened in companies that have adopted such schemes—we have heard some excellent examples, not only from this country, but from the United States—they may be persuaded that giving their employees proper representation and an active voice can be beneficial to the business in many ways.
      The second key element relates to allowing companies the financial incentives that they should rightly have, because the benefits of employee share ownership accrue not only to individuals and to the company, but to society at large, and it is right to have tax laws that support the development of such trusts.
      Share incentive plans were introduced in 2000 after extensive consultation by officials working with an advisory group representing the whole range of interests that needed to be included. It included representatives of large and small businesses, the Trades Union Congress, share scheme experts and academics who are involved in designing the schemes. Perhaps that explains why some matters are difficult for some of us to understand. As we said earlier, the new clause initially appeared difficult; perhaps the involvement of academics explains that, or perhaps it is due to my being relatively new to this place.
      The Bill means that take-up of share incentive plans will be more viable and attractive. We know that the measure has been well received, although perhaps take-up has not been as quick as we would like. However, I believe that the Bill will help matters to progress.
      Hon. Members of all parties accept that the Bill is a good measure. We need to ensure that all types of businesses—co-operatives, mutuals or private organizations—have good corporate governance. To achieve that, it is important that shareholders take a long-term interest and do not look for short-term gains or benefits, perhaps from investments. Employee shareholder trusts can contribute significantly to the long-term vision that I advocate.
      Many case studies show that most successful results arise from employee share ownership schemes whereby employee share owners are genuinely involved and participate in the non-financial elements as well as the financial aspects of share ownership. They thus feel a greater sense of ownership.
      554
      The Bill makes it easier for employee trusts that hold shares to elect employees as trustees of the shareholding. That crucial mechanism gives employees a direct voice in the business. They therefore do not benefit from simply having shares: they also have a voice.
      It is appropriate for larger organisations to have employee share ownership, but it is easier for individuals in such organisations to believe that their voices cannot be heard. Giving trustees a voice changes their stake from an individual shareholding to a collective voice that can begin to achieve the results that everyone wants from employee share ownership schemes. The Bill ensures that employees' interests are represented, but it also convinces them that their individual shareholdings can give them a stake in the enterprise.
      It is not only the company that benefits, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said at the outset. The schemes help the company and improve the bottom line, but above all, they can enrich the experience of people's working lives. Different ownership structures may have different incentive structures and operational methods to achieve different levels of efficiency, but employee participation is important in generating company loyalty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill said, at a time of skills shortage and problems with recruitment and retention, encouraging employer loyalty and a long-term commitment to an organisation should benefit it.
      The Bill will help in ensuring and enhancing employees' competence. Employee share ownership affects their motivation and commitment. Having such a commitment to the organisation can lead people to get involved in designing work that encourages the fullest contribution from employees so that the processes and procedures benefit the company.
      Employee share ownership is, in itself, important, but these measures build on the inherent advantages by providing a mechanism for employees to have a collective voice and for their stake to be recognised through the appointment of employee trustees. I particularly regret the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith is not in his place at the moment, because I want to add my warm congratulations to him on steering the Bill through to this stage. That is an incredible achievement for a Member in his first year in Parliament, and I think that he will look back on this with some pride in the years to come. [Interruption.] Here he comes now.
      This is particularly important for me because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, I am a Labour and Co-operative Member. He and I are the two most recently elected such Members, and we brought the membership of the Labour and Co-operative group in Parliament up to 29 members—its largest number yet. Perhaps we should put in for some of the considerations for minority parties that we heard about the other night in the debate on the reform of the House of Lords. I shall not pursue that issue today, however. I am heartened by the support that we have heard today on both sides of the House, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting the Bill to this stage.
      12.26 pm
      Linda Gilroy: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) again, having also followed her in the debate on new

      555
      clause 1. It is also a great pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) who has steered his Bill to this stage with skill, thoughtfulness and the full understanding that his background as a Co-operative Member of Parliament gives him.
      The Bill widens and deepens the provision for employee share owners. There has been cross-party support for measures of this kind for many years under Governments of all colours, and the Bill builds on that tradition, exploring and improving in Committee and on the Floor of the House today this important measure. It is good to have heard the commitment of hon. Members, including myself, to getting our heads round the technicalities that give life to some of the principles that we all understand.
      The Bill widens existing provisions by making more companies eligible for tax reliefs in relation to any move that they may be considering to distribute shares to employees by means of an employee trust. It thereby makes that distribution more likely to happen, and stands a strong chance of extending employee share ownership to many more people over time.
      Clause 1(2) of the Bill as amended in Standing Committee B gives encouragement to companies to involve employees on those trusts when drawing up a trust instrument. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, I believe that it is important to bring about that clarification, as it will be an important part of ensuring that more companies take on board the measures that the Bill makes possible.
      The Bill helps to ensure that, as years go by, employee share ownership becomes a more common experience for the many, not the few, which will make an important contribution to ensuring that wealth, power and opportunity are in the hands of the many and not the few. Some significant figures have been quoted during the debate to illustrate what employee share ownership means for the prosperity of companies, as measured through growth in share values. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) referred to the importance of this in the current climate, with regard to share value, which is not currently as benign as it has been in recent years. That is one reason why the Chancellor and his colleagues have been keen to increase the number of employees with access to such schemes in all their various forms.
      The measure builds on the provisions of the 2000 and 2001 Budgets in a way that should increase the number of employees with access to such schemes. It contributes to the quality and added value that arise from employee share ownership schemes. It introduces greater choice in the forms of ownership available, and it certainly builds on co-operative traditions and principles. We have seen a growth in, for instance, the industrial common ownership movement and in industrial common finance models.
      The creation of the social enterprise unit in the Department of Trade and Industry is a significant landmark in recognising the important contribution that mutually owned organisations have made, as we marked recently when the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill passed through the House.
      556
      There are a number of perspectives that one can bring to this measure. It has all-party support, but is underpinned by co-operative principles that sit comfortably with those of the Labour party. I shall quote a little more from those principles:
      "By the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few."
      Employee share ownership schemes are good for employees, for their companies and for the economy. Let me take each of those in turn. They are good for employees because the important financial stake that the Bill underpins rewards employees if their company does well. After all, there is nothing more galling than when others benefit disproportionately from one's efforts as a worker in a company, and this measure is one way in which such an imbalance can be addressed.
      Clause 1(2) is important in encouraging companies to involve employees when drawing up trust instruments. Equally, when the going gets tough, it gives employees a sense of having an integral stake in the company's well-being—perhaps even a sense of being an important part of any survival strategy that needs to be developed.
      Employee share ownership schemes are good for companies, because the financial involvement leads to increased employee commitment. They allow employees to become more involved in the running of their company, which, as the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) said, is absolutely crucial.
      If employees are more aware of any difficulties that arise within the company, it makes them more aware of the management processes and more likely to be able to help in heading off the problems and tackling them constructively. If employees are more aware of opportunities that arise within the company, those opportunities can be taken early and not missed altogether. Through that involvement, employees are more likely to act on their awareness. That results in a virtuous circle of commitment, which companies need if they are not only to survive but to thrive in an increasingly competitive world.
      Drawing on that experience is especially important and beneficial to companies that rely for progress on research and development, or need to get their choices right first time. I refer to the Scott Bader company, which has given sterling support to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith in developing the Bill. I think that I am right in saying that the company is at the cutting edge in the development of polymers and composites—exactly the sort of research and development that I am talking about.
      The need to get choices right first time is especially important for the service industries. We have heard it suggested in a number of interesting contributions that there may be a need to extend the provisions to the public sector, especially because of the importance of public services, in which employees' sense of ownership of what they doing can be critical.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) suggested that more traditional firms could also be encouraged to consider such issues. He mentioned the engineering firms in his constituency; my constituency also contains such firms. It was suggested to my hon.

      557
      Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith that he should look ahead, beyond the hoped-for successful passage of the Bill, to see what can be done to encourage take-up of employee share ownership proposals.
      That is very important, and one good way of proceeding is to look at what works. Perhaps we should look within the co-operative movement, maybe with the support of the companies that have been so energetic in backing the Bill, to see whether we can find an annual way of celebrating what is being done in respect of employee share ownership proposals. Perhaps that could be done across the different sectors, so as to include engineering, services and research and development. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General might tell us that that is already happening, but unless it is, those of us who have developed an interest in employee ownership might look at what we could achieve through such an annual celebration of take-up by companies not only of the proposals in the Bill, but of the other various forms of employee share ownership that have been mentioned.
      The provisions will be good not only for employees and their companies, but for the country. The more we can encourage their take-up, the better, in terms of developing a long-term approach to the companies' welfare, not only contributing to the economy at a survival level, but helping it to thrive. The Bill is also important for competitiveness, for the sort of reasons that I outlined, as employees will take a keener interest at an earlier stage in making progress on the threats or opportunities of which they are aware.
      Employee ownership also encourages growth, plus the wider benefits of social cohesion and regeneration. Research in Italy and the USA has demonstrated that the benefits include not only economic ones of the sort that have been mentioned, but improvements in respect of education and health, reduced crime, greater social participation and better capacity to weather periods of unemployment in local economies.
      As I mentioned on Second Reading, John Monks, in a foreword to the Mutuo publication "Employees Direct", said:
      "the shareholder voice of the employees could prove a powerful counterweight to the short-term horizons of other investors and create the conditions necessary for stable workplace partnerships to flourish".
      Not many of the hon. Members who are present are not convinced of the arguments, but I recommend that document to them, as it contains a range of powerful arguments to show how important to the general economy of the country the principles that we are debating are.
      The Bill, as refined and amended in Committee, will open up more opportunities for employee share ownership and add to the eligibility of a small but important sector of employees to participate in such schemes. It will help to obtain added value for people's interest and commitment to their work. Employees, their companies and the country will benefit. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith for involving me in the Bill through my membership of the Standing Committee. I wish it well in the other place, where it will go today, and look forward to its return to this House.
      12.40 pm
      Mr. Watson: The Bill gives a practical expression of partnership values. It will promote a new culture of work and innovation in the workplace. It represents a renaissance for the co-operative and mutual movement.
      558
      I support the Bill not just because it embodies the values of my party—values that gave me a reason to stand for Parliament—but because I admire the tenacity and determination that enabled my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr.Lazarowicz) to steer a technical and complex Bill through nearly all its stages during his first year as a Member of Parliament. That gives hope to new Members and Back Benchers: it shows that we really can make a difference to the lives of those who elected us. I only hope that when, having dealt with seven items in two and a half hours, we reach the Organ Donation (Presumed Consent and Safeguards) Bill, my hon. Friend will be present to support it and me.
      Members on both sides of the House have agreed that we should find a way of encouraging wider share ownership. I am pleased to note that there is also a consensus between us and our industrial partners the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. The Bill presents challenges to both organisations. It challenges trade unions to change the way in which they relate to their members and to employers. I am glad that it has had so much support not just from the TUC as a whole, but from leading unions.
      The general secretary of my union, Sir Ken Jackson, has been at the forefront of changing TUC policy, introducing more innovative ways of working and providing an impetus for the TUC to change its view of employee share ownership. He has pressed for such developments for many years. Today is a big day for him: the ballot papers for the election are being posted. I am sure that union members will take account of a debate in the House of Commons in which his contribution has been recognised when deciding how to mark the papers that land in their letterboxes on Monday morning.
      As I have said, the Bill is concerned with promoting a culture change, and with innovation. Those are key elements in the future of our economy. Productivity lies at the heart of the economic challenges with which we will be presented over the next five years. I was pleased to learn that more than half the current employee share ownership schemes are in small and medium-sized enterprises, because those are the companies that need to grow. Unless they embrace the productivity challenge they will face over those five years, such growth will not be possible. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, more employee participation in company decisions can really help productivity, and the Bill will provide that.
      The Bill also challenges employers, however. My constituency contains excellent employers, but some use dated management practices. The Bill would allow them to embrace change so that their employees can have not just a greater economic say in their companies, but a louder voice in the boardroom—and in the sectors to which a number of companies in my constituency belong, engineering and manufacturing, the say of skilled people, many of whom still work with their hands, is very important. A slight refinement of a production method, a slight change in the distribution chain or a slight speeding up of the process can make a real difference to the bottom line on a balance sheet. In such areas, where returns are so small these days, the Bill might be the difference between success and failure.
      The Bill may also provide the impetus to create new, innovative ways of working and organising companies. When the House debated the Industrial and Provident

      559
      Societies Bill, I suggested that pop groups might work as IPSs, and I understand that Dave Stewart, the former Eurythmics lead singer, has set up a co-operative company. It would be fantastic if his is the first company to take up the initiatives in this Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) described how player power might play a role in the direction of football clubs, just as supporter power has breathed new life and direction into lower-league clubs. As a result of the debate on the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill, my own club, Kidderminster Harriers, set up a Supporters Direct group, although I wish that this Bill had been in place six months ago. Had the players, manager and employees been able to take a stake, the then manager, former Liverpool player Jan Molby, might have dipped his hand in his pocket to make a financial injection to the club before deserting it to move to Hull. The Bill is a socially good innovation. Indeed, had it been in place previously, Wimbledon football club might still be in Wimbledon.
      The law of unintended consequences might kick in when the Bill is introduced, as it will create new ways of working and new institutions. It will also contribute to job satisfaction in the workplace and improve company organisation. I shall take these measures to the black country chamber of commerce, which is always looking for support for its businesses from the Treasury and from this place, and they will be welcomed by small and medium-sized companies throughout the land.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith said that the Bill is a practical expression of these words:
      "By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone".
      He has achieved something special today, because the Bill does more than make financial sense—it provides a good model to improve industrial relations in Britain and makes the rhetoric about partnership between workers and employers a reality. It will be welcomed by employers as well as by employees throughout the land, especially in my constituency.
      12.48 pm
      Mr. Love: Like other hon. Members, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) on so successfully piloting the Bill to this stage in his first year as a Member of the House. I also congratulate all those who have supported the Bill, such as the Co-operative party and Job Ownership—two diverse organisations that have given such effective back-up to that endeavour. Their success is the Bill that we have before us today.
      I welcome the Treasury concession, which came in the amendment that we debated earlier. I shall take my hon. Friend aside afterwards to ask him how he achieved it, as it is a great success for a new Member to persuade the Treasury of the case for such a change. I also welcome the cross-party support for the Bill, which is crucial. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke for the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) for the official Opposition. It was pleasing to see someone of the experience of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) taking the
      560
      time to support the Bill. No matter that we all have different perspectives; we have all reached the same conclusion, and it is important that we support these measures.
      However, some things are missing from the Bill. A number of hon. Members referred to employee trusts, John Lewis and Peter Jones. That point still needs to be taken up. On Second Reading, I raised the issue of mutuals. I was approached by Nationwide, and I recognise the difficulty for such organisations. We need to establish a critical link between share ownership and corporate performance, because that is what lies at the heart of widening share ownership. We should extend the benefits of share ownership to people who work in successful sectors of the economy; otherwise they will not be able to work on a level playing field with competitors that can develop those benefits.
      The Bill encourages wider share ownership and employee participation and representation in the share incentive plan. It does so by extending tax benefits to companies that want to make a significant move towards employee share ownership, and it is important to stress that. It extends the benefit of an upfront corporation tax relief. The Bill ensures that, in return for that tax relief, the shares must be distributed to individual employees within a certain time scale, in order to maintain the critical link between productivity and employee benefits.
      The Bill also provides a safeguard, in that the shareholding being transferred must be significant. It sets that at a minimum of 10 per cent. of the ordinary share capital, which must be held by the trustees in one year. I accept what the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells said about that excluding larger companies, but it is important that we set a benchmark. That distribution must take place within certain limits. Thirty per cent. of the shares must be transferred to employees within five years, and 100 per cent. within 10 years; otherwise the tax relief is taken back.
      Almost as important, the Bill encourages representation and participation by allowing—it does not enforce this—elected employees to become trustees of the share incentive plan. We have not discussed how they should be elected, and I shall not begin that debate, but it is interesting that that issue was never raised. I believe that the person who sits on the trustee board should be a representative of the employees, who will help to foster trust and confidence in the company.
      All the studies show that the non-financial aspects of share ownership are just as important as the financial ones in ensuring better results, improved performance and that we get the successful companies that this country needs.
      Like other hon. Members, I do not want to overstate the effect of the Bill, which is a modest measure. However, it reinforces some of the effects of wider share ownership, and I should like to refer to one or two of them that it will help to promote.
      The Bill will further employee participation. I mentioned trust earlier. As a result of the greater commitment that trust will engender, employees are much more likely to hold on to their shares. One of the great failures of the privatisations of the 1980s and 1990s was that employees got rid of their shares at the earliest opportunity, so they did not benefit from the major pluses of wider share ownership. It was no good for them as employees, and it did not assist the companies that were privatised.

      561
      The Bill will engage employees in the performance of their company. That is critical because employees bring specific skills. They bring specialist knowledge of the shop-floor. They have a different, perhaps unique perspective to offer. All those things will bring benefits to the company.
      Employee engagement improves employees' motivation. They can support the aims of the company. They can foster innovation at local level. I was interested that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned in particular the role that shop-floor workers have played in the development of his company. There is a lot of evidence of all those things providing effective input towards greater productivity.
      Participation reduces confrontation. We talk all the time in the House about confrontation on the shop-floor. Wider share ownership will develop a more co-operative ethos. We will have more partnership working between management and employee. All that will go to creating a more stable, better environment for the company to succeed.
      I want to look at how increased share ownership will help. It gives employees a meaningful voice. Attitudes change when they are given such a voice. Behaviour changes and performance improves.
      Increased share ownership aligns the interests of the two different groups: the owners, represented by the management, and the employees. They start to work towards the same goal: the success of the company. As someone mentioned earlier, it tends to reduce short-termism, which is a great problem in the British economy.
      Employees have a longer-term perspective of what is happening in their company. They take not the two or three-year time scale that shareholders and the City take but a much longer time scale. They are likely to spend their life with the company and want effective investment decisions in terms of research and development and of capital employed in their industry. That can be brought home in the boardroom.
      In the boardroom, we will get better corporate governance because there will be a wider group. It will not be the narrow group of shareholders alone who decide things. There will be a wider interest that takes into account the role of the employees. We talk a lot about shareholder value and the need to improve it, but there are other issues to be taken into account in the boardroom, and the employees will be able to assist with some of that.
      I believe that this measure, although relatively limited, will go a long way to reinforcing some of the issues that were so important when the share incentive plan was first introduced. It is important to state here and now that the greatest benefit of the changes that were made in 2000 is to recognise that all employees must be included. One of the great failings and shortcomings of some of the previous measures was that certain groups in the company benefited from those measures, rather than everyone. All the studies show that, if we stand by that principle and involve everyone, company performance improves by far more than if wider share ownership is limited to specific groups in the company.
      Performance is important because competitiveness is important. We talk continually about having a more competitive market. That is critical, not only in the United Kingdom but internationally, where we face considerable competitive pressures.
      562
      At the end of the day, what we are really in favour of is getting increased productivity. We hear a lot of criticisms about productivity. I notice that in recent months productivity has improved significantly. I welcome that and wish to see it enhanced. This Bill will go a long way to assisting that process.
      I commend the Bill, a relatively small measure, but one that will reinforce all the issues that are so critical to the future of the company and of British industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith on bringing the measure before us.
      1 pm
      Dawn Primarolo: We have had an excellent debate on an important issue, with thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) for introducing the Employee Share Schemes Bill and for guiding us so expertly through the technicalities. I am pleased that my hon. Friend and his advisers have been able to work closely with the Inland Revenue so that we can agree on a set of provisions that can be supported.
      Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) that, despite the Treasury's reputation, we do not always say no. We are capable of spotting good ideas and we are here to help, although hon. Members may not always feel that that is the case.
      I join all hon. Members who have spoken in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) said, he is truly to be congratulated on his tenacity, skill, patience and perseverance in his first year in the House. Now that he is an expert in the procedures in the House, other hon. Members may consult him in future, although he may be more reluctant to have his name in the private Members' ballot. He should sleep easy tonight, as I am sure that the other place will look kindly on the Bill—I certainly hope so. It is a huge achievement for my hon. Friend to have developed his principles to this point.
      The Government attach great importance to employee share ownership and participation. Increasing employee share ownership is at the heart of the Government's productivity agenda, which includes points that have been echoed repeatedly in today's debate. In our first term in government we put stability and employment creation first. Building on that, over the next decade we want to secure the fastest productivity growth of our competitors. To achieve this goal we must reform and modernise our product, capital and labour markets and create for the first time a truly entrepreneurial culture that is not confined to the few, but open to all, so that in every community people with ideas and initiative have the opportunity to develop.
      We must ensure that business investment increases and we must do more to promote competition, innovation and entrepreneurship. Considerable progress has already been made, but our discussions with business have revealed that we can do more to remove the barriers to opportunity and ambition—the ambition not just to start and build a successful business, but to see the firm in which one works succeed and individuals succeed with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) said, when those who work in a firm are able to be truly part of that firm, enormous benefits are derived in ensuring that it can develop.

      563
      The share incentive plan introduced in the Finance Act 2000 has made it easier not just for some but for all employees to become stakeholders in their companies. In their contributions today, my hon. Friends constantly returned to the importance of all employees being able to be stakeholders in their company.
      The Bill represents a milestone in rewarding long-term commitment by employees and removing, once and for all I hope, the old "them and us" culture in British industry—on which the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) commented. There is no better incentive and motivation for employees than for their work to be recognised and for them to share in their firm's success. The share incentive plan is an example of how each and every one of us—business, employees and Government—can contribute to achieving our productivity goals.
      We want employee share schemes to appeal to all employers and employees, and to companies large and small, quoted and unquoted. There can be no doubt about the Government's commitment to employee share ownership in general, and to the share incentive plan in particular. There is a sound basis for that commitment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) said, research has shown that businesses with widespread employee share ownership outperform their rivals.
      For the past 10 years, the stock market performance of companies with widespread employee share ownership has been monitored and compared with that of other comparable companies. The results are consistent over that period, showing that companies with widespread employee share ownership have regularly outperformed their competitors by a significant margin, and that has continued throughout the recent downturn in the market. That points to a clear link between employee share ownership and company performance.
      We are of course not saying that an employee share plan will automatically lead to enhanced company performance. What the evidence points to is a link between the two, especially when other measures are adopted to enhance employee participation. Ultimately, a range of academic studies has concluded that companies with share schemes have higher productivity than those without.
      It is the perceptions of the employers and employees that matter. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells spoke of the need for a culture change. Employees need to see and believe in the positive effects of employee share ownership schemes. A recent survey of employers by Proshare showed that 83 per cent. of employers who had introduced a share plan found that it had had, or had exceeded, the impact that they desired. Some interesting results also emerged from a survey of employee shareholders. Of those employees, 34 per cent. said that they were now more interested in the company and what it was doing; 28 per cent. said that the plan had improved their commitment to the company; and 25 per cent. said that it made them stay with their employer rather than change jobs.
      Those are powerful results. One clear message from the research findings is that productivity improves where there is employee share ownership combined with wider employee participation. That illustrates the crucial point
      564
      made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) about loyalty, and relates to the comments of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells.
      Throughout our time in government, we have placed great emphasis on the importance of people in any successful organisation, and we are right to do so. People are essential, but so too is the way in which we work together. Without good people a business cannot flourish, but without good management good people cannot flourish. Without maximising the potential of and listening to its employees an organisation is lucky to survive the present, let alone get to the future first. That is what good workplace relationships can achieve—the creation of an environment in which employees can work to the best of their abilities, where they feel empowered and involved and where they know they are listened to.
      At the heart of good workplace relations must be partnership between employers and employees. An employee needs to know and understand what will make the business succeed, and the employer needs to know how to get the best from the staff. That is pretty basic science, and of course good partnership goes beyond that, but partnership is ultimately all about communicating. Unfortunately, with the challenges that we face in the global economy, there are all too many employers who do not appreciate that fundamental fact.
      The benefits to business of successful workplace relationships speak volumes: productivity and performance; recruitment and retention; customer service: return on investment in training; diversity within the work force; morale, commitment and loyalty; reducing absenteeism, sickness and stress; and flexibility in staff attitudes, with an ability to deal with change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) said, that is an impressive list. Why companies would not want to benefit from all that is a matter that we need to pursue. The links between partnership and those benefits is clear. That continues to be demonstrated in modern work practices.
      Organisations adopting those principles can be flexible and adapt quickly to change, which is ever important in a global market. They can know the choices that they face, and seize on and develop them, moving employers and employees forward together. They will understand the need for change and react to it instead of fearing and resisting it. Share incentive plans offer share ownership to all employees in a company, and the Bill seeks to amend the provisions for such plans, to the benefit of all.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) on his 20-year campaign. I am sure that he is delighted at this outcome, and I sincerely hope that it does not take him another 20 years to achieve his next goal—I hope that I will be able to play some part in that, if it falls to me as a Minister.
      The hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to the John Lewis Partnership. John Lewis cannot take part in a share incentive plan because of its corporate structure. Its shares are not eligible under the SIP rules. They are not listed on the stock exchange, nor are they in an independent company. They are under the control of a corporate trustee, and the SIP rules are clear that shares used in the plan must be ordinary shares, with rights equal or superior to the company's other ordinary shares, and they must be either listed on a recognised stock exchange

      565
      or in a company that is not under the control of another company—or, if they are under such control, the controlling company must itself be listed and must not be a close company.
      The John Lewis corporate structure means that none of those tests is met. The shares are all under the control of one person—the corporate trustee—and the employees have a mediated ownership, not the kind of individual ownership that underlies the approved share relief. Those rules protect the interests of all employees and ensure that they have a direct stake in the company's real value. However, as I said on Second Reading, I am glad to report that Revenue officials met representatives of John Lewis at the end of April to discuss how the company could meet the requirements of SIP legislation. I cannot pretend that that will be easy or that we have found a way to achieve it, but I am prepared to consider the technical issues and try hard to resolve the outstanding issue, provided that the central principles of SIPs are not breached. In the past, other types of SIPs and share ownership could be used only by a small proportion of the work force, sometimes at considerable cost in tax revenue. I hope that I made clear the Government's belief that all employees should be able to benefit in the ways that we have proposed.
      The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to the take-up of SIPs, which he believed had been rather slow. It has been faster than take-up of previous all-employee share plans. The Government have received more than 600 applications. The approved profit-sharing scheme, which SIPs are designed to replace, will not disappear until the end of the year. As everyone in the House acknowledged, there is still a great deal of work to be done proselytising for the benefits of SIPs.
      The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells spoke about its being difficult for larger companies to participate in the scheme because of the 10 per cent. requirement. The Bill allows an early corporation tax deduction for companies buying shares from owners. We want to assist share owners to pass substantial holdings to trusts for distribution to all employees. In that way, we move from a company with ownership concentrated in the hands of a small number of people—perhaps the founder shareholders of a company—to widespread employee ownership and involvement. Crucially, the same issues do not always arise in larger companies, where ownership is not generally concentrated in the hands of a small number of people. In addition, large companies are likely to pass shares on to their employees quickly and regularly, generating corporation tax relief anyway, assuming that that is done for a SIP.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) again raised the issue of mutuals and trusts. Rather like the John Lewis Partnership, mutuals, trusts and owned organisations cannot take part in a SIP or any approved employee share arrangements because they do not have a share structure based on individual ownership. Mutual organisations such as building societies do not have equity, so it is difficult to see how they can participate in a share ownership plan, where tax relief encourages alignment between employee share owners and other shareholders.
      Mr. Love: The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) said that Consignia—or the Royal Mail or
      566
      whatever it is now called—is considering introducing a shadow share ownership scheme. Can the Government look at that model for mutuals and employee trusts?
      Dawn Primarolo:I was not aware of that possibility in relation to Consignia, but I am happy to confirm, as I did on Second Reading, that I am not against including mutuals or trust-owned businesses in the share incentive plan, if the right way of doing that can be found. I said that I would continue to consider proposals from trusts and employee-owned companies and from mutually owned organisations, but I return to the basic principle that I have maintained throughout our discussion of the Bill: those must be consistent with the provisions for a share incentive plan. Those provisions exist for good, solid reasons—to protect the employees in such an arrangement.
      The Bill sets out to change the rules of share incentive plans to make them even more attractive to small and medium-sized enterprises. As approved in Committee, the Bill has two main objectives. First, it puts beyond doubt the ability of employee representatives to act as share incentive plan trustees. Secondly, it seeks to encourage the transfer of more shares into employee ownership. That will help with succession planning and in securing the future of small businesses.
      The Bill does that by allowing a company an early corporation tax deduction on money that it gives to SIP trusts to buy a block of shares. The shares acquired in that way must be distributed to employees within 10 years. The new clause considered today is beneficial and now forms part of the amended Bill. It extends income tax and capital gains tax relief for SIP trustees from two or five years, under the current rule, to 10 years, to correspond with the time given in the Bill for shares to be distributed.
      I am more than happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith in his aims of encouraging greater employee participation. As I said, research confirms that a combination of employee share ownership and employee participation yields the best results for everyone. The company benefits, the shareholders benefit and the employees benefit from the greater success of the company.
      The proposal in clause 1(2) is that the deed of a share incentive plan trust must allow companies, if they so wish, to have at least one selected employee representative on the board of trustees. I am happy to support employee representation on the SIP trust. Strictly speaking, that can be done already, but I agree that, as many hon. Members pointed out in their contributions today, there is a case for that to be put beyond doubt.
      As I said on Second Reading, I am happy for Inland Revenue officials to work with my hon. Friend's team on a trust deed that would provide for employee trustees. That could be offered on the Inland Revenue website alongside the existing model trust deed used by the Revenue. We are working on the draft model that has been provided by my hon. Friend's team and we look forward to offering both model deeds. We would like to make them known to companies and advisers in other ways.
      The Bill provides for a corporation tax deduction to be given when a company contributes money to a share incentive plan trust to buy a large block of shares. That

      567
      might apply where an owner has a substantial shareholding and wishes to retire and ensure that the company stays in the hands of the employees.
      At present, corporation tax deductions are given when shares in a SIP trust are distributed to employees. The Bill provides for the corporation tax deduction to be given earlier, when a company contributes money to a SIP trust to buy a block of shares. The trust must hold 10 per cent. of the ordinary share capital of the company before it qualifies for the deduction, and the shares must be distributed to employees through the share incentive plan within 10 years. That is designed to encourage the flow of shares from the trust to individual employees during the 10-year period. The objective of the share incentive plan is to improve productivity by encouraging employees to take a long-term stake in their company and to share in the rewards of its success.
      I share my hon. Friend's aim of encouraging employee participation and employee share ownership. As I said, my officials met my hon. Friend and his team on three separate occasions to discuss the Bill.
      I am satisfied, as I have to inform the House, that the amended Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. We have also assessed that it is unlikely that there will be any additional regulatory impact. The risks and benefits in the original regulatory impact assessment for the share incentive plan remain unchanged and there is no need for a formal assessment.
      I hope that the other place is as pleased to receive the Bill as this House is now to conclude the debate on it. I give my heartfelt congratulations to my hon. Friend on successfully piloting the Bill through the House and I am delighted to join him in supporting it today.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  1.27 pm
  Rachel Squire: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their support for the Bill. Without such support, good will and co-operation, the Bill would not now be receiving its Third Reading.
  I cannot name all those who have given their support because it would take too long, but I should like to give a special mention to the Government for their support, especially the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson); the Royal National Institute for the Blind, and particularly Caroline Ellis and her team whose help and expertise have been magnificent; the copyright directorate, particularly Judith Sullivan; and the Public Bill Office. I should also like to thank my noble Friend Lord Morris in the other place.
  I am pleased to say that the Bill has the support of the Disability Rights Commission, Scope, Sense, and Deafblind UK. It is supported by producers of alternative format materials, particularly the National Library for the Blind, the Calibre Cassette Library, the Talking Newspaper Association of the United Kingdom, the Torch Trust for the Blind, the Confederation of Transcribed Information Services, Share the Vision and the Scottish Braille Press.
  I believe that the RNIB has received strong messages of support for the Bill from famous authors, including Philip Pullman, Jilly Cooper, Margaret Forster, Nick Hornby, Joanna Lumley, David Malouf, Rosamund Pilcher, Elizabeth Berridge, Harold Pinter, Claire Rayner, Michele Roberts, Eric Sykes and Joanna Trollope. Authors have been shocked if they have found that their agents had denied an organisation, such as the RNIB, permission to make accessible copies of their work. Those authors want their writing to reach as wide an audience as possible and appreciate that that can be achieved without compromising their moral rights or their livelihoods.
  I am pleased to say that rights holders are now generally supportive of the Bill. They have been privy to drafts of the Bill, and it has been substantially rewritten since last autumn to reflect their concerns. The aim has been to achieve consensus about exactly what the exceptions should say. For example, I and other hon. Members supported amendments tabled in Committee that would require anyone acting under either of the two exceptions made in the Bill to put a note on accessible copies saying that they have been made under the exception and would require bodies making multiple copies to keep records and to make them available for inspection by rights holders.
  All hon. Members have a direct interest in the contents of the Bill. We all have constituents who are visually impaired—there are around 3,000 in every constituency. Many of us also have friends, family members and colleagues who will directly benefit from the Bill. Throughout my life, I have had contact with children and

  569
  adults with visual impairment, and that has been of great value to me. They have often stood out from the crowd—not because of their disability, but rather because of their achievements and their abilities. In my constituency, there is an excellent mainstream primary school, Touch primary school, which has a visually impaired learning centre that is used by 150 children from a wide geographical area—children with a visual impairment who can combine mainstream education with learning specialist skills such as Braille. Children at the school who have no visual impairment are given the benefit of working with and learning from those who do. The school thus promotes mutual respect and understanding.
  Touch primary school is an excellent example of the high standards and deep commitment of teachers, parents, children and the community, and the Bill will directly benefit all that they strive to achieve. In the kingdom of Fife, we are fortunate to have the innovative and impressive Fife sensory impairment centre, which represents a partnership between the health board, Fife council, the voluntary sector and those with sensory impairment. It provides an open door of opportunity that will be opened even wider if the Bill is given its Third Reading. The Bill is about opening the door of opportunity to those with a visual impairment by removing the barriers created by copyright law to their access to books and other reading material, while seeking to safeguard the rights of authors and publishers.
  The reality is that there is an acute shortage of books, magazines, sheet music and other materials available to visually impaired people in a format that they can access. Only 5 per cent. of all the books published in one year are available in an accessible format one year on. Nearly half—47 per cent.—of blind and partially-sighted students in university and higher education do not usually get books in their preferred formats, and 33 per cent. of visually impaired children do not always get their textbooks in an accessible format when they need them. Some publishers have joined or set up licensing schemes to facilitate the production of accessible formats, but at the present rate of progress it would take 20 years to get most works covered by such schemes, and still many authors may not join. If the Bill is not successful, current problems will ensure that visually impaired people cannot gain full benefit from the information revolution.
  In Committee on 1 May, there was a good and balanced discussion on a range of issues and interests. The Bill, as amended in Committee, provides a fair and proper balance between the interests of visually impaired people and copyright owners. Several hon. Members asked some detailed questions about that and I assure them that I have reflected on them carefully. Further consideration has been especially helped by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Further meetings have been held—the most recent was last week—with representatives of publishers' and authors' organisations.
  I have always maintained that the Bill should take account of the legitimate interests of rights holders as well as visually impaired people, and that we must be sure that it has been properly drafted to achieve that. We all agree that copyright is a just concept and it is more than understandable that copyright owners view any new exception with extreme caution because it erodes a little the rights that copyright granted them. I am grateful that
  570
  rights owners have not gone so far as to suggest that there should be no exceptions for the benefit of visually impaired people.
  Copyright owners have properly lobbied us on points of detail and I shall try to cover them. First, briefly to recap the Bill's purpose, it introduces two new exceptions to copyright for the benefit of visually impaired people. The first is the one-for-one exception in clause 1. Its essential feature is that a visually impaired person cannot have an accessible copy made under the exception unless he also lawfully possesses or can lawfully use what the Bill calls "the master copy" of the copyright material.
  The exception does not make legal the production of accessible copies for differently visually impaired people when only one visually impaired person has a master copy. Transferring an accessible copy to a visually impaired person who does not have a master copy will immediately make the accessible copy an infringing copy. Those important points were raised at an earlier stage of our proceedings. Apart from the more general point about scope of the material that the one-for-one exception covers, I do not believe that hon. Members have other concerns.
  Clause 1 will be invaluable to visually impaired people in many circumstances. For example, it will allow a neighbour who can read a book bought by a visually impaired person to put it on a tape for that person. It will allow a parent to put a few chapters of a school textbook loaned to a visually impaired pupil on a photocopier to produce an enlarged version. It will allow a book to which a visually impaired person needs to refer in a library to be scanned in a machine that will read out the pages to that person. I believe that we all accept that that is fair and reasonable.
  Before I turn to the second exception in the Bill—the exception to copyright to be inserted by clause 2 into the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, part I of which provides UK copyright law—I would like to say something about the scope of the copyright material covered by the Bill. The Bill refers to
  "a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work"
  and to "a published edition".
  These terms are the ones used in the 1988 Act, and, to the extent that it is necessary, are defined in that Act. The term "literary work", for example, is very broadly defined, and is not limited to material of great literary merit. Scientific essays and articles can count as literary works, as can instruction manuals, information sheets and textbooks. Works of fiction, poetry, and so on, that are of great literary merit are, of course, also included.
  Unfortunately, for the Bill not to contravene the EC database directive, it has been necessary to exclude any activity that would involve the infringement of copyright in a database. There are some very complicated issues to consider in that respect, and I am again grateful for my hon. Friend the Minister's advice on this point, which has helped me to ensure that my Bill is technically correct. I hope that, at some point in the future, there will be a change to the European legislation in this respect.
  I appreciate that there could be confusion about whether only some of the contents of a database are being copied—it might still be all right to do that under the exception in the Bill—or whether too much is being taken from the database, and copyright is being infringed.

  571
  I cannot believe that one of the purposes of the European legislation was to rule out any possibility of making accessible copies of all the material in a database for the personal use of visually impaired people.
  The second new exception to copyright is provided by clause 2, and subject also to provisions in clauses 3, 4 and 5. Hon. Members have expressed a number of concerns about that, which I shall mention briefly. Of most concern seems to be the concept of an "approved body" being able to act under the second exception to make multiple copies of copyright material in accessible formats. Such bodies, however, are neither subjected to an approval process nor restricted to ones that have as one of their main purposes the provision of accessible copies for other services for visually impaired people.
  For the benefit of hon. Members who were not present in Committee, I repeat that it is essential that the Bill allow a wide range of bodies to assist visually impaired people. A number of bodies acting at local level, such as a local women's institute or church group, might wish to help visually impaired people in their area by reading local newspapers, for example, on to tapes. The Bill now provides that flexibility. It is inconceivable that it would not be one of the purposes of such organisations to help visually impaired people, if they are to understand and meet the rigorous conditions applying to activity under the second exception.
  Churches are a good example, because they are not bodies devoted primarily to providing accessible information to visually impaired people, but they might want to create more than one alternative format copy of a hymn book for visually impaired members of their congregation. Indeed, the RNIB has given me an example in which a blind choir member is still waiting for her Braille copy of "Complete Anglican Hymns Old and New". The RNIB is still waiting for copyright permission, because there are numerous contributors to that hymn book, and chasing them all up is proving extremely expensive. Yet until that blind choir member gets her Braille hymn book, she cannot participate as fully as she would wish in church activities. That is one small example of why we must be flexible in defining approved bodies.
  I emphasise that, although education establishments and not-for-profit bodies that fall within the scope of the term "approved body" may not be approved, such a process could be very regulatory with little or no benefit. Any approved body must notify rights holders of its activity under the second exception and must keep records that rights holders are entitled to inspect on reasonable notice, so that the approved body cannot act without rights holders knowing ultimately which bodies are acting.
  Moreover, clause 5 allows the Secretary of State to make an order to "disapprove", as we might term it, an approved body or type of approved body if its activity, under the second copyright exception, leads to levels of copyright infringement that are damaging to rights holders. The latter will of course provide a considerable incentive for approved bodies to adhere carefully to all the conditions that apply.
  I am aware that time is passing and that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall make just a couple more points about the efforts that have been made in the Bill to satisfy concerns that have been raised.
  572
  I particularly welcomed the decision of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its 16th report of 29 April 2002. In relation to the Bill, it said:
  "As copyright is a form of property protected by ECHR Protocol 1, Article 1, this could potentially engage the right to property of the owner of the copyright. However, the Bill contains extensive safeguards to ensure that the provision of accessible copies does not damage the commercial or moral rights of the owner of the copyright. and the purpose of the Bill advances the public interest in enhancing the lives of visually impaired people. That being so, there is little doubt that any possible interference with rights under ECHR Protocol 1, Article 1 by provisions of the Bill. would be held to be justifiable."
  That was extremely helpful.
  An education establishment that uses the second exception in the Bill is required to demonstrate that it is doing so for educational purposes, so it comes under a much narrower definition. I was concerned that the Bill should not restrict exceptions to copyright only to educational use, but allow individuals to obtain reading material for personal and other use.
  The fairly complicated subject of copyright protection technology was raised in Committee. I hope that, when it comes to implementing the copyright directive, that will provide adequate coverage and agreements between rights holders and approved bodies on the whole issue, affecting a much greater area than that covered by the Bill.
  I apologise for going into technical details, but it is important for all hon. Members to feel that we have given proper consideration to the concerns raised. I trust that all hon. Members believe that there has been considerable debate and much careful thought on a Bill that will help a particularly disadvantaged group enormously, but that will not be detrimental to copyright owners' legitimate interests.
  The Bill's passage to the other place will give all hon. Members a sense of achievement and a cause to celebrate. It will provide an excellent example of our determination to offer 2 million people of this nation the opportunities to develop their potential. It will open the doors of the information revolution to them and make a real difference to their lives. I ask all hon. Members to support the Bill at its Third Reading.
  1.50 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) not only on coming high up the ballot for private Members' Bills, but on not taking the easy option. There are always two choices on these occasions. One can either choose a high-profile passing bandwagon and go down in a blaze of glory and—it is to be hoped—publicity, or do what she has done. She has taken pains to deal with a highly technical—and, from one point of view, narrow—issue in order to deliver enormous benefits to a large number of our constituents. Some 3,000 or more people in each of our constituencies will benefit, and I pay tribute her for what she has done. It is not easy to keep track of a Bill of this sort.
  As I made clear on Second Reading, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said in Committee, the Bill is an excellent measure that has the wholehearted support of the official Opposition. The principle that it involves could not be clearer: our visually impaired constituents should have unnecessary obstacles

  573
  removed from their lives, whether it be in their leisure activities or their studies. They face quite enough obstacles in their lives already.
  Another principle that the hon. Lady mentioned is also at stake. This country is a world beater in intellectual property. It is absolutely right that intellectual property should be fully protected in all its forms—hence the issue of safeguards was mentioned on Second Reading. The hon. Lady has dealt with it in some detail and it was discussed in depth in Committee. It is fair to say that those two principles have been entirely reconciled in the Bill in its current form, not least by the amendments made in Committee.
  It is important to mention some of the issues that have been addressed, as the hon. Lady has done. Perhaps the most important condition or safeguard in many respects is the so-called one-for-one exception, which goes a long way to reassure those who might have had concerns about the Bill's effect on intellectual property. I take on board what she said about the database issue, which may have to be revisited on a future occasion. The new provision—I think it was introduced in Committee—enabling schools, libraries and voluntary organisations to make and distribute multiple accessible copies is also important, as are the provisions relating to so-called intermediate copies. It seems to me that, in Committee, the genuine concerns of a number of people and organisations were addressed as fully as they can be in the practical world. That is a very good thing.
  The hon. Lady also reminded us of the reasons for introducing the Bill. It can take years to obtain the necessary copyright permissions, even with the best will in the world, simply because of the time that these things can take. The key statistic, which was also discussed on Second Reading, is that only 5 per cent. of all the books published in one year are available in an accessible format one year later. Some 47 per cent. of blind and partially sighted students do not usually get books in their preferred formats. It beggars belief that they can continue their studies in those circumstances, given all the other difficulties that they face.
  We are also told in the RNIB briefing—I pay tribute, as the hon. Lady did, to the RNIB's excellent work in preparing some meaty and useful briefing material on the Bill—that that organisation spends about £60,000 a year chasing authors, agents and publishers for permission. The position is ludicrous, in that authors who would be helpful and supportive if they knew of the problem are unaware of it because of the number of intermediaries in the chain. There have also been many examples of people who have refused point blank to give permission. I shall not give their names, but it is rather surprising that major authors who have made millions of pounds or dollars from their works have behaved in that way.
  On Second Reading I mentioned the Talking Newspapers Association, which is based at Heathfield, just up the road from Eastbourne and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry). It does excellent work, taping and transcribing the contents of some 1,100 regional and local newspapers as well as the nationals with which it deals. Although its task is easier than that of those who must deal with books, it is very sympathetic to the Bill. I have received support not just from my local branch of the association, but from the Eastbourne Blind Society.
  574
  As I have said, an average of at least 3,000 people in each of our constituencies have no access to reading material because of copyright restrictions. Talking to those people, we cannot but be struck by how much they rely on talking books and talking newspapers to remain in touch not just with specific interests or even studies, but with the world in general. The Bill would make it much easier for them to do so.
  I do not want to detain the House, given the 2.30 pm cut-off. It seems that the Bill still has cross-party support, and I am delighted to reiterate my party's support for it. I wish it a swift passage.
  1.59 pm
  Ms Meg Munn: I too support the Bill, whose benefits are obvious. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) that this is an ideal subject for a private Member's Bill, and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire)
  As my hon. Friend said, the RNIB estimates that more than 3,000 people in the average constituency are visually impaired. Yesterday, the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association was in the Houses of Parliament raising awareness of issues relating to vision, and offering eye tests. I asked what percentage of people were found to be short-sighted or suffering from other eye problems as a result of the tests. Apparently, almost everyone over 45 needs assistance with eyesight, usually when it comes to reading. I am not quite there yet, but having been short-sighted since the age of seven I know how important it is to be helped to see properly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West pointed out that people we know often bring to life the problems experienced by those who cannot read what they want or need to read. Late in life my father could not read very well, and found books with larger print very helpful. Some people at the church I attend also need assistance of this kind. My hon. Friend mentioned churchgoers as well. On Sundays, I usually sit next to Hilda and Ray Horbury, members of my church who are in their 80s. Unfortunately, Ray's sight has deteriorated over the past couple of years. At our church, he benefits from a large-print book, but I see at close range the distress that is caused in a central part of his life when material that is not large print is used. It means that he cannot access information, take part in activities or be part of a service when he wants to be. In these days of technology and despite the array of assistance that is available, it is a dreadful shame that there are barriers that prevent people from participating fully in life for as long as they can.
  I particularly welcome the Bill's definition of a visually impaired person and the fact that it is drawn widely to ensure maximum benefit to all those who cannot access copyright material in the form in which it has been published. There is no doubt that the Bill has wide support, and when the issue is discussed outside the Chamber it seems straightforward. However, although my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West has shown that to be true, introducing legislation is not without its problems. The longer I spend here, the more I realise how difficult it is to produce good legislation that works, so I pay tribute to her for having overcome the problems and technicalities of introducing legislation that, on the face of it, seems simple.

  575
  Other Members want to take part and to put their views, so I end by saying that the Bill has my full support. I hope that it commands the support of the House and of the other place.
  2.2 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I add my full support for the Bill, partly on behalf of my party and partly on a personal basis. I am introducing another private Member's Bill on copyright law, which has led to confusion on two levels. First, I am occasionally showered with approval from institutions involved with the visually impaired. Although I am tempted to lap up their applause, I must acknowledge that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) should receive it.
  Secondly, and more substantially, people say, "You are introducing legislation that would increase the criminal penalties against those who seriously abuse copyright law. How can you favour legislation that widens access to material?" Of course, the two are not incompatible. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who rightly emphasised that we must properly protect intellectual property—the purpose of my Bill is to increase criminal penalties in line with the trademark provision—but there must be exceptions.
  It has always been understood that personal copying is not a problem, although the Bill goes slightly further by addressing multiple copying and copying without the author's permission, but for an entirely necessary and desirable public good. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West painstakingly explained how she has created through the legislative process a series of safeguards that protect copyright holders. I am entirely satisfied that that meets their purposes as well as those of the visually impaired, and it strikes me that the balance has been well preserved. I fully support the legislation.
  I have two final points to make. First, we are all receiving a lot of submissions from different groups, so I acknowledge the work of the universities. The Bill will contribute substantially to the work of higher education. People have been severely inhibited by copyright problems in universities, which have publicly acknowledged that the legislation will be an excellent help to them in making it possible to assist their visually impaired students without fear of legal comeback.
  Secondly, the Bill will also help many voluntary organisations. Like many constituencies, mine has a talking newspaper, which has expressed full support, and I hope that the legislation proceeds rapidly.
  2.4 pm
  Roger Casale: I am delighted to welcome the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), and to add my thanks to the disability campaign organisations on the long list that she read out, to the Disability Rights Commission, the Talking Newspaper Association and others, and to the many authors who have been outraged by the fact that visually impaired people have been prevented from accessing books and printed material by the operation of copyright law. May I add to that list the name of Fran Hibbert, who is the manager of the Merton Voluntary Association for the Blind and the Guardian
  576
  centre in Merton? My office has been in contact with her again this morning, and she is delighted, as are the many visually impaired people in Merton who depend on the centre's services, that the Bill will make excellent progress again today.
  The Guardian centre was founded in 1965 by a visionary visually impaired man, Eric Walford MBE, and is funded by the local education authority and through donations. It has also received a £115,000 lottery grant to provide services to the many hundreds of visually impaired people in Merton. More than 800 people in Merton receive the Merton Talking Newspaper every week from the Guardian centre, which provides many other services. With such support from lottery money, the local education authority and charitable donations, it is absurd that the operation of copyright law should thwart the centre in providing the service on which so many people depend.
  We spoke to Ms Hibbert this morning, and she feels angry that organisations such as the Merton Voluntary Association for the Blind and the Guardian centre are put in an invidious position when people ask them for help with photocopying any document or printed material to put it in larger print, or with translating it into Braille or Moon. It receives many such requests, but it cannot respond to them without breaking the law. By assisting visually impaired people in that way, it would infringe copyright law.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West on using the opportunity of her private Member's Bill to bring the law in this area into line with common sense. I do not think that any reasonable person would believe that the operation of copyright law should come between organisations such as the Guardian centre and the visually impaired people whom it was set up to serve and who depend on its services.
  It is important that the Bill should not undermine the work done by many businesses that publish material in Braille and in Moon. We want that industry to expand. I am delighted that I shall be able to go back to my constituency and perhaps report on the Bill's excellent progress in the Merton Talking Newspaper, and to tell the Guardian centre and the many people who depend on its services that it will soon be able to fulfil its mission to assist visually impaired people without the operation of copyright law getting in the way.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend once again, and wish the Bill good speed. I hope that it makes further progress in the other place.
  2.9 pm
  Ms Dari Taylor: This is a small, complex, technical but important Bill, and I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) on it. It is an excellent Bill, because it begins to provide a workable relationship between royalties, copyright and accessible copy. "It is timely," I said to myself and then realised that we have had the written word and books for centuries. It is outrageous that in the 21st century we should be considering such a large part of our community for the first time in a real way. The Bill will benefit millions. I am absolutely delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West has kept the Government on side. She has worked extremely hard and I compliment her.

  577
  The Bill establishes a workable legislative framework. It has achieved widespread recognition throughout our communities. It has got many authors, agents and publishers, whether they be involved in dramatic, music or artistic work, to agree that accessible copies for people with impaired vision are an absolute necessity and a requirement. In fact, many have been shocked that their books have not been available to date.
  I cannot imagine what it is like not to be able to pick up a book and read, or to go along a shelf and choose. It is totally inconceivable. Reading is one of the finest pleasures in my life. It is time out and, goodness me, we all need time out. The fact that we have excluded so many people from that is wrong.
  Reading is not just time out. As many hon. Members have said, there are the benefits of higher education, or education per se. Reading opens doors, thereby ensuring that people with aspirations can develop their intellectual potential. The Bill gives educational establishments the opportunity to support visually impaired people.
  In a complex and technical world, my hon. Friend has achieved a clear and concise Bill that I believe will be successful. I am delightful—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry, I take that back. I am delighted with the whole idea of one for one. It seems so logical, if someone owns a book, needs to make a copy of it and to change it so that they can access it, to allow them to do so—it seems so jolly obvious. I am delighted with the whole idea of educational establishments having that right if they are not run for profit. That should ensure that there is an open door. I am mortified that the Churches are struggling to ensure that they have copies for all their—I cannot think of the word—
  Roger Casale: Congregations.
  Ms Taylor: What a good word. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and I are great singers. We would want copies to be available. We hope that the Churches get that together speedily.
  I have so little time and I know that another colleague wants to speak. I am an enthusiast of the Bill. I have spoken to members of the Teesside and District Society for the Blind about it; they are enthusiasts. The chairman of that organisation is completely blind. He is a local radio producer, and he is delighted that the Bill has been introduced.
  Many blind people and people who are visually impaired believe that they are Cinderellas. They are unconfident. They think that we do not care about them. They will begin to see today that they are not a forgotten group, that there are many champions and that the Bill truly begins that process for all of them. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West on what is a very good Bill. It opens doors for many people, many of whom we will, I hope, get to know in the near future.
  2.13 pm
  Linda Gilroy: It is a great pleasure to be here to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire). I have been tracking the progress of the Bill on the Royal National Institute for the Blind website. It described it as a fundamental question of social inclusion, which other hon. Members with their enthusiasm obviously appreciate.
  578
  I come to the Third Reading debate to support my hon. Friend, having been present on 10 May and on Second Reading on 15 March, although I did not have the benefit of serving on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Bill. I have had the benefit of listening to my hon. Friend's report on that. I also took the opportunity yesterday evening to read the Hansard record of that stage of the Bill. It records the care with which she and others have refined and improved the Bill. I am impressed with that care and with the range of expertise that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have brought to it—there was the usual legal and technical experience that one hopes to have available—including the chair of the all-party group on eye health, which I had not realised existed until I read the Hansard of the Standing Committee.
  The Bill and its consideration have drawn on a range of expertise to which my hon. Friend and others have referred. The care taken has resulted in a measure that meets the high expectations expressed in the policy statement on the RNIB website, which states:
  "We seek legislation which:

  a) asserts visually impaired people's rights to equitable access to all published information;

  b) enshrines rights, and does not merely create vehicles for permission;

  c) is not tied to particular formats of particular technologies;

  d) is future proof;

  e) focuses on the individual end-user, not the format".

  It also refers to a number of other factors. My hon. Friend's Bill lives up to those high standards. It is a tall order, but my hon. Friend and those working with her have produced a measure that looks as though it will stand the test of time. I hear what she said about databases and we shall certainly follow the issue with interest. Perhaps the House will give it further consideration in future.
  The Bill consolidates previous voluntary agreements with sound and comprehensive provisions; the principles that it lays down will become increasingly necessary as technology brings even more diversity to the means of production, distribution and access to creative works. The Bill will overcome some of the dreadful delays and refusals to grant permission that, as debates on this Bill today and previously have illustrated, remain far too common despite the goodwill of many authors and publishers. It will also give people with visual impairment opportunities to fulfil their potential to read, to learn, to work and to participate fully in society. It has received careful consideration and scrutiny and represents a fair balance between the rights of people with visual impairment to access material in the format of their choice, and the ability of copyright owners to monitor what is happening and obtain copyright royalties in circumstances where their interests might otherwise be prejudiced.
  In her letter urging us to attend today's debate and support the Bill my hon. Friend told us that the RNIB estimates suggest that more than 3,000 people in the average parliamentary constituency have some visual impairment. I am pleased to be here today to thank my hon. Friend and support her endeavours to help her constituents, mine and those of every hon. Member here today or otherwise serving their constituents in the various activities that usually occupy us on Fridays. I hope that the Bill receives the same reception in the other place as it has here.
  2.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) on introducing the Bill and my thanks to the impressive list of people who have contributed to the Bill being in the shape it is and being considered in the House today.
  We have heard once again how the Bill will considerably assist visually impaired people who are currently unable to read so much of the material that we all take for granted, ranging from books, magazines and newspapers to maps, washing machine instructions and knitting or cross-stitch patterns. However, the Bill must also take into account the legitimate interests of copyright owners. Government support has therefore been conditional on maintaining an appropriate balance between copyright owners and visually impaired people.
  As hon. Members—and sometimes delightful ones—know, the Government have helped with the drafting of the Bill to remove certain technical deficiencies and build in some additional safeguards for copyright owners. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West has already reviewed a number of important points, but it might be helpful if I comment on concerns that I have discussed recently with rights holders.
  Those concerns relate to the multiple copy exception to copyright, which applies only when accessible copies are made and supplied by an approved body to visually impaired people for their personal use. Rights holders have expressed a desire for a narrower definition of approved body because of the difficulty of identifying which bodies might seek to rely on that exception. However, the making of accessible copies must be notified to rights holders within a reasonable time; copyright owners will therefore be well placed to learn what activity occurs under the copyright exception and which bodies are involved.
  We have already promised guidance so that approved bodies will understand their obligations should they choose to help visually impaired people by activity under the exception. I have recently promised some of the organisations representing rights holders that we shall consult them as we draft guidance, but we must also make sure that organisations such as the RNIB play a part both by helping us to make the guidance as clear as possible, and by helping to disseminate the guidance to those bodies that are able to act under the second exception.
  We do not feel that it would be right to narrow further the definition of an approved body so as to limit the potential range of bodies that could help visually impaired people. Much of the work of transcription into alternative formats is likely to be done by national organisations that help visually impaired people in particular, but given the range of material—much of which we have heard about during the debate—that might need to be put into an alternative format, and the cost of doing that, it would be unhelpful to visually impaired people to choose a narrow definition of approved body. That could prevent many other not-for-profit bodies that may occasionally want to act from being able to do so under the Bill.
  Clause 5, which inserts new section 31E into the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, gives the Secretary of State the power to vary the scope of the multiple copy exception to copyright where there has been
  580
  an infringement of copyright as a result of activity under the Bill on a scale that would not otherwise have arisen. That provision is extremely important given that there is no restriction on the type of accessible copy that can be made, or on the type of not-for-profit body that can act under the exception.
  The order-making power applies either where certain, or certain types, of approved bodies have behaved irresponsibly to the extent that copyright infringement has had a serious impact on copyright owners, or where the making of certain types of accessible copy has had a similar effect. For the record, I state categorically that we are prepared to use that power as a matter of urgency to disapply the exception from a particular body that is claiming to act under the exception if it is involved in activity that seriously undermines rights holders' interests. We are also ready to introduce an order with a more general effect should the exception lead to serious harm of a more general nature. The process for dealing with complaints from rights holders about abuse of that exception can be set out in more detail in the guidance.
  Approved bodies that decide to act under the legislation to make much-needed accessible copies for visually impaired people must appreciate that they have a responsibility to observe all the conditions in the legislation or in a licence provided under the licensing scheme. If they do so, they will be able to give real assistance to visually impaired people who cannot currently access copyright material, and the Bill will represent a major step forward in reducing the social exclusion of visually impaired people. If they do not, those bodies must understand that we shall be prepared to use the order-making power in appropriate cases.
  The other matter about which copyright owners are especially concerned is the meaning of the phrase "reasonably practicable" in new section 31B(8). In determining whether it is reasonably practicable to re-apply copyright protection technology, the cost of doing so is not intended to be a relevant factor, and the guidance we have promised can certainly cover that point as well. The test is really one of whether re-applying it is technically possible: for example, there would be no point in insisting that copy protection that made the copyright work inaccessible in the first place should be put back on.
  Advances in technology do, however, provide an opportunity to ensure that an original lack of access due to incompatibility between copy protection and visually impaired people's access technology does not even arise. If the original digital copy is accessible to all, it will not be possible to act under this exception. Technology can help only if everyone understands each other's problem and is willing to help find the solution, so it will be necessary for the organisations representing the rights holders and those representing visually impaired people to work with those who develop the relevant technologies to ensure that lack of access does not inadvertently arise in the first place.
  The multiple copy exception is rightly overridden where copyright owners have set up a licensing scheme, because it must not totally remove the copyright owners' ability to seek remuneration by way of a copyright royalty. Of course, licensing under a licensing scheme can also be used to give copyright owners a valuable closer relationship with approved bodies.

  581
  New section 31D does not allow a licensing scheme to be "unreasonably restrictive", and that is defined in subsection (2) to rule out in general any terms or conditions that would restrict the doing of anything that would be possible under section 31B or 31C. Clearly, that makes sense, but I would like to comment on which body can decide what is unreasonably restrictive. The Copyright Tribunal is an independent body already established by copyright law to decide more generally whether terms and conditions of licensing schemes are "reasonable in the circumstances".
  For licensing schemes set up in this new area, part of the Copyright Tribunal's judgment of what is reasonable in the circumstances could concern whether the scheme is unreasonably restrictive, but we have been encouraging those setting up or changing licensing schemes in any area to consult fully the representatives of those who will be affected by the schemes: the users of the copyright material.
  We are ready to facilitate any discussions about licensing schemes in this area, if necessary, so that concerns about opposed schemes that might be unreasonably restrictive can be addressed at an early stage. That should give all concerned greater certainty that a scheme is not one that can be challenged as unreasonably restrictive.
  New section 31C permits an approved body to keep intermediate copies against their future use to make more accessible copies. An approved body can also lend or transfer an intermediate copy, but only to another approved body that is entitled to make accessible copies of the copyright work itself under section 31B. It would be wrong to permit the transfer of an intermediate copy to a body that could not use it under the exception, as there would be a high risk that it would use it for an illegal purpose. Moreover, that limitation means that an intermediate copy can be transferred only to another approved body in the UK, as section 3IB will be inserted in UK copyright law and cannot apply to what people do in other countries.
  I, too, am concerned that the Bill will not allow databases to be copied without infringing copyright. As I said in Committee, we are taking up the matter with the Commission, including in the context of the current review of the database directive.
  The Bill provides all the necessary checks and balances, while offering the prospect of real help for visually impaired people. Several hon. Members have explained just how important that help is, and just how much it will be valued. I am delighted to reaffirm the Government's continuing support for the Bill.
  I offer my hon. Friend my warmest congratulations on having brought the Bill so far through so much hard work, and I share other hon. Members' admiration for all her efforts. I hope that it will continue to receive the widespread support in the other place that it has rightly enjoyed thus far in the House of Commons. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Firearms (Replica Weapons) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second Time.
  In moving Second Reading—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 19 July.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    SEX DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 28 June.

    CONTROL OF FIREWORKS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Not moved.

    BROADCASTING ACT 1990 (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.

    FOOD LABELLING BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [2 November 2001].
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 19 July.

    ORGAN DONATION (PRESUMED CONSENT AND SAFEGUARDS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (EMPLOYMENT DISQUALIFICATION) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved

    TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRANSMITTERS (RESTRICTIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    VACCINATION OF CHILDREN (PARENTAL CHOICE) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.

    PATIENTS WITHOUT LEGAL CAPACITY (SAFEGUARDS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.

    COMPULSORY VOTING BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved

    DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

    REGULATION OF CHILD CARE PROVIDERS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.

    AREA CHILD PROTECTION COMMITTEES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.

    DATA PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 19 July.

    SEX DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 28 June.

    Social Exclusion (Edmonton)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    2.33 pm
    Mr. Andrew Love: I want to highlight the level of deprivation and social exclusion in my constituency, which is characterised by a weakened economic base resulting in concentrated unemployment and consequently social disadvantage and a poor physical environment. I shall illustrate that with reference to two recent residents' surveys in the area, the first by MORI, which was carried out in our neighbourhood renewal area. The neighbourhood renewal scheme covers the 10 per cent. of most deprived wards in the country, including four wards in my constituency; 30 per cent. of my constituents or 24,000 people live in those wards. Just over 1.000 respondents were interviewed by MORI, which gives the study a reasonably good statistical reliability of plus or minus 3 per cent. A small area study was also carried out in one of my neighbourhood renewal wards, which has about 1,500 residents. Two hundred people responded, so reliability is not as good—plus or minus 7 per cent.
    The findings of both studies are interesting. For example, there is a high incidence of households with children—43 per cent., compared with a national figure of about 29 per cent. There is a high incidence of one-parent families locally—17 per cent., against a national figure of 7 per cent. Perhaps not so surprisingly, the studies showed a large ethnic minority population—about 43 per cent. If we include the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, that rises to 50 per cent.
    The area shows all the classic signs of deprivation and disadvantage, such as low skills—35 per cent. have no qualifications at all; poverty—the average weekly income in the area is £294, which does not compare well with the London average of £492; low self-esteem—only 26 per cent. of local people think that the area has community spirit, compared with 49 per cent. at national level.
    Like many other local authorities, Enfield has a wide variety of area-based initiatives. I mentioned my neighbourhood renewal area, covering four of the most deprived wards. There is also a sure start initiative, involving 67,000 local residents; an objective 2 area for European structural funding, which runs up the eastern side of my constituency; and an education action zone, which stands out a little from all the other initiatives.
    The problem is that all the various initiatives overlap in a way that is confusing to local people. There are separate departmental objectives and priorities. Some are driven locally through the local authority, some regionally and some at the departmental level. For example, economic regeneration has become the responsibility of the London Development Agency, but social regeneration is still locally driven.
    We often speak of neighbourhoods, but everyone has a different definition of the term. Recently in the London borough of Enfield, the ward level, which has been the traditional proxy for the neighbourhood, has just increased in size by 50 per cent. because of boundary changes.
    All that leads to additional complexity, greater fragmentation and bureaucratic overload. When are we going to reduce the number of separate area-based

    585
    initiatives? How can we reduce and, we hope, eliminate overlap at local level, which is so confusing to people? What impetus is being given at departmental level to prioritising greater coherence, focus and targeting in our most deprived areas?
    Last year, following the national consultation exercise carried out by the social exclusion unit, the national strategy action plan entitled "A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal" was produced. That outlined the need for a long-term comprehensive approach to deprivation and tried to address that on the basis that
    "No one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live".
    The plan set a time scale of 10 to 20 years for achieving that.
    A neighbourhood renewal fund was created to narrow the gap between the most deprived 10 per cent. of areas and the rest of the country. In Enfield we received £4 million, which was allocated to the four wards that I mentioned over a three-year period. The local authority has chosen—rightly, in my view—to include a fifth ward that was not designated, because of the severe disadvantage experienced by people living there.
    Within the neighbourhood renewal function, the local authority retains the flexibility to use some of those funds for disadvantaged areas across the entire local authority. As a result, neighbourhood renewal must address health, crime, housing and the environment, and try to narrow the gap between the level of all those services locally and the average across the country.
    I accept that that cannot be done without the bending or re-allocation of mainstream services discussed in the report, but I believe that the target is ambitious and the time scale tight. It is important to recognise the pump-priming role of neighbourhood renewal funding in creating new and innovative services and changing the way in which mainstream services are provided in the locality. We need to give careful consideration to the level of resources that will be needed in our neighbourhood renewal function if we are to achieve the objectives that we have set for it.
    Similarly, we need to look carefully at and address the significant erosion that there has been in social capital in deprived areas, and my study contained some alarming conclusions. Only 17 per cent. of the population are actively involved in any way in the community, and in the past year, only 15 per cent. have done any voluntary work, and that is against a backdrop nationally of 24 per cent. But perhaps the most surprising finding was that 70 per cent. of people said that they did not want to be involved in any way.
    If regeneration is to be successful in such an area, the first thing that we must do is to create a sense of ownership for what is happening in the community, and people must feel involved and empowered through the process. The only way in which that can be achieved is to build capacity locally. That was traditionally a service that was provided through the single regeneration budget, but as the Minister will know, that ended with round 6. Those budgets have now been absorbed into the regional development agencies, and they are given flexibility to pursue their own objectives. The RDAs recently issued a statement saying that they will continue to prioritise social regeneration, but people question how much of a priority will be given to that capacity building.
    586
    Last year Enfield received £59,000 in neighbourhood renewal funding. If that is the only source of capacity building, frankly, we will not be able to achieve much, so, again, I should like those budgets to be expanded so that we can address the real decline in social capital locally.
    The action plan that was brought forward highlights the need to co-ordinate services and to address the needs of each locality, and it does that through what is called a local strategic partnership. One was set up in each of the 88 designated districts throughout the country. After a pretty sticky start, I have to admit that Enfield's strategic partnership is now up and running and, I believe, functioning effectively. It is certainly bringing together the public, private and voluntary sectors, as was intended.
    But the strategic partnership has not yet achieved any links with the local communities that it is supposed to serve. Although a forum that brings together the police, the local authority, the NHS and the education department is a good thing in itself, it will not necessarily end up being accountable to the community. It could just as easily, like many of those services themselves, become remote and unresponsive. We need to create links with the community and to inspire people to become involved, to participate and to support the objectives that we are trying to achieve.
    That can best be done through neighbourhood management, and there have been some pathfinders. Sadly, last year, because the view was taken that the local strategic partnership had not developed to the proper extent, Enfield was not included. But if we are to overcome the problems that I think exist in my local neighbourhood renewal area, it is critical that we have one of those neighbourhood management pathfinders in order to carry out our work.
    Much of the neighbourhood decline can be traced back to the rise in unemployment that comes when industries move away and, classically, that is what happened in my neighbourhood renewal area, where unemployment levels are significant. I want to illustrate that by drawing a comparison with two other areas, not in Enfield but in the authority next door, which the Minister will know well. One is a new deal for communities area in Seven Sisters and the other is a single regeneration budget area in Northumberland Park. I choose Northumberland Park because it lies immediately adjacent to my neighbourhood renewal area. Both those areas cover a significant population of between 12,000 to 15,000 people.
    Unemployment in the ward immediately adjacent to Northumberland Park stands at about 11 per cent. In Northumberland Park, unemployment is 13 per cent. In Seven Sisters, it is 14 per cent. Of the long-term unemployed in my area, one in four have been unemployed for more than a year. Perhaps surprisingly, the study shows that there is a significant lack of motivation among the unemployed—84 per cent. are not looking for work. The Government introduced an employment zone to deal with that deep-seated unemployment in the Northumberland Park and Seven Sisters area. That has been a good development. Their evaluation of the past two years of employment zones shows that more than 17,000 jobs have been created in the 15 zones around the country—at no cost to the Government. Extension of employment zones is long overdue. As I am immediately adjacent to the Haringey

    587
    employment zone, where there are high levels of deep-seated unemployment, it is important that Enfield should be given some consideration when that happens.
    Finally, I want to talk about the levels of deprivation and poverty in my area. As I said earlier, the gross weekly wage in the neighbourhood renewal area is around £294 per week, but in the most deprived ward it is as low as £218. If one compares that with Northumberland Park, at £228, or the new deal for communities area, at £239, one realises that the area is very deprived. Thirty per cent. of local people are on housing benefit and 23 per cent. are on income support. One in three people find it extremely difficult to cope on their income.
    We have to deal with the multiple problems of deprivation that my constituents face. To do that, we need a range of different programmes—a strengthened neighbourhood renewal process, a neighbourhood management pathfinder to link into the community to involve and mobilise it to support what we are trying to achieve, and, perhaps most importantly, an extended employment zone.
    Taking forward the neighbourhood renewal objectives is a laudable aim that I wholeheartedly support, but we can achieve the major objective of bringing the 10 per cent. who are most deprived up to the average only by targeting investment and support at the most deprived communities.
    2.47 pm
    The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I begin by warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on his success in securing the debate, and on the cogent and thorough way in which he advanced his arguments. I am delighted to he able to respond both as Minister for Social Exclusion and as the Member of Parliament for a neighbouring constituency.
    As my hon. Friend said, social exclusion covers a wide range of issues. The Government's social exclusion unit has carried out projects on subjects such as truancy and school exclusions, rough sleepers and teenage pregnancies. However, I shall concentrate on neighbourhood renewal.
    Edmonton suffers from many of the characteristics of the inner city, which were well described by my hon. Friend. The local neighbourhood renewal strategy identifies local people's key concerns as fear of crime, poor local environment, high unemployment, low incomes and poor access to health care. Those concerns perfectly reflect the linked problems that often combine to socially exclude individuals and communities. However, I know that my hon. Friend would agree that for many communities such as Edmonton, disadvantage is not their defining feature. There is another side to Edmonton. Despite its problems, it remains a vibrant, friendly and multicultural area with enormous potential. It also benefits from a strong and active local community. My hon. Friend was right to say that local buy-in is necessary for the initiatives and the neighbourhood renewal to succeed. That is crucial to the success of the neighbourhood renewal programmes that are happening in Edmonton now.
    As my hon. Friend said, Enfield, in which Edmonton falls, was identified by the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal as one of the 88 areas to receive
    588
    additional funding for regeneration. The community in Edmonton has embraced the new opportunities that the funding provides, but I accept that we have responsibilities, too.
    For more than 20 years, under-investment in areas such as Edmonton has meant that places with the most need often receive the worst services. We have witnessed the problems that poor services can store up—unemployment, disaffection, deteriorating environment, vandalism and crime. That is why, in 1997, the Prime Minister set up the social exclusion unit and established tackling social exclusion as a key priority for the Government.
    Eighteen months ago, the social exclusion unit published the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. That is now being taken forward by the neighbourhood renewal unit. It is a long-term strategy that aims to make postcode poverty a thing of the past, and to ensure that in 10 to 20 years, no one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live.
    The principle at the core of the strategy, and all our programmes to tackle social exclusion, is to make mainstream services work properly for everyone. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted that. We are pumping extra money—some further £43 million in total—into public services in the next three years. My priority is to make sure that that money helps those communities that need it most. That is why Departments are being measured on where they are doing well, not on the average. We have introduced floor targets—the minimum standard that every area in the country should reach—for, for example, health, education, crime and housing. "Floor targets" is a bureaucratic term for action that is incredibly exciting. They are the social equivalent of the minimum wage. For deprived communities, they will mean better schools, improved health care, safer streets and better housing. All sectors must work together to make sure that that happens.
    I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's remarks about Enfield's local strategic partnership. It has brought together the local authority, local businesses, the voluntary sector and community groups to provide new initiatives and services on crime, health, employment, housing, the environment, and education and skills training. Their draft neighbourhood renewal strategy outlines how the partnership will spend the £4.2 million Enfield has been allocated through the neighbourhood renewal fund.
    The national £900 million neighbourhood renewal fund was established by the Government to help local authorities and their partners improve core public services. They can spend the funding not only on their services, but on community groups and the services of providers such as the national health service. To achieve those challenging targets, all providers must ensure that they own the services that they want to provide. I know that that is important in the Enfield area, where access to primary health care is a concern. In Enfield, neighbourhood renewal funding is currently contributing to the Fit for Life programme at the Healthy Living centre.
    Further funding for neighbourhood renewal has been allocated to Enfield through the community empowerment fund—more than £300,000 for three years. Enfield Voluntary Action is now co-ordinating the development of the community empowerment network.

    589
    What else are we doing? Nearly £200,000 has been allocated to Enfield through the neighbourhood renewal community chest for the first two years. These were established by the Government to provide easily accessible small grants of between £50 and £5,000 to community groups. In Enfield, the Scarman trust administered awarding the grants in the first year, with the community empowerment network participating on the decision-making panel. So far the response has been encouraging. Edmonton has also developed its own regeneration projects. The Edmonton partnership initiative is a major scheme aimed at improving the local area, and all sections of the community are working together on it.
    We are currently working across government to ensure that the outcomes of the spending review continue to support the aims of neighbourhood renewal funding. My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the outcome of the review, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be making an announcement in due course.
    I understand the disappointment that the people of Edmonton felt at not being successful in their bid to be a neighbourhood management pathfinder in the first round. We will be considering whether there should be a second pathfinder round, and what form it should take. I understand my hon. Friend's comments on that matter.
    I am also aware that unemployment is a significant problem in Edmonton, with nearly 70 per cent. of the population receiving some form of benefit. Running alongside the new deal, employment zones are one of the initiatives that the Government are testing to tackle long-term unemployment. Between April 2000 and the end of February 2002, they helped more than 22,000 people into work.
    My hon. Friend is right to talk about the success of what has happened in Haringey. The employment zone there has been performing particularly well. In the first year of its operation, 55 per cent. of the jobseekers in the zone found work, of whom more than 80 per cent. were still in employment after 13 weeks. Decisions on the future development of employment zones will be made in the light of emerging evaluation findings. We expect initial results to become available in December 2002.
    We should also applaud the good work that is already going on to help people in Edmonton find work. For example, the New Direction training centre is providing vocational training in road safety, communication skills and business start-up, to enable local people to become self-employed. The technology centre is supporting new and existing community and micro-businesses owned or managed by women, and the Enfield Employment Network is delivering projects targeting individuals and—very importantly—building links with local employers. The New Direction training centre is also attracting people into the copywriting and design business in the Paper Project. There are, therefore, important things going on.
    590
    My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the importance of capacity building, and I absolutely agree with what he said. There is a vital role to be played by the regional development agencies in tackling unemployment and supporting local economies through the local strategic partnerships. As part of the 2000 spending review, regional development agencies were given an expanded role as strategic drivers of regional economic development, and they will benefit from a larger and more flexible budget of around £500 million more per year by 2003–04.
    The Government's approach—giving communities the opportunity to set their own priorities and the support to develop their own initiatives—represents a fundamental change. I say frankly to my hon. Friend that I recognise that these new ways of working have inevitably led to some stresses and strains, especially over shared decision making with community groups, and over local priorities and their financing. I am sure he would agree that "partnership" is an extremely easy word to use, but it requires a great deal of time and effort to make it work.
    I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about the number of area-based initiatives. That matter has been brought to the Government's attention and we are looking closely at it. The Government's regional co-ordination unit is carrying out a review of area-based initiatives, which aims to tackle the problems of variety and complexity that my hon. Friend mentioned, and improve the way in which they interact with other local activity.
    It is important that the local strategic partnerships work well and have a role that is understood by everybody and that seeks to knit some of those issues together. It is absolutely right that the Enfield local strategic partnership is now emerging as a key player in the regeneration of the area. I wish it all the best and look forward to seeing it go from strength to strength.
    What emerged very clearly from my hon. Friend's speech is that strong leadership at all levels is absolutely necessary. I know that he never misses an opportunity vigorously to put the case for Edmonton, and the potential exists for that community to move forward. We must develop local people's skills by building on those that they already have but, importantly, by building on their confidence. I was struck by the survey figures that my hon. Friend gave the House at the beginning of his speech.
    These communities need the confidence to break the cycle of deprivation in their neighbourhoods, and the only way that they can do that is by having initiatives of this kind, which are not led at the top but driven by local communities and local people. I feel absolutely sure that, with my hon. Friend's leadership, his community will succeed.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Tram and Light Rail Schemes
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on pollution of(a) buses and (b) light rail schemes. [62812]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent studies his Department has carried out to establish the environmental impact of tram and light rail systems; [62871]

  (2) what recent studies his Department has undertaken to establish the impact of tram and light rail systems on crime figures. [62881]

  Mr. Spellar
  The studies below include some assessment of the environmental impact of tram and light rail systems.

  Light Rail and Complementary Measures (Part 1). (Environmental and Transport Planning, 1998).

  Light Rail and Complementary Measures (Part 2). (M VA, 2001.)

  The Department's framework for the appraisal of individual major local transport schemes includes environment and safety among the five overarching objectives which are considered.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation his Department has made of the impact of(a) tram and light rail schemes and (b) bus routes on social exclusion. [62794]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Social Exclusion Unit's interim report,Making the Connections: transport and social exclusion, looks at the ways in which transport problems can reinforce social exclusion. It concluded that bus services have a particularly important role to play in tackling these. When we consider proposals for major schemes in Local Transport Plans, we take into account their likely impacts on access to the transport system and on different social groups. These can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on tram and light rail schemes from(a) passenger transport authorities, (b) passenger groups, (c) trade manufacturing organisations and (d) trades unions during the last 12 months. [62808]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which local authorities have been consulted on tram and light rail proposals over the last five years; [62864]
  574W
  (2) how many local authorities have sought guidance from his Department on tram and light rail systems. [62865]

  Mr. Spellar
  No records are kept listing all such representations and contacts. However, in the last three years my officials have met local authorities responsible for the Local Transport Plans covering all six Passenger Transport Authorities and the other plan areas listed below to discuss tram and light rail systems.

  Blackpool;

  Bristol;

  Central Leicestershire;

  Greater Nottingham;

  Hampshire;

  Kingston-upon-Hull;

  Lancashire;

  Portsmouth;

  Reading;

  South Gloucestershire; and

  Tees Valley.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how often during the last five years the Council of Ministers discussed tram and light rail systems; [62890]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the development of tram and light rail systems. [62887]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department does not keep records of all such discussions. However, light rail systems have been discussed on a number of occasions in the context of the European Commission's proposal of 26 July 2000 for a Regulation concerning public service requirements and the award of public service contracts in passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterway.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research his Department has carried out on engineering developments for tram and light rail systems; [62882]

  (2) what consideration he has given to the use of tram and light rail infrastructure as part of the European Electronic Railway under the RECITE-II Programme. [62888]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) who is responsible for the regulation of tram and light rail systems; [62861]

  (2) how many non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible have a locus in the development of tram and light rail systems. [62859]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for the regulation of tram and light rail systems. Tram drivers must also comply with certain highways legislation, enforced by the police.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions since 1997 tram and light rail systems have been discussed with other departments as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. [62884]
  575W
  Mr. Spellar
  Light rail systems will have been mentioned from time to time during the discussions with colleagues across Government which take place during spending reviews. No records exist of the number of such occasions.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many qualified tram and light rail drivers there are in the United Kingdom. [62867]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department does not hold this information. Figures for the number of drivers and on-vehicle staff employed on each system are below.

  Number

  Manchester Metrolink

  133

  Sheffield Supertram

  160

  Midland Metro

  91

  Tyne and Wear Metro

  242

  Docklands Light Railway

  200

  Croydon Tramlink

  90

  Blackpool Tramway

  35

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants within his Department work on tram and light rail systems' policy. [62866]

  Mr. Spellar
  Policy on major public transport schemes, including light rail, in Local Transport Plans is handled by a team of three staff. Other colleagues, including specialist economists and lawyers, assist as required.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many proposals there have been for tram and light rail systems which his Department has rejected; and if he will list them. [62860]

  Mr. Spellar
  New arrangements were introduced with the inception of Local Transport Plans in 1999. Proposals for new tram and light rail schemes normally need Transport and Works Act powers. If funding from my Department is essential for the project to proceed, promoters should seek a provisional view from my Department on whether the scheme passes the Government's appraisal tests which are used to decide whether a project is eligible for funding before seeking powers. Since the start of these arrangements, two light rail lines (Midland Metro extensions to Birmingham city centre and to Brierley Hill) have received a positive provisional view, a number of others are under consideration, and none have yet been given a negative provisional view.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those tram and light rail systems visited by ministers over the last five years in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) overseas. [62870]

  Mr. Spellar
  All seven tram and light rail systems in the United Kingdom, as listed below, have been visited by Ministers over the last five years. No information is available on visits to systems overseas.

  Blackpool Tramway

  Manchester Metrolink

  576W

  Sheffield Supertram

  Midland Metro

  Tyne and Wear Metro

  Docklands Light Railway

  Croydon Tramlink

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times he has met with(a) the Environment Minister and (b) the Housing Minister to establish the impact of tram and light rail systems on their policy evaluation. [62886]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. However, the appraisal of tram and light rail systems takes account of five over-arching objectives: environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration (including the extent of integration with land use and other government policies).

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which manufacturers of components of tram and light rail systems have been consulted in drawing up departmental policy on tram and light rail systems. [62883]

  Mr. Spellar
  Departmental policy on tram and light rail systems is set out in the 10 Year Plan, published in July 2000. In preparing the Plan we took account of the large number of comments we received from consultees and a wide range of other stakeholders on the Integrated Transport White Paper, published in July 1998.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statistics he collates on the number of tram and light rail systems in each state in the European Union. [62889]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. This information is published annually in Jane's Urban Transport Systems.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what qualifications are required to drive a(a) tram and (b) light rail train. [62868]

  Mr. Spellar
  A category 'B' Motor Vehicle driving license (Driving License Regulations, 1987) is the required qualification.

  Road User Charging Schemes
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list recent Government commissioned studies which have made recommendations for road user charging schemes; and if he will make a statement. [62880]

  Mr. Spellar
  Consultants for four Multi-Modal Studies have recommended in their Final Reports that consideration be given to the future introduction of road user charging schemes. These are the West Midlands Area MMS, West Midlands to North West MMS, North/South Movements in the East Midlands MMS and London to South West and South Wales MMS. The Final Reports are now with the respective Regional Planning Bodies who will make recommendations to Ministers. In addition the consultants carrying out the ORBIT (M25 Corridor) MMS have made provisional recommendations which include road user charging proposals.

  Given the practical considerations, we do not believe that a system of inter-urban road user charging for cars could be introduced this decade; accordingly the

  577W
  Government has no plans to do so. However, this is a subject where further work and research is needed and we will revisit it when sufficient progress has been made in clarifying the technical and practical issues involved. In the meantime, we note the arguments put forward both for and against inter-urban charging and are listening to the debate.

  Traffic Lights
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the bodies responsible for the maintenance and control of traffic lights in each area of the United Kingdom, including a brief description of their(a) function and (b) statutory duties. [62873]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Statutory responsibility for traffic lights in England rests with the relevant traffic authority. This will be a County Council, Metropolitan District Council, or a Unitary Authority. In London, Transport for London is the traffic authority for strategic routes, London Boroughs for all other roads. However, Transport for London control all traffic lights within the London area, regardless of whether they are the traffic authority for the roads at the junction. The Highways Agency is responsible for trunk roads.

  Similar arrangements apply in Scotland and Wales. The Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government are responsible for trunk roads in Scotland and Wales. Local Authorities in Scotland and Unitary Authorities in Wales are responsible for other roads.

  In Northern Ireland, the Department for Regional Development is responsible for all roads.

  The function and duties of traffic authorities are set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 84). In the present context the authorities' general duty is
  "to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians)".
  Specific duties in relation to traffic signals are covered in Part V of the RTRA 84 and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994.

  Airport (Severn Site)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Severn Side site in Monmouth will be included as an option for a new airport in the consultation document for the airport white paper. [63150]

  Mr. Spellar
  In advance of the consultation, I do not intend to comment on the status of any specific options as releasing information at this stage could result in unnecessary blight as well as multiplying uncertainty and anxiety. This approach is consistent with my Department's Coe of Practice on the Dissemination of Information during Major Infrastructure Developments.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the outcome was of the Transport Council meeting on 17 June; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [63142]
  578W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Transport Council was held on 17 June in Luxembourg. I represented the UK.

  I was pleased to see the adoption by the Council of two directives on passenger vessel safety. The first of these requires compliance by 2015 by all Member States with the higher standards of damage stability for ro-ro passenger ships engaged on international voyages already introduced following the Estonia disaster by eight EU countries, including the UK (the "Stockholm Agreement"). These requirements are complementary to the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) standard, aimed at increasing the survivability of damaged ro-ro vessels. The very large majority of UK ro-ro ferries have already been altered to comply with the Stockholm standard and those few remaining will be altered as necessary before the deadline of September 2002.

  The second directive on safety of passenger ships makes a number of technical amendments to the existing Directive 98/18. I would particularly draw attention to provisions bringing into Community law the IMO rules and standards on High Speed Craft and placing a duty on Member States to encourage owners to improve accessibility to their ships for people with limited mobility.

  The Council reached agreement on a Directive to open the market for the provision of services, including cargo handling and pilotage, in large and medium-sized ports. For service contracts, there will be maximum durations of 10, 15 and 36 years (plus a possible further 10 years), respectively, for services with no significant investment, services with significant investment in movable assets, and services with significant investment in immovable assets. In addition, I argued successfully for a 40 year period for new ports in the future. The agreed text includes a number of other significant changes, which meet many of the concerns we have had on the Commission's original proposals including protecting working conditions for port workers. The Commission said it would come forward with guidelines as soon as possible to address the important issue of competition between ports.

  The Council did not reach agreement on a Regulation establishing a programme (the Marco Polo programme) to succeed the PACT programme for the promotion of combined transport. The Marco Polo programme would offer Community financial support for modal shift projects, with a budget of € 85 million and various thresholds for different types of eligible project. I joined other Member States in arguing that there should be a reduced budget.

  The Commission reported on the need for further action in Europe in the field of maritime security. This would be principally within the framework of the IMO.

  The Council was unable to agree Conclusions on the Commission's transport White Paper of September 2001, which proposes a range of measures to address significant issues such as congestion, safety and the environmental impact of transport. During the debate I was one of a number of Ministers to reject any reference in the Conclusions to tax harmonisation. I also referred to the need to update the existing Eurovignette Directive,

  579W
  to allow Member States to proceed with implementing distance-based charging schemes. Following the debate, the Presidency issued Conclusions.

  The Council did not agree a common position on amendment of the Trans European Network Guidelines. Discussion centred principally on the new list of priority projects. More work will be done on this in preparation for consideration by Ministers during the Danish Presidency.

  The Commission presented a proposal for Community accession to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the IMO. It will be seeking a mandate from the Council to negotiate with these organisations.

  The Council reached agreement on a decision agreeing Community accession to the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol), the pan-European body co-ordinating air traffic management. The agreement is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny reservations being lifted.

  There were Presidency Conclusions noting the large degree of support among Member States for the Single European Sky and the agreement of Member States to make progress by 2004 in line with the Conclusions of the Barcelona European Council. The Conclusions also noted the importance of Eurocontrol in the process.

  The Council unanimously adopted a common position on a Directive on occurrence reporting in civil aviation, establishing a common framework for dealing with safety-related incidents. There was agreement on a draft Regulation requiring Member States to provide aviation statistical returns.

  The Commission presented a proposal on subsidy and unfair pricing by third country airlines, noting that some third countries had offered substantial financial support to their airlines, which had an impact on Community carriers.

  The Presidency reported on discussions over lunch about aviation war-risk insurance. The Council believed that State intervention should be limited, to avoid market restriction, but that possible mutualisation schemes should be examined.

  The Council reached agreement on a Directive tightening existing Community legislation on seat belt wearing. A compromise was reached on an exemption for school buses, which will last for five years. We have some concern at the lack of respect for subsidiarity in this proposal and this was made clear to the Council. In our view, it is appropriate to have a broad framework at EU level, leaving details of implementation to Member States.

  The Council did not reach agreement on a regulation on ecopoints for the transit of HGVs through Austria. This would have allowed extension of the ecopoint system beyond the current expiry date of 31 December 2003, but not beyond 2006, pending the forthcoming adoption of legislation on EU-wide infrastructure charging. The Commission concluded that in 2004 the Ecopoint system would finish. The Presidency hoped that imminent high level discussions among key Member States would lead to a solution of the problem of Alpine transit.
  580W
  No formal votes were taken at this Council.

  Freight Transport
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for promoting the shift of freight transport from road to rail in the West Midlands to Manchester Midman Transport Corridor. [63160]

  Mr. Spellar
  The West Midlands to North West Conurbation (MIDMAN) Multi Modal study has considered the shift of freight from road to rail. The Study Final Report was published on 3 May 2002. Both the West Midlands Local Government Association and North West Regional Assembly are currently considering the Report and will make recommendations to the Secretary of State in due course. As with all rail aspects of this study, they will need to take account of the ongoing discussions on the West Coast Main Line.

  Channel Tunnel (Rail Freight)
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting held on 30 May between the UK Government, French Government and European Commission to discuss the disruption of rail freight services through the Channel Tunnel. [63379]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government thanked the Commission for its previous initiatives under the Free Movement of Goods Regulation. At the meeting, the French Government provided a timetable for improved security measures, to be completed in November. The UK Government pressed the French to look carefully at how they could accelerate it.

  We have expressed our willingness in principle to help in any way we can. In particular we are willing to provide specialist detection equipment. Close bilateral contacts between UK and France continue.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek compensation in respect of the cancellation of EWS services through the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement. [63186]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]: It would not be appropriate to seek compensation from the European Union for disruptions to EWS services caused by restrictions imposed by SNCF. Freight operators can seek to enforce EU law on the free movement of goods in the French courts, and this could include a claim for losses caused by the breach of that law.

  We continue to press the French Government to consider carefully how the programme of further security improvements at Fréthun, due to be completed in November, might be accelerated.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects EWS services to be restarted in the Channel Tunnel. [63187]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]: EWS services through the Channel Tunnel have continued to run, albeit at a greatly reduced level. The French authorities have put in hand a programme of further security improvements, which are due to be completed in November. We are pressing the French to consider

  581W
  carefully how this might be accelerated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has asked the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss urgently with the chairman of SNCF how the earliest possible return to normal train services could be achieved.

  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the French Government in respect of restoring the free movement of exports by rail through the Channel Tunnel. [63663]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have written to the new French Transport Minister and Transport Secretary emphasising the need to ensure a rapid restoration of full rail freight services through the Channel Tunnel. I met the French Transport Minister, Gilles de Robien, on 17 June and discussed this issue with him. The French authorities have put in hand a programme of further security improvements, which are due to be completed in November. We are pressing the French to consider carefully how this might be accelerated.

  Rural Transport Network
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the rural transport network by providing extra funding. [63530]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Rural White Paper published in November 2000 announced that £239 million will be specifically made available for rural transport in England for the three year period 2001–02 to 2003–04, a 54 per cent. increase in funding relative to the previous three year period 1998–99 to 2000–01. Funding levels for future years beyond 2003–04 will be decided following the outcome of the 2002 Spending Review.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects Railtrack to come out of administration; and if he will make a statement. [61155]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Grayling) on 15 May 2002,Official Report, column 678W.

  National Insurance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) the rail industry and (b) the bus industry of the planned one per cent. increase in employers' national insurance contributions. [63767]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Andrew Turner) on Monday 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 544W.

  International Maritime Organisation
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the discussions since 15 May in the International Maritime Organisation regarding maritime security. [63109]
  582W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Maritime Safety Committee of the International Maritime Organisation in its meeting from 15 to 24 May defined the draft text of binding amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention. These provide for a coherent basis of security planning for international ships and ports, for approval and inspection arrangements, and for the installation of ship-tracking equipment. The drafts will be submitted for agreement at the Diplomatic Conference announced for December 2002, for which preparations continue at the international and European level.

  The Committee also approved proposals for co-operation between the International Maritime Organisation and other international organisations to progress related improvements in maritime security.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  India and Pakistan
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid has been given to(a)India and (b)Pakistan in the last 12 months. [62710]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]:DFID's bilateral disbursements to India and Pakistan for financial year 2001–02 (the most recent period for which figures are available) totalled £180 million and £43 million respectively. These figures do not include significant UK contributions through multilateral agencies. Comprehensive UK figures will be published in the autumn.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what food supplies have recently been sent to Kashmir. [62707]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: We continue to closely monitor the situation in Kashmir. State Governments continue to provide food and other assistance to vulnerable groups. To date, there has been no request for assistance to Kashmir, although we stand ready to respond as a need arises.

  Debt Cancellation
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress towards accelerating the debt cancellation programme under the HIPC process. [62960]

  Clare Short
  So far, 26 countries have qualified for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Relief of more than US$62 billion will be provided to these countries, reducing their debts by more than two thirds on average. Of the 26 countries, 21 have reached Decision Point and are receiving interim debt relief on their "flow" of payment, and five have completed the HIPC process, and have received an irrevocable reduction in their stock of debt. We expect Cote d'Ivoire to reach Decision Point soon and hope that more countries will reach their Completion Point this year. The prospects of the remaining 10 countries
  583W
  with unsustainable debt are not good. Most of them are in conflict and cannot gain debt relief until they make peace, and the remainder have governance problems.

  Air Traffic Control System (Tanzania)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether she has received a copy of the International Civil Aviation Organisation's full report on the suitability of the air traffic control system that BAE Systems has sold to the Tanzanian Government; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [63687]

  Clare Short
  I have seen a copy of the report but it is the property of the Government of Tanzania and thus it is not appropriate for me to copy it to others.

  Afghanistan
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of moneys are channelled through ((a) her Department's projects, (b) NGO projects, (c) UN projects and (d) the interim administration for the reconstruction of Afghanistan. [61760]

  Clare Short
  Of the moneys disbursed since 11 September on humanitarian, recovery and reconstruction activities, about 6 per cent. has been channelled through DFID's programme of quick-impact projects; about 23 per cent. through international organisations and NGOs; and about 63 per cent. through UN agencies. No money has been directly channelled through the Interim Administration, but about 8 per cent. has been contributed to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which has been set up to fund the recurrent costs of the Transitional Administration as well as investment programmes.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the performance of donor countries which attended the UN Conference in Tokyo in January has been in terms of meeting individual financial pledges and the corresponding levels of financial investment to Afghanistan reconstruction projects. [61759]

  Clare Short
  Contributions are now starting to arrive in the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which has been set up to fund investment programmes and the recurrent costs of the Transitional Administration. The UK was the first to contribute. In all, the World Bank expects to receive $100 million from donors in the first wave of donations.

  A number of reconstruction programmes have been approved. We do not have an exhaustive list, but the World Bank alone has recently approved a $10 million Emergency Public Administration Project, a $15 million Emergency Education Rehabilitation and Development Project, and a $42 million Emergency Community Empowerment and Public Works Project. EC projects include support to the Interim Authority (€20 million), urban infrastructure (€7 million), rural development (€28 million), demining (€10 million) and refugee reintegration and community support (€22 million). The Asian Development Bank has approved a $14.5 million programme of technical assistance to build capacity for reconstruction and development. Other programmes are in the pipeline.
  584W
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development with regard to education programmes in Afghanistan, what moneys(a)her Department has pledged, (b)her Department has delivered, (c)other G8 countries have pledged and (d)other G8 countries have delivered. [61763]

  Clare Short
  At the Tokyo Conference in January, international donors pledged funds for the overall reconstruction of Afghanistan, including humanitarian programmes. Pledges were not broken down by sector. The UK pledge was to commit £200 million over five years, on top of the £60 million already committed since September 2001.

  The UK strategy in Afghanistan is to contribute directly to UN agencies and NGOs and to channel assistance via the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF), which has been established to allow donor to finance investment programmes in all sectors, including education. We have made an initial contribution of £5 million to the ARTF. Since September 2001, my Department has also contributed £8 million to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), £2 million of which was specifically for the Back-to-School Campaign in Afghanistan. My Department also continues to support UNICEF and other humanitarian agencies to provide education services to Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran. We are currently considering what further support to provide in the education sector.

  G8 nations have not pledged specific amounts for the education sector, but are currently thinking through their strategies in all areas (including education). A multi-donor mission, led by the Asian Development Bank, has scoped the requirements for a framework of assistance to the sector, but work is still at the design rather than the delivery stage.

TREASURY

  Spending Review
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce the date of the Spending Review. [62020]

  Mr. Boateng
  The conclusions of the 2002 Spending Review will be announced before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he will(a)announce the result of the Spending Review 2002 and (b)publish his Department's Annual report; and if he will make a statement. [59676]

  Mr. Boateng
  The conclusions of the 2002 Spending Review will be announced before the House rises for the summer recess. The Treasury's Departmental Report was published on 10 June.

  Marginal Deduction Rates
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 May 2002,Official Report,

  585W
  columns 882–83W, on the Budget Red Book, if he will provide comparable marginal deduction rate figures for individuals. [56466]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table below shows estimates of the number of individuals facing marginal deduction rates (MDRs) in excess of 40 per cent.

  Cumulative number of individuals facing MDRs in excess of 40 per cent.

  Figures in thousands

  Marginal Deduction Rate

  Before Budget 1998

  2002–03 system of tax and benefits

  After the introduction of NTCs

  Over 100‥

  10

  0

  0

  Over 90‥

  190

  90

  90

  Over 80‥

  450

  340

  290

  Over 70‥

  1,140

  390

  390

  Over 60‥

  1,180

  1,140

  1,750

  Over 50‥

  1,180

  1,825

  2,000

  Over 40‥

  1,240

  1,875

  2,275

  The figures in the table cover the number of individuals in households in receipt of either income-related benefits or the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), or new tax credits from April 2003, where at least one person works 16 hours or more. The effects of income tax and National Insurance Contributions, and the withdrawal of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit have also been included.

  The effect of tax and benefit changes introduced since Budget 1998, including WFTC, reduced the number of individuals in households facing MDRs in excess of 70 per cent. by around three-quarters of a million. As WFTC is more generous than the Family Credit that it replaced, more individuals in households benefit from it, hence the larger numbers facing MDRs over 40 and 50 per cent. in 2002–03.

  Building on the success of WFTC, the Government will be introducing the Child and Working Tax Credits from April 2003. As the new tax credits will be more generous and inclusive than the current system of support, significantly more households will be eligible, and those currently eligible will receive more, hence a greater number will face MDRs over 40 and 50 per cent. from 2003–04.

  Public Service Monitoring
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place the underlying data used for the scorecard approach to monitoring public services value for money in Table 3.16 of HM Treasury's Annual report, (Cm 5425) in the Library. [63211]

  Mr. Boateng
  The scorecard is based on departmental progress against value for money PSA targets. Departments report progress against their PSA targets in their departmental reports, copies of which are placed in the Library.

  Wanless Report
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 June 2002,Official Report,column 5437W, on the recommendations of the Wanless report, which
  586W
  passages of the Chancellor's Budget Statement of 17 April addressed the recommendation of the Wanless report on the need for a study of the trends affecting social care. [63378]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor's Budget Statement and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report made a number of announcements in relation to health and social services which addressed the recommendations of the Wanless Report. The Government do not plan to commission a further study.

  EU Economy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his assessment is of the extent to which(a)each EU Government have made their labour markets more successful at adapting to structural economic change and (b)the EU economy has improved its ability to create jobs and respond to structural change. [63368]

  Ruth Kelly
  The progress of reform of EU labour, product and capital markets to increase employment and raise sustainable growth is examined in the Government's White Paper "Releasing Europe's Potential—Economic Reform in Europe", published in February of this year.

  Pension Liabilities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 April 2002, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Davidson),Official Report,column 92W, on pension liabilities, if he will list the liabilities of the UK Government to unfunded public service pension schemes broken down by pension scheme; and what assessment he has made of the proportion of the rise in liabilities in recent years due to (a)wage inflation, (b)longevity, (c)extension of the rights of part time workers and (d)other factors; and if he will make a statement. [63205]

  Mr. Boateng
  For the main unfunded schemes' liabilities as at 31 March 2001 I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 12 June,Official Report,columns 1290–91W. There is an underlying increase in the cash values of about 13 per cent. since March 1998. Precise figures are not available for the proportion of the overall rise which is due to the factors specified, but well over half is the result of inflation and most of the rest is due to earnings growth.

  National Savings Investments Chief Executive
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are being made for appointing a new National Savings Investment Chief Executive. [64441]

  Ruth Kelly
  Following an open competition, Alan Cook has been selected as the new Agency Chief Executive. Mr Cook is currently Chief Operating Officer at Prudential. This appointment is subject to the usual pre-appointment checks.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases were referred by the London Stock
  587W
  Exchange or other agencies for possible action under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 in each year from 1995–96; in how many cases inspectors were appointed; in how many cases inspectors reported; how many convictions were achieved; and how many acquittals were made, in each year prior to the implementation of the Financial services and Markets Act 2000. [62025]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information about references from the London Stock Exchange, the number of inspections carried out and convictions obtained is set out in the Companies Annual Report which is published each year and it is hoped to be available before the summer recess.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in her Department in(a)1997–98 and (b)2001–02. [60946]

  Mr. Caborn
  The total cost of ministerial salaries in 1997–98 (excluding severance payments) was £134,236. This reflects the changes made to the ministerial team at the then Department for National Heritage following the 1997 General Election, which were:

  April 1997

  Secretary of State

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Lords)

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons)

  May 1997

  Secretary of State

  Minister of State (Commons)

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons)

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons)

  For 2001–02 the salary cost of Ministers (excluding severance payments) was £219,772. Again, this reflects the changes made to the DCMS ministerial team folowing the 2001 General Election, which were:

  May 2001

  Secretary of State

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons)

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons)

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons)

  June 2001

  Secretary of State

  Minister of State (Lords)

  Minister of State (Commons)

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons)

  Bilateral Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when Ministers in her Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 June 2000; when and where each meeting took place; which ministers were involved in each meeting; which Irish 588W
  Government departments were involved in each meeting; and which Ministers and officials from the Irish Government attended each meeting. [63068]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS Ministers regularly meet their Irish counterparts at EU Ministerial meetings and EU Culture and Audiovisual Council Meetings.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) attended a lunch at the British Council in honour of the Irish President on 30 November 2000 and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts met the Irish Prime Minister at the Parliamentary Buildings in Dublin on 3 December 2001 to discuss the 2002 Irish Special Olympics.

  Community Arts (Stroud)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the help available for community arts in the Stroud area. [62993]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]:Funding for the arts is a matter for the Arts Council of England and its regional offices. South West Arts, which incorporates Stroud, currently distributes over £9 million a year to help support the arts and increase opportunities for audiences across the region. It also works with local authorities in the development and delivery of arts and cultural activity at a community level and support for community arts is available through both revenue and lottery funds subject to certain criteria being met.

  Olympic Games
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was of producing Arup's report on a possible UK bid for the 2012 Olympic Games. [63349]

  Mr. Caborn
  We do not yet know the final cost of Arup's work. As soon as this information is known I will write to the hon. Member, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department will publish Arup's report on a possible UK bid for the 2012 Olympic Games. [63350]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department, together with other key stakeholders, is considering the implications of the Arup cost-benefit analysis of bidding for the 2012 Olympic Games in London. We aim to publish the report in the Autumn.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Credits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will republish the table in the Official Report,12 June 2000, column 464W, to include data for 2000–01 and 2001–02. [60410]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following table details Claims Paid, Premium Earned and Claims Recovered in respect of ECGD's support for defence related business in each of
  589W
  the last eleven Financial Years. The cost of interest rate support has been estimated on the proportion of ECGD credit business constituted by defence related business.

  Information on amounts received through Paris Club rescheduling agreements has not been included as it is not held on a sectoral basis and this cannot be readily determined. It is likely that taking account of these amounts would improve the position in respect of defense business cashflow.

  The data for 2001–2002 are currently being audited. I will arrange for the Chief Executive of ECGD to write to my hon. Friend as soon as these figures become available.

  Year

  Premium Earned £ million

  Claims Paid £ million

  Estimate of Interest Rate Support £ million

  Claims Recovered £ million

  1990–91

  16

  79

  81

  3

  1991–92

  11

  79

  2

  24

  1992–93

  44

  94

  26

  21

  1993–94

  38

  83

  -7

  9

  1994–95

  16

  92

  -1

  17

  1995–96

  23

  90

  2

  28

  1996–97

  8

  50

  1

  2

  1997–98

  12

  39

  4

  3

  1998–99

  18

  31

  3

  6

  1999–2000

  27

  152

  1

  9

  2000–01

  38

  181

  4

  0

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the provision of export credits for military equipment. [62706]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]:I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to him on 4 December 2001, Official Report,column 145W.

  Furniture Safety
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to review the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988. [60783]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Over the last year the Department has consulted with a wide range of interested parties about the effectiveness of the Regulations. I have looked carefully at the results of the consultation.

  The most important point to emerge is that more needs to be done to stop potentially dangerous items of furniture being placed on the UK market.

  Overall, the Regulations are well-established and fit for purpose and set the high safety requirements that are needed to protect consumers. They have saved hundreds of lives since they were introduced.

  I have therefore concluded that although a revision of the Regulations might bring about some small technical improvements, it is not the most effective way of maintaining the necessary high level of consumer protection. Instead, I want to focus on improving the enforcement of the Regulations. I will therefore be meeting with the enforcement authorities, industry
  590W
  representatives and others shortly to agree what action is needed and to identify what the department can do to help.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate she has made of the number of incidences of pieces of furniture being sold in the UK which are non-compliant under the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988; [60784]

  (2) what action she is taking to remove the potential harm presented by the supply of furniture that is in non-compliance with the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 (as amended). [60782]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Records of instances of sales of non-compliant furniture under the Regulations are not held centrally.

  However, I am concerned at recent reports that non-compliant furniture is being sold in the UK. I will shortly be meeting with representatives of Trading Standards Departments, the furniture industry and other interested parties to discuss the identified problems with non-compliance and to consider what needs to be done in order to ensure that consumers are properly protected and that all those who market furniture in the UK are competing on a level playing field.

  Arms Exports
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much in export credit guarantees has been made available in support of military exports; and how much aid has been given to African countries, since June 2001. [62161]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since June 2001, ECGD has provided support with a value of £7.2 million in respect of one defence related case in Africa.

  Figures for aid are produced by the Department for International Development. The information for the financial year 2001–02 is currently being audited and will appear in the 2002 edition of Statistics on International Development which is due for publication this Autumn.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total is of export credit guarantees granted for defence-related sales to(a)Pakistan and (b)India in each of the last five years. [62035]

  Ms Hewitt
  No ECGD support for defence exports to Pakistan was provided in the last five years. One defence related guarantee was provided to India in 1998, with a value of £14 million.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export licences have been granted since 2 May 1997 for the export of technical packages or upgrade packages for the production of sub-machine guns to(a)Pakistan, (b)Turkey, (c) Switzerland, (d)Iran and (e)Saudi Arabia. [62018]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The export of technical packages and upgrade packages for the production of sub-machine guns is controlled under entries ML1, ML16, ML18, ML21, ML22 and PL5017 in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended.
  591W
  Details of all export licences issued since 2 May 1997, including any for technical packages and upgrade packages for the production of sub-machine guns, are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Annual Reports are available from the Libraries of the House. The 2001 Annual Report will be published soon.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on how the Government intend to address offshore arms trading through the mechanisms of the Export Control Bill. [62556]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government have stated that they will use the new powers in the Export Control Bill to introduce extra-territorial controls on trade in controlled goods to embargoed destinations, trade in equipment the export of which has already been banned because of evidence of its use in torture, and trade in long-range missiles.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she takes to monitor and collate information on the pay of 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland. [62154]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the pay and hours of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland is available form the annual New Earnings Survey. The latest data available, obtained from the Office for National Statistics for April 2001, show that gross average weekly pay for 16–17 year old full-time employees in Scotland was £156.20.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on evidence she has collated of substitution of employees for 16 and 17–year-olds following introduction of the national minimum wage in Scotland. [62153]

  Alan Johnson
  There is no evidence to suggest that there has been substitution of 16–17-year-olds for adults following the introduction of the national minimum wage in Scotland.

  According to the Labour Force Survey, published by the Office for National Statistics, the employment of 16–17-year-olds actually fell during a time when overall employment rose. The employment of 16–17-year-olds as a percentage of all in employment fell from 2.9 per cent. in spring 1998 to 2.4 per cent. in spring 2000.

  Coal Mining Industry
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid by the Government for the handling agreement for compensation claims from the coal mining industry. [62355]

  Mr. Wilson
  As of 21 June 2002, the Department has paid out over £870 million to claimants under the respiratory disease and vibration white figure compensation schemes.

  End of Life Vehicles
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce a last owner pays system for end of life vehicles; and if she will make a statement. [62045]

  Mr. Wilson
  We have consistently made clear our intention to implement the End of Life Vehicles Directive with a light regulatory touch and without disrupting the existing legitimate vehicle dismantling, shredding and recycling market.

  We will require vehicle manufacturers and importers to meet the costs of take-back and treatment of vehicles sold after 1 July 2002, as soon as regulations to that effect can be introduced. From 1 January 2007, vehicle manufacturers and importers will similarly become responsible for such costs for vehicles sold before 1 July 2002, in accordance with the terms of the Directive. This will ensure that a broadly level playing field is maintained with other main car-producing EU countries, such as France and Germany.

  The Directive require treatment facilities to meet new environmental standards when depolluting and dismantling ELVs. We intend to introduce these standards during 2003. The cost of depolluting and dismantling an ELV will offset, and may exceed, its scrap value, but this will depend upon a number of factors, including the age, marque, model and condition of the ELV, the prevailing value of scrap ferrous and non-ferrous metals and other materials at the time, and the efficiency of the treatment facility. Until 2007, and the introduction of producer responsibility for vehicles sold before 1 July 2002, "last owners" will continue to be responsible for the disposal of their vehicles, and will be free to negotiate their end-values with treatment facilities. Some ELVs will retain a positive value, and we would expect that new depollution and dismantling costs to be reflected in the market value of second-hand vehicles.

  Additional costs incurred by local authorities as a consequence of the transposition and implementation of the Directive would, under the "New Burdens" arrangements, fall to be met by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions in the last 12 months the requirement to engage in a competitive tendering process has been waived by her Department due to national security obligations under paragraph 6(h) of the supply regulations. [62822]

  Ms Hewitt
  There have not been any such occasions.

  Post Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 31 October 2001, on Post Office cash accounts, if she will make a statement on targets for accounts being operational. [62937]
  593W
  Mr. Timms
  Our operational assumption is that around 3 million benefit and tax credit recipients will open a card account at the Post Office, but there will be no cap on numbers on eligibility criteria for these accounts.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the forecast profit or loss for 2003 by the Post Office is, including extraordinary items. [63343]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 20 June 20021:Consignia indicated on 13 June that they expected trading losses to continue into 2002–03 at a similar level to 2001–02, with further exceptional items of around £500 million in the first half of the year.

  Rural Network Advisers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many rural network advisers there were for the Post Office on 31 March; and how many there are now. [62695]

  Mr. Timms
  I am informed by Post Office Limited that on 31 March 2002 there were 31 Rural Transfer Advisers, and that is the number now.

  Secondments
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people form organisations outside her Department have been seconded to start work in her Department since 1 January. [63094]

  Ms Hewitt
  Centrally held records show that 44 inward secondments have started between 1 January 2002 and 17 July 2002.

  Energy/Industry Council
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Energy/Industry Council of 6 and 7 June. [64324]

  Mr. Wilson
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Employment, Industry and the Regions represented the UK at the EU Industry Council held in Luxembourg on 6 June. I represented the UK at the EU Energy Council held on 7 June.

  Industry

  The Council held a round table debate on competitiveness and enterprise policy in the EU. This followed a Commission presentation of its Communication "Productivity: the key to competitiveness". All Member States agreed on the need for further steps to promote productivity, particularly in services, in order to meet the targets set in the Lisbon strategy. The important role of enterprise policy was noted, in particular: improving the regulatory environment, promoting entrepreneurship and enhancing competitiveness. The UK identified the key obstacles in services as being productivity underperformance by the sector, the lack of a true single market in services, the slow pace of technology diffusion, and rigidities in the labour markets.
  594W
  Council Conclusions were adopted on Competitiveness and on the e-Economy. The latter build on the Commission Communication "The Impact of the e-Economy on European Enterprises" aiming to lay foundations for a more strategic approach to EU policies and initiatives for e-business. The Presidency gave a short presentation about the Charter for Small and Medium sized Enterprises, underlining its importance as an area for the Council to focus on, and noting both the Barcelona Council Conclusions on the subject and the full discussion that had taken place at the informal Council of Ministers for Small and Medium sized Enterprises in Aranjuez in February.

  The Commission set out progress on the strategy for chemicals. The first phase of a business impact study was completed, and had been largely endorsed at a conference at the end of May. Costs for business would vary a great deal depending on the details of implementation. This led into a wider Council discussion on the contribution of sustainable development to enterprise policy, on which conclusions were adopted. All Member States saw a role for the Industry Council in looking at environmental dossiers with a big impact on competitiveness. The UK pointed to environmental liability and fluorinated gases as two important current examples. Effective co-ordination between industry and environment Departments in Member States was also important.

  The Commission reported on the action underway relating to the expiry of the ECSC Treaty and on the position in the steel market following the US safeguard action.

  The Presidency noted the progress towards the modernisation of competition law, and wished Denmark well in completing work during 2002, as agreed at the Barcelona Council. The Commission presented its thirty-first report on competition policy noting that 2001 had been a busy year for the Commission. A record 1.8 billion euro fines had been imposed on members of cartels.

  The Commission also presented the new state aid scoreboard, published on 23 May, to the Council. The document would help all concerned pursue the agreed objectives of reducing the re-orientating state aid.

  The Council adopted procedural conclusions on continuing work on Biotechnology with a view to adopting a roadmap of practical actions in due course.

  The Presidency reported the outcome of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Conference of Industry Ministers in Malaga on 9 and 10 April. This had focussed on a range of measures to open up and develop trade in the region with longer-term objective of establishing a Mediterranean Free Trade Area.

  The Commission presented the report from the G10 High-Level Working Party on medicinal products. This was the first such report to bring together public health and industry issues. It had sparked a number of public debates. The UK spoke in favour of the report. This was an important sector and the report's recommendations aimed at enhancing competitiveness needed to be actioned. Swedish and Spanish Ministers also spoke in support.
  595W
  The Council held an informal discussion over lunch on the new Block Exemption Proposal for motor vehicle sales and servicing.

  Possible changes were explored to the Commission's longstanding proposals to allow some state aid for shipbuilding contracts in areas where there is held to be unfair competition from Korea. The Commission remained of the view that this was needed to bolster the proposed WTO action against Korea, which all Member States support. The revised Commission proposal had reduced subsidy rates but over a longer time frame, and allowed for inclusion of Liquid Natural Gas carriers if market data for 2002 justified this. The UK and a number of other Member States maintained their opposition to a subsidy scheme and there was no qualified majority in support. The matter was referred back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives.

  Energy

  The Council considered several matters of interest to the United Kingdom. Energy liberalisation, a new coal state aid regulation and a Biofuels directive formed the main issues of discussion.

  The key point to emerge from discussion of coal state aid was the agreement reached on a new coal state aid regulation to replace the rules in force under the ECSC Treaty, which expires at the end of July. The regulation agreement would allow for operating, closure, investment and "exceptional cost" aid to phase out gradually by 2010, and provides for simple degressivity of the total volume of operating, closure and investment aid combined in each Member State, with an end date of 2007 for closure aid and 2010 for operating and investment aid. An investment aid provision sought by the UK has been included in the agreed text. Some Member States, regretting that the level of aid would not reduce significantly and continuously, asked the Commission to ensure that the Treaty's state aid articles were respected by Member States. The Commission will enter a declaration undertaking to ensure maximum vigilance in respect of those articles.

  No Presidency or Council conclusions were agreed on energy liberalisation. Member States maintained their positions on the key areas of public service obligations, unbundling, market opening and the rules governing market regulation. There was general agreement on the importance of the principle of public service obligations, particularly in respect of electricity, but disagreement on the details. Some Member States favoured a wide coverage applying to all final customers. Others, including the UK, preferred a narrower definition limited to households. Most Member States supported the inclusion of some form of labelling showing the sources from which electricity had been generated. A majority favoured legal unbundling of transmission and distribution from supply and production, though most also supported a rather high de minimis level. There was widespread support for the separation of the accounts of eligible from non-eligible customers. Most Member States expressed support for the list of duties of national regulators set out in Article 22 of the Presidency text. A progress report on cross-border exchanges in electricity was noted without discussion.
  596W
  On biofuels, the majority of Member States reiterated their opposition to mandatory targets. It was, however, agreed that the reference to possible proposals for mandatory targets in the review clause could stand, on the basis that a number of Member States supported the UK's declaration that they would not be bound to accept any such proposals. A few Member States expressed regret that the Council was rejecting the Commission's proposals for mandatory targets for use of fuels of agricultural origin for transport purposes, and that targets would now be indicative.

  General orientation on Trans-European Energy Networks (TENS) was agreed on the basis of a Presidency text. The UK lifted its reserve on the Commission's proposals to amend the energy TENS guidelines—all other reserves had been lifted previously. All Member States welcomed the proposal, but some questioned its financing aspects and in particular the raising of the Community's permissible financial contribution from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of total project costs.

  The Commission reported briefly on its recent efforts to persuade Russia to ratify the Energy Charter Treaty.

  The Commission introduced its new energy programme, "Intelligent Energy Programme for Europe", as a refocused version of the existing energy framework programme, which promotes more efficient and cleaner energy use. They said that the intention was to link the new programme to security of supply and the development of the single market. There would also be emphasis on environmental projects.

  The Commission emphasised the importance of security of energy supply and said that a paper for the Seville Council was almost finalised. The Commission argued that Member State responses to the Green Paper had shown the need for demand side measures and for a new approach to oil and gas stocks. The Commission paper would also address the need to double the proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources. The Commission argued that nuclear power was also important, providing the only possible option for meeting Kyoto targets; that a rational approach was needed which would include a fresh look at safety and waste management, particularly in the context of enlargement; and that it was a matter of great concern that the acquis did not currently cover nuclear safety standards. Several Member States expressed clear anti-nuclear views; others either remained non-committal or expressed support. The UK agreed on the need to start working on the follow up to the Commission's Green Paper, but expressed scepticism about the Commission's ideas on oil and gas stocks.

  The Commission made a presentation on the current state of play in the EU/Russia Energy Dialogue. The Commission agreed to Member State requests for greater transparency in the process including participation at meetings.

  Finally, there was brief discussion of the issue of candidatures for the post of Executive Director of the International Energy Agency.

DEFENCE

  Medical Treatment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel by regiment have had medical treatment in(a)2000, (b)2001 and (c)2002 to date under contracts with private sector providers; and if he will make a statement. [54132]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. I am able, however, to provide figures on treatment provided under the Army Training and Recruiting Agency secondary healthcare initiative, the Waiting List Initiative, the Rapid Treatment Initiative and psychiatric care at Cygnet, Nuffield and Priory groups.

  Year

  Army

  RN

  RAF

  2000

  191

  35

  69

  2001

  1,447

  136

  377

  2002 (to May)

  1,046

  52

  201

  Total

  2,684

  223

  647

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 April 2002,Official Report,column 9W and 15 May 2002, Official Report,column 640W on service accommodation, and with reference to paragraph 5.14 of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body Thirty-First Report 2002; what information his Department holds centrally with regard to repeat repairs undertaken in (a)single living accommodation and (b)service family accommodation; what information held by his Department with regard to (i) the cost to his Department and (ii) the number of repeat repairs can be supplied at proportionate cost; and if he will make a statement. [58658]

  Dr. Moonie
  The term "repeat repairs" is not a recognised description. It could be used for example to cover repairs carried out over a long period pending the major refurbishment of a property, or an interim repair followed shortly by major maintenance work. Both would in a sense repeat work already carried out. In neither case is the information held centrally, nor is it held in a consistent form. A large number of branches would have to be consulted to prepare a reply. This research and the identification of the information would involve disproportionate cost. Nevertheless, if the hon. Member would care to write to me and outline his specific concerns, I shall be happy to look further into the matter and write to him.

  Refurbishment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the refurbishment projects that(a)are in progress and (b)will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59766]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's Safety and Environment Policy launched in 2000 requires MOD to comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1990,598W
  the Environment Act 1995, and other relevant statutory provisions and any additional requirements arising from international treaties and protocols to which the UK is a signatory. In particular, this policy includes a commitment to comply with the Government's strategy for sustainable development.

  Guidance has been issued to all MOD acquisition officials which details the implementation of this policy and states that all timber or timber products should be procured form sustainable sources. In addition, tropical hardwood should be independently verified as sourced from forests and plantations which are managed to sustain their biodiversity, productivity and vitality, and to prevent harm to other ecosystems and any indigenous or forest dependent people. Where practicable, the use of reclaimed timber or timber products should be considered. All procurements must comply with international agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) where applicable.

  Given the size of my Department's property holdings a large number of small scale refurbishment projects are underway at any given time, many as part of larger Works Services Management contracts. It is not possible to identify all of these individually without disproportionate effort. To ensure that certified timber is used in property construction, we have a standard contract clause which states that:
  "Projects are to avoid the use of the consumption of products associated with the destruction of tropical rain forests or threatened animal species."

  The major project of this kind currently underway is that to refurbish the MOD Main building in Whitehall. All timber used in the redevelopment will be from certified sustainable sources.

  For the future, I anticipate that refurbishment work undertaken as part of Prime Contracts will comply with all current Government and departmental policy which would include procurement of certified materials.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many computers were replaced in his Department in each of the past three years; how the replaced units were disposed of and by which companies; and at what cost. [60740]

  Dr. Moonie
  Details of the number of computers replaced annually in the Ministry of Defence are not held centrally. Since 1999 the Department has had a policy of redeploying surplus equipment wherever possible within the organisation. Once equipment is deemed to have no further use it is declared to the MOD Disposal Services Agency (DSA) for disposal. The number of computers disposed of by the DSA over the past three years is as follows:

  Year

  Number of Computers Disposed

  1999

  32,000

  2000

  13,900

  2001

  6,600

  599W
  The companies used by DSA up until April 2002 were Compaq and Sartek. Following re-competition the present contractors are Silver Lining and Re-Commit.

  The disposals processed by DSA have provided a small net annual return to the Department amounting to some £30,000 over the three-year period.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is held by his Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a)personal relationships, both current and past, (b)financial status and dealings, (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e)published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61832]

  Mr. Hoon
  Ministers and officials in this Department have access to published reference sources, as well as to the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business.

  Tornado
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when ASRAAM will be operational on Tornado F3; and what progress has been made on the integration of the weapon onto that aircraft. [62235]

  Dr. Moonie
  Integration of the Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) on Tornado F3 has been completed. We expect associated safety, training and other evaluation activities to complete in time to enable operational deployment of ASRAAM later this year. However, as my response to the hon. Member on 26 February,Official Report,column 1139W made clear, the missile has been available for operational use, if needed, for some time.

  Civil Emergencies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment has been made of the possible use of Armed Services Reserves for supporting civilian authorities in major civil emergencies; and if he will make a statement. [63064]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 12 June,Official Report,columns 1259–60W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed).

  Secondments
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people form organisations outside his Department have been seconded to start work in his Department since 1 January 1999. [63072]

  Dr. Moonie
  47 individuals have been seconded to the Ministry of Defence since 1 January 1999.

  Porton Down
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 May 2002,Official Report,column 789W, on Porton Down, if he will place in the Library a copy of the protocol drawn by the chemical defence establishment for the experiment
  600W
  which was recorded in 1985 in the report, "Evaluation of pyrodostigmine bromide as a pre-treatment for nerve agent poisoning in man"; when the ethics committee overseeing the human experiments at the chemical defence establishment scrutinised this experiment; and if he will place in the Library copies of the papers of the committee which relate to the discussion of this experiment. [63044]

  Dr. Moonie
  The 1985 report summarises the results of several distinct trials, each of which was covered by a separate experimental protocol. I will make arrangements to have these placed in the Library of the House. The protocols describe a variety of pharmokinetic and pharmodynamic studies necessary to provide the information required for the product licence application, as submitted to the DHSS.

  Scrutiny of these research protocols is detailed in the minutes of the meetings of the Committee on Safety of Human Experiments and the Defence Scientific Advisory Council Medical Committee between June 1979 and February 1982. I am withholding copies of the minutes under Exemption 2b of the Code of Practice to Access to Government Information, relating to internal advice and discussion.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the documents held by his Department relating to a meeting on 16 January of representatives from his Department and the Medical Research Council Physiological Medicine and Infections Board regarding the epidemiological study into the health of service personnel who took part in experiments at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down. [63071]

  Dr. Moonie
  The meeting held on 16 January 2002 was not a meeting between members of the Ministry of Defence staff and the Physiological Medicine and Infections Board (PMIB). The PMIB is a Medical Research Council (MRC) body which met on 16 January 2002 to assess the scientific merits of proposals from four research teams for an epidemiological study of the Porton Down Volunteers, as well as to discuss many other scientific issues unrelated to Porton Down. One member of MOD staff attended the Porton Down discussion in an observational capacity only.

  Requests for information relating to the MRC's consideration of the proposals should be addressed to the MRC. MOD has produced no documents relating to this meeting.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when between 1 January 1994 and 1 January 1997 the Independent Ethics Committee overseeing human experiments at the chemical defence establishment discussed the question of the possible long-term effects of(a)nerve gas, (b)mustard gas and (c)pepper gas on humans. [63070]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Independent Ethics Committee overseeing the conduct of the Service Volunteer Programme at Dstl Porton Down did not discuss the possible long term effects of exposure to nerve gas, mustard gas or pepper gas during its meetings between 1 January 1994 and 1 January 1997.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the documents pertaining to future development of the atomic weapons establishments from the time the current management took over to date. [63450]

  Dr. Moonie
  Yes.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if employees(a)of the atomic weapons establishments and (b)from his Department (i) have had involvement in, (ii) are involved in and (iii) are intended to be involved in the advanced warhead concept teams being established by the US nuclear weapons laboratories. [63454]

  Dr. Moonie
  Exchanges of information between the United Kingdom and US on nuclear weapon matters take place only under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement. In particular, employees of the Ministry of Defence and AWE Management Ltd. Participate in the Joint UK/US Working Groups that meet regularly to discuss and exchange technical information. Details of their discussions are withheld under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list construction and engineering projects at the atomic weapons establishments scheduled to begin over the next 12 months, with their estimated cost. [63455]

  Dr. Moonie
  With the exception of routine minor works in support of operations (at a cost of around £10 million a year), no construction and engineering projects are currently expected to progress beyond project requirement definition in the next 12 months. My hon. Friend may wish to note in this context that the widely publicised high performance computer, which AWE have purchase to support the science-based programme, is being commissioned in an existing building.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list construction and engineering projects under way at AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield, and their estimated cost. [63449]

  Dr. Moonie
  With the exception of routine minor works in support of operations (at a cost of around £10 million a year), no construction and engineering projects are currently underway at these sites.

  Psychiatric Services
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with representatives of Prior Healthcare regarding the provision of psychiatric services for armed forces personnel; what agreements have been reached; what they will cost; and if he will make a statement. [63188]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]: The Ministry of Defence has no formal agreements with the Priory Group but uses their services on an ad hoc basis for the treatment of a small number of armed forces personnel.

  F680 Procedure
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how a favourable judgment under the F680 Procedure is communicated to the applicant for that export licence; and how many export licences have been refused in each of the last five years following a favourable judgment upon them under the F680 procedure. [63689]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Government provides companies with marketing advice under the F680 procedure through issue of a standard letter. It is routinely made clear in such letters that the advice given does not constitute an export licence, nor does it prejudge a decision on the eventual consideration of an export licence application.

  It is not possible to correlate F680 advice with export licensing decisions, as the processes are quite separate. For example, F680s may he seeking advice in general terms about marketing prospects which may relate partially to the export that is eventually licensed.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications have been made for advice under the F680 procedure in each of the last five years. [63688]

  Dr. Moonie
  The total number of F680 applications received by the Ministry of Defence requesting marketing advice and release of classified information is shown in the table below:

  Year (1 January-31 December)

  Number of Applications

  1997

  2,219

  1998

  2,325

  1999

  2,092

  2000

  1,892

  2001

  1,732

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Household Waste (Composting)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish quality standards for the composting of household waste. [51415]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 April 2002]: There is currently a fully developed industry standard, produced by the Composting Association (CA), that is available to compost producers. The high quality of this standard is more likely to be met by source-separated organic waste (commercial or household), rather than by mixed household waste.

  The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) are working with the CA and the British Standards Institute (BSI) to convert the existing industry standard into the fast track version (Publicly Available Specification) of a full national British Standard. They anticipate this will be available in the Autumn of this year. The CA, WRAP and BSI are considering options regarding certification schemes that could be linked with the PAS to encourage users of compost to demand a product that meets this standard;

  603W
  this in turn will encourage producers to make the investment necessary to achieve the standard in their production process.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average wage was in rural communities in the last 10 years, broken down by constituency. [60864]

  Alun Michael
  Information on the average gross weekly earnings of employees in rural wards in 57 constituencies in England is contained in the table below. The sample sizes in the New Earnings Survey do not permit information to be generated for the other 243 constituencies that contain at least one rural ward.

  Average gross weekly earnings of employees in rural wards within the constituency

  Constituency

  1996

  2001

  Bassetlaw

  —

  331.2

  Beverley and Holderness

  282.7

  331.5

  Boston and Skegness

  244.0

  —

  Bosworth

  —

  314.3

  Brigg and Goole

  —

  327.1

  Bury St Edmunds

  239.1

  316.8

  Canterbury

  266.4

  —

  Chichester

  223.9

  307.4

  Congleton

  262.2

  —

  Copeland

  384.5

  480.8

  Cotswold

  272.9

  —

  Crewe and Nantwich

  —

  314.5

  Daventry

  —

  353.3

  Devizes

  237.0

  —

  Falmouth and Camborne

  239.1

  262.2

  Fareham

  252.3

  370.8

  Fylde

  315.6

  418.1

  Isle of Wight

  —

  282.7

  Lincoln

  —

  305.3

  Louth and Horncastle

  245.6

  —

  Mid Norfolk

  —

  280.5

  Mid Worcestershire

  259.8

  —

  North Dorset

  —

  301.1

  North East Bedfordshire

  289.3

  —

  North East Cambridgeshire

  273.1

  301.0

  North Norfolk

  226.9

  289.7

  North Shropshire

  248.9

  —

  North West Hampshire

  274.6

  358.9

  North West Norfolk

  265.9

  326.5

  Northavon

  292.0

  333.6

  Norwich North

  —

  370.9

  Ribble Valley

  268.2

  —

  Romsey

  246.9

  —

  Ryedale

  —

  304.9

  Selby

  —

  338.1

  South East Cambridgeshire

  293.5

  —

  South Holland and the Deepings

  —

  308.3

  South West Norfolk

  —

  272.3

  Stratford-on-Avon

  —

  366.2

  Stroud

  253.1

  —

  Suffolk Coastal

  291.0

  358.4

  Taunton

  257.6

  269.5

  Teignbridge

  —

  283.6

  Tewkesbury

  329.9

  382.7

  Tiverton and Honiton

  223.2

  280.3

  Torridge and West Devon

  200.3

  —

  Totnes

  199.8

  —

  Truro and St Austell

  245.4

  290.6

  Wantage

  —

  432.2

  Wealden

  249.3

  —

  604W

  Average gross weekly earnings of employees in rural wards within the constituency

  Constituency

  1996

  2001

  West Derbyshire

  249.2

  309.0

  West Dorset

  —

  288.3

  West Lancashire

  282.7

  —

  West Suffolk

  —

  283.1

  Westmorland and Lonsdale

  —

  292.2

  Woodspring

  305.6

  —

  Yeovil

  298.6

  353.0

  Notes:

  — Suppressed due to sample size and resultant imprecision.

  1. Information is only readily available for 1996 and 2001.

  2. Includes employees whose pay for the survey pay period was unaffected by absence.

  3. Includes both full-time and part-time employees, but excludes those in self-employment.

  4. Based on 1998 ward and constituency boundaries.

  Sources:

  Figures for average gross pay come from the New Earnings Survey, Office for National Statistics.

  Classification of rural wards made by the Countryside Agency.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to commission an economic assessment of the costs and benefits of GM crops. [62321]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 31 May that the Government are commissioning an economic assessment of the costs and benefits of GM crops. This will consider conventional and organic farming interests that might be affected by the commercialisation of GM crops, other commercial interests and the international dimension. The assessment will contribute to a full and informed public debate on GM issues.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the United Kingdom greenhouse gas emissions, expressed in terms of million tonnes of carbon, were in(a)1990 and (b)2001; and if she will make a statement on whether the United Kingdom is on course to meet its emissions reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. [63185]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]:The UK is still on course to achieve its Kyoto Protocol target of a 12.5 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2008–12.

  In 1990, the UK's emissions of the six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol were 204.9 million tonnes of carbon (MtC). The emissions data for 2001 are still being collected and analysed. My Department plans to publish it in April next year. In 2000, the UK's total greenhouse gas emissions were 177.9 MtC, which is about 13.2 per cent below 1990 levels.

  A provisional estimate for CO, emissions alone in 2001, based on energy use, was published by the DTI in March in its Energy Trends Publication. That estimate of 154 MtC, which would be a slight increase on the previous year, caused by higher emissions from power

  605W
  stations due to increased coal burn and colder outside temperatures, is about 5 per cent below the level of the UK's CO2 emissions in 1990 of 161.6 MtC.

  Recycling
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to publish guidance to local authorities on the best means of collecting and recycling(a)plastic bottles and (b)cardboard boxes; and if she will make a statement. [62272]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no plans to publish guidance to local authorities on the best means for collecting and recycling plastic bottles or cardboard boxes. It is for individual local authorities to decide how best to deliver recycling in their area, taking account of local circumstances and the contractual arrangements for the recyclate.

  However, WRAP (the Waste and Resources Action Programme) is in the initial stages of producing Best Practice Guidance, on collection methods, for local authorities.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has commissioned in order to ascertain the effectiveness of the Warm Front Scheme in(a)delivering health benefits to recipients, (b)reaching people who are defined to be living in fuel poverty, (c)reducing levels of fuel poverty and (d)reducing excess winter deaths. [63118]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]:We will carry out a review of Warm Front during this financial year to look how its delivery has been, the issues faced, solutions found, examples of best practice and future priorities. This will include consideration of the impact of Warm Front on reducing the number of vulnerable fuel poor households and benefits to those assisted.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to consult on her proposed revisions to the Fuel Poverty Strategy; and if she will make a statement. [60713]

  Mr. Meacher
  We plan to consult shortly on a clarificatory statement to the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy.

  Committee Mandates
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the EU Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the Directive on bathing water is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; when it is next due to meet; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a)have been and (b)are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [62919]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), on 21 May 2002,Official Report,column 184W. No date has been set for the next meeting.
  606W
  UK representation can vary according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of sufficient interest. A member of the Scottish Executive has attended both the meetings held over the past 12 months.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the EU Committee on the Directive on packaging and packaging waste is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; when it is next due to meet; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a)have been and (b)are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [62917]

  Mr. Meacher
  The mandate of the Committee on the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62/EC) is advisory in the terms laid down in Article 21 of the Directive as follows:

  The Commission shall be assisted by a committee composed of the representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission.
  The representative of the Commission shall submit to the committee a draft of the measures to be taken. The committee shall deliver its opinion on the draft within a time limit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgent of the matter. The opinion shall be delivered by the majority laid down in Article 148 (2) of the Treaty in the case of decisions which the Council is required to adopt on a proposal from the Commission. The votes of the representatives of the Member States within the committee shall be weighted in the manner set out in that Article. The chairman shall not vote.
  (a)The Commission shall adopt the measures envisaged if they are in accordance with the opinion of the committee.
  If the measures envisaged are not in accordance with the opinion of the committee, or if not opinion is delivered, the Commission shall, without delay, submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken. The Council shall act by a qualified majority.

  If, on the expiry of a period which may in no case exceed three months from the date of referral to the Council, the Council has not acted, the proposed measures shall be adopted by the Commission.

  The Article 21 Committee has met four times over the last 12 months and is next due to meet on 10 July 2002. The DTI has lead responsibility for representatives, along with DEFRA, and officials from both Departments are present at most meetings. All the devolved Administrations are kept fully informed of the work of the Committee and may send experts to the meetings if they wish.

  Noise Forum
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to make publicly available the publications issued by the Government and on behalf of the Government which were distributed at the United Kingdom Noise Forum's inaugural conference on 20 May. [62570]

  Mr. Meacher
  These were placed on the DEFRA website http://defraweb/environment/noise/research.htm on 20 May 2002.
  607W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the press was excluded from the United Kingdom Noise Forum's inaugural conference. [62572]

  Mr. Meacher
  Attendance at the Conference was by invitation only. The Conference held three separate workshops in the afternoon, which sought to generate ideas and solutions, which could assist Government in considering different ways in which to tackle the different problems noise cause. It was felt that it would be inappropriate for the press to be present during these sessions as this might have prevented fully frank and open discussions. However, the press attended the Conference at 4.00pm both to listen to my statement to the Conference and the summaries that arose from the workshops.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to ensure a swift conclusion to the debate in Europe on the review of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC); and if she will introduce interim targets for recovery and recycling over the next three years in advance of new EU targets. [62362]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are fully involved in the negotiations in Europe on the review of the EC Directive on packaging and packaging waste. It has always been the UK Government's policy in these negotiations to urge a swift conclusion to the debate on the targets for the next 5-year period.

  It is my intention to consult this year on interim business recovery and recycling targets for 2003 and 2004.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures the Government intends to take to ensure that the requirements of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 are uniformly enforced across the UK. [62364]

  Mr. Meacher
  I will be looking, with my colleagues in the devolved Administrations, at the Regulations to see whether there are any amendments needed to ensure the most effective functioning of the UK's packaging waste recovery system. Any changes the Government propose to make will be included in a consultation paper to be issued this summer.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the matters discussed, decisions taken and commitments made at the preparatory meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Bali in June; and if she will place in the Library copies of submissions made(a)by the United Kingdom and (b)by other countries which are specifically relevant to the UK. [62162]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Fourth Preparatory Committee meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable Development discussed the documents which will be 608W
  finalised at Johannesburg. Progress was made on a Programme of Action, which includes the importance of sanitation in eradicating poverty and meeting the Millennium Development Goal of safe drinking water. Broad agreement was also reached on key issues such as the urgent need to restore fish stocks and address illegal fishing, and on the important role non-governmental actors can play in achieving sustainable development. The meeting also recognised the need for a strong focus on Africa. In addition, preliminary discussions took place on elements for a Political Declaration at Johannesburg. The Programme of Action as it currently stands can be found at www.johannesburgsummit.org

  No written submissions were made by either the UK or the EU, as the conference was a negotiating session based on positions outlined in earlier meetings and submissions.

  End of Life Vehicles
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is she will make a statement on the cost of disposing of end-of-life vehicles; who has responsibility for dealing with end-of-life vehicles; and if she will make a statement. [62559]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]:I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle earlier today at column 592W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Special Schools
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average funding per pupil was for children in special schools in each of the last five years, broken down by local education authority. [58927]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table below sets out the information requested in respect of the financial years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02. Information for the financial year 1998–99 is not held electronically and not, therefore, readily available. Information for 2002–03 is not yet available.

  Real Terms (2000–01 prices) Special Schools: Funding per pupil

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  201 City of London

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  202 Camden

  24,920

  22,580

  25,680

  203 Greenwich

  14,670

  16,130

  18,260

  204 Hackney

  16,310

  16,890

  17,050

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  17,930

  19,200

  19,550

  206 Islington

  20,140

  24,840

  21,390

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  42,300

  45,760

  41,000

  208 Lambeth

  14,710

  15,390

  15,530

  209 Lewisham

  14,690

  15,690

  16,340

  210 Southwark

  18,350

  18,760

  19,600

  211 Tower Hamlets

  18,450

  19,960

  24,100

  212 Wandsworth

  17,000

  17,520

  18,400

  213 Westminster

  29,770

  31,140

  37,750

  301 Barking and Dagenham

  18,270

  19,320

  20,000

  302 Barnet

  18,700

  21,450

  22,460

  303 Bexley

  11,940

  12,660

  13,660

  304 Brent

  18,810

  17,600

  21,850

  305 Bromley

  14,950

  15,510

  16,540

  609W

  Real Terms (2000–01 prices) Special Schools: Funding per pupil

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  306 Croydon

  14,850

  15,670

  16,170

  307 Ealing

  18,230

  18,590

  21,230

  308 Enfield

  16,100

  17,920

  19,630

  309 Haringey

  20,020

  19,950

  23,230

  310 Harrow

  15,250

  16,430

  19,830

  311 Havering

  12,790

  13,720

  14,840

  312 Hillingdon

  14,230

  16,040

  17,890

  313 Hounslow

  15,200

  16,110

  17,560

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  12,800

  13,110

  18,110

  315 Merton

  9,850

  10,340

  10,050

  316 Newham

  40,280

  45,060

  56,970

  317 Redbridge

  17,320

  18,440

  24,860

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  17,740

  19,400

  19,770

  319 Sutton

  13,330

  15,060

  15,930

  320 Waltham Forest

  15,310

  15,740

  23,450

  330 Birmingham

  13,960

  14,770

  15,890

  331 Coventry

  13,460

  12,790

  14,020

  332 Dudley

  8,930

  9,220

  9,890

  333 Sandwell

  13,870

  15,940

  18,160

  334 Solihull

  10,010

  12,660

  12,890

  335 Walsall

  12,260

  14,210

  15,200

  336 Wolverhampton

  8,280

  11,110

  11,670

  340 Knowsley

  10,370

  11,160

  12,380

  341 Liverpool

  10,850

  12,520

  13,480

  342 St. Helens

  10,650

  12,020

  13,700

  343 Sefton

  13,160

  15,110

  15,470

  344 Wirral

  11,580

  11,650

  12,670

  350 Bolton

  11,610

  12,330

  13,120

  351 Bury

  15,380

  15,790

  15,800

  352 Manchester

  13,220

  13,220

  15,460

  353 Oldham

  13,630

  14,730

  15,460

  354 Rochdale

  9,620

  10,650

  11,770

  355 Salford

  15,180

  14,160

  16,910

  356 Stockport

  10,710

  11,370

  12,300

  357 Tameside

  11,370

  12,730

  14,730

  358 Trafford

  11,450

  12,680

  12,060

  359 Wigan

  12,180

  10,840

  13,380

  370 Barnsley

  13,670

  15,720

  16,710

  371 Doncaster

  8,840

  9,230

  9,970

  372 Rotherham

  8,870

  9,760

  10,150

  373 Sheffield

  16,250

  18,040

  18,350

  380 Bradford

  11,210

  12,160

  11,820

  381 Calderdale

  15,390

  17,060

  19,330

  382 Kirklees

  11,520

  12,770

  12,900

  383 Leeds

  11,020

  11,610

  12,370

  384 Wakefield

  11,760

  13,020

  15,040

  390 Gateshead

  12,140

  13,450

  14,360

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  12,420

  19,190

  14,420

  392 North Tyneside

  9,300

  9,480

  11,000

  393 South Tyneside

  7,970

  9,520

  9,560

  394 Sunderland

  9,140

  9,710

  10,770

  420 Isles of Scilly

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  800 Bath & North East Somerset

  12,930

  13,520

  13,710

  801 City of Bristol

  12,940

  14,580

  16,470

  802 North Somerset

  13,460

  13,240

  12,230

  803 South Gloucestershire

  12,630

  14,190

  14,410

  805 Hartlepool

  10,970

  13,950

  16,130

  806 Middlesbrough

  10,000

  9,970

  10,810

  807 Redcar and Cleveland

  8,800

  9,490

  11,770

  808 Stockton-on-Tees

  10,480

  11,520

  11,880

  810 City of Kingston Upon Hull

  12,870

  13,900

  14,460

  811 East Riding of Yorkshire

  17,660

  18,520

  20,910

  812 North East Lincolnshire

  8,270

  8,550

  8,710

  813 North Lincolnshire

  12,960

  14,440

  15,390

  815 North Yorkshire

  15,160

  16,080

  17,450

  816 York

  10,690

  11,640

  12,300

  820 Bedfordshire

  11,020

  12,370

  13,310

  821 Luton

  12,330

  16,610

  17,960

  825 Buckinghamshire

  11,670

  13,890

  15,610

  826 Milton Keynes

  11,490

  12,080

  12,760

  830 Derbyshire

  14,370

  15,040

  16,090

  831 Derby

  12,060

  12,700

  13,990

  835 Dorset

  11,850

  13,440

  14,880

  836 Poole

  10,590

  12,150

  14,270

  837 Bournemouth

  14,170

  14,340

  14,910

  840 Durham

  10,880

  11,940

  12,180

  841 Darlington

  9,550

  10,760

  11,650

  610W

  Real Terms (2000–01 prices) Special Schools: Funding per pupil

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  845 East Sussex

  14,250

  15,130

  16,390

  846 Brighton and Hove

  11,790

  12,740

  15,120

  850 Hampshire

  12,460

  13,580

  14,350

  851 Portsmouth

  11,320

  12,620

  12,940

  852 Southampton

  12,290

  14,690

  16,920

  855 Leicestershire

  22,860

  22,570

  17,590

  856 Leicester

  11,370

  15,630

  16,080

  857 Rutland

  22,670

  22,790

  23,870

  860 Staffordshire

  10,100

  10,970

  11,530

  861 Stoke-on-Trent

  9,190

  9,560

  9,610

  865 Wiltshire

  23,400

  21,980

  21,830

  866 Swindon

  11,780

  15,070

  14,940

  867 Bracknell Forest

  14,970

  17,540

  17,850

  868 Windsor and Maidenhead

  13,230

  13,870

  17,910

  869 West Berkshire

  11,190

  11,560

  12,730

  870 Reading

  11,730

  15,940

  14,410

  871 Slough

  13,680

  14,700

  15,750

  872 Wokingham

  14,520

  16,160

  18,740

  873 Cambridgeshire

  13,000

  13,820

  14,550

  874 Peterborough

  17,740

  15,970

  16,770

  875 Cheshire

  15,230

  15,730

  17,200

  876 Halton

  12,910

  13,190

  12,940

  877 Warrington

  14,260

  14,240

  14,830

  878 Devon

  14,680

  15,910

  15,610

  879 Plymouth

  9,090

  10,740

  10,200

  880 Torbay

  6,610

  9,190

  10,240

  881 Essex

  13,680

  14,370

  14,740

  882 Southend-on-Sea

  11,080

  12,220

  12,740

  883 Thurrock

  10,330

  11,030

  13,210

  884 Herefordshire

  17,930

  22,090

  19,010

  885 Worcestershire

  10,910

  11,590

  12,260

  886 Kent

  12,780

  13,430

  14,410

  887 Medway

  14,360

  16,770

  13,320

  888 Lancashire

  13,570

  14,110

  13,970

  889 Blackburn with Darwen

  12,600

  11,690

  12,550

  890 Blackpool

  10,150

  10,000

  12,650

  891 Nottinghamshire

  14,370

  14,520

  14,450

  892 Nottingham

  15,130

  15,050

  15,670

  893 Shropshire

  22,180

  17,210

  19,520

  894 Telford & Wrekin

  8,620

  11,170

  11,690

  908 Cornwall

  13,110

  14,720

  15,240

  909 Cumbria

  15,640

  15,350

  15,880

  916 Gloucestershire

  12,160

  13,340

  14,310

  919 Hertfordshire

  14,500

  14,990

  15,500

  921 Isle of Wight

  8,420

  9,520

  10,420

  925 Lincolnshire

  13,650

  14,280

  15,920

  926 Norfolk

  16,020

  16,200

  16,180

  928 Northamptonshire

  10,410

  11,520

  11,230

  929 Northumberland

  9,330

  11,130

  12,510

  931 Oxfordshire

  14,860

  15,780

  16,950

  933 Somerset

  13,480

  14,070

  16,570

  935 Suffolk

  9,960

  10,500

  10,010

  936 Surrey

  14,970

  14,460

  15,700

  937 Warwickshire

  11,800

  12,860

  12,900

  938 West Sussex

  16,630

  12,530

  13,590

  Notes:

  1. Funding figures are based on LEAs Section 52 Budget
  Statements (1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02) as returned to the DfES).

  2. The figures cover the special schools element of the Individual Schools Budget (ISB), and Devolved Standards Fund for special schools (these are estimated for 1999–2000 as devolved Standards Funds were not separately identified on the 1999–2000 returns), related central expenditure on educational psychologists, statementing, SEN support services and home to school transport.

  3. The figures are gross of income.

  4. Pupil numbers are financial year averages, based on Jan Annual School Census data.

  5. Real terms figures are quoted in 2000–01 prices, and have been calculated using Budget (April) 2002 GDP deflators.

  6. Figures are quoted to the nearest £10.

  Teachers (Leeds)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many whole-time equivalent teachers were employed in Leeds schools in January. [58885]

  Mr. Miliband
  There were 6,280 full-time equivalent1 teachers in service in the maintained schools sector in Leeds in January 2001. Data for January 2002 are not yet available at local education authority level. Information on teachers in service in January 2002 by local education authority will be published in the Teachers in England statistical volume in December 2002.
  1Part-time teachers have been converted to an estimate of their full-time equivalence and added to full-time numbers.

  Primary Schools
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost of constructing a new one-form-of-entry 4–11 primary school has been in the last three years. [59361]

  Margaret Hodge
  The average cost of constructing a new I FE 4–11 primary school over the last three years has been approximately £1.35 million. Land acquisition costs are additional to this figure.

  Capital Projects
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent speeches she has made on design quality within her Department's capital building programme. [59832]

  Margaret Hodge
  In her opening speech at the British Education and Training Technology (BETT) Show in January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the Government's vision of how schools would be in the future, including aspects of their design. She also announced that the Department would be publishing a design guide, "Schools for the Future", which looks at ways of designing inspiring buildings that can adapt to educational and technological change. This was published in February 2002, following the publication the previous year of "Inclusive School Design—accommodating pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in mainstream schools."

  Baroness Ashton is the Department's Ministerial Design Champion. She gave a speech on achieving design quality in PFI schools at a conference organised by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) last October.

  CABE helped the Department run the Neighbourhood Nurseries Design Competition. I launched this in May 2001 and its aim was to ensure that all new buildings created are of high design quality, providing imaginative and stimulating places in which young children can learn and play. The competition was successfully completed in June 2002 and the work of the winners is being used to influence design across the early years and childcare sector.
  612W

  Medical Education
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the funding of grades below 5* in medical education. [61438]

  Margaret Hodge
  The 2001 Research Assessment Exercise showed a strong increase in top quality research, with more 5* departments than ever before. The Higher Education Funding Council for England decided to protect funding levels for top rated departments, and my Department added £30 million to HEFCE funding for next year. The RAE is designed to determine relative quality. It is not designed to determine the quantum of money spent on research. That is a matter for the Spending Reviews.

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many registered(a) day nurseries, (b) childminders, (c) playgroups and (d) out-of-school clubs there were in England at 31 March. [62152]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of daycare providers by type1

  England: Position at 31 March 2001

  Number

  Day nurseries

  7,800

  Registered childminders

  72,300

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  14,000

  Out of school clubs

  4,900

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Latest figures on Day Care facilities in England were published by the Department in the Statistical Bulletin "Children's Day Care facilities at 31 March 2001 (08/01)" in October 2001, a copy of which is available from the Library. An electronic copy of this publication is also available on the Department's web-site (www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics).

  University Funding
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the Government financial revenue support has been to each university in England and Wales over the present spending review three year period, with an estimate for the current year, in(a) cash, (b) real and (c) real spending per whole time student terms; [62029]

  (2) what the (a) funding and (b) average resources per full-time student have been in each university in the Government Office North East region in each year since 1996 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms, together with the allocation for 2002–03; and what the average for England is. [62022]

  Margaret Hodge
  Public funding for higher education institutions in England is allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The annual allocations of recurrent grant to higher education institutions and to further education colleges delivering higher education are publicised each year by the Funding Council. Copies are at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/
  613W
  Information on publicly planned funding per full time equivalent student by institution is not available. For England as a whole, the data are shown in the table:

  Funding per Student

  Cash Terms

  Real Terms

  1996–97

  4,330

  5,010

  1997–98

  4,580

  4,910

  1998–99

  4,690

  4,900

  1999–00

  4,780

  4,900

  2000–01

  4,860

  4,860

  2001–02

  5,010

  4,880

  2002–03

  5,150

  4,900

  The funding of institutions in Wales is a matter for the devolved administration.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of Service Delivery Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61645]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department's Public Service Agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its Service Delivery Agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Every year the Department publishes performance against its targets—including on value for money—and the resources it has used, in its departmental report.

  Arts Education
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations she has received on the impact of abolition of intermediate GNVQs on arts education in secondary schools. [63041]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received one letter from Aldercar Community Language College, Nottingham, on the effect of the loss of the intermediate GNVQ in Performing Arts.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Emergencies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures have been taken by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat to improve co-ordination between departments following 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [63067]

  Mr. Alexander
  Since 11 September, the Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS) has worked systematically with other government departments, the emergency services, local authorities and the Devolved Administrations. This work includes regular liaison meetings to discuss and resolve significant issues. In this way, CCS is in a position to advise Ministers of issues that require central leadership or facilitation. CCS has arranged, taken part in or observed a number of exercises to test and improve current arrangements.
  614W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment has been made of the system of sharing information across departments in major civil emergencies after 11 September 2001; and if he will make a statement. [63065]

  Mr. Alexander
  Following 11 September, the Civil Contingencies Committee, chaired by the Home Secretary, has reviewed the Government's plans and arrangements for handling civil emergencies, all of which require the effective sharing of information across relevant departments.

  Information and Communication Service
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the expenditure of the Government's Information and Communication Service's operations within the Cabinet Office was(a) in the latest available year and (b) in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [63582]

  Mr. Alexander
  In 2001–02, the Government Information and Communication Service's centre in the Cabinet Office spent £750,000 on its operations to support recruitment, promotion and career development, and the provision of advice on propriety and professional matters. The equivalent for its predecessor, the Information Officer Management Unit, in 1996–97 was £607,000.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunity for Women and Men is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [61726]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green on 23 May, Official Report, columns 557–58W.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff were employed by her Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60925]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander), on 13 June 2002, (Official Report, column 1402W).

  Strelley Social Club
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department with reference to the letter of 13 February from the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) to the hon.
  615W
  Member for Nottingham, North, when he expects the Official Solicitor to have traced the members of the Strelley Social Club in order to distribute the income of the club to the surviving members; and if he will make a statement. [63457]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This question concerns the resolution of a long-outstanding dispute as to the funds of a defunct private social club. The Official Solicitor became involved in 1999, following some 14 years of litigation, which has now been settled. It is his responsibility to carry into effect the terms of the settlement, in accordance with a High Court Order. In doing so he will be acting under the supervision of the Court, and this is not a matter upon which I can intervene.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60905]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My Department did not conduct any press and advertising campaigns in the financial year 2001–02 and has not at present planned any such campaigns for 2002–03.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what budget provision has been made to implement the provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. [62701]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: Financial implication of provisions in the Nationality and Asylum Bill, were set out in the "Financial effects of the Bill" in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, as introduced in to the House of Commons.

  Spending plans and priorities for all immigration and nationality areas are under discussion with Treasury as part of the Spending Review 2002.

  Dungavel Detention Centre
  Annabell Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the cost of converting Dungavel Detention Centre into a removal centre is to be met from his Department's budget. [62700]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: The refurbishment cost of Dungavel Removal Centre was met from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) budget.

  Inquiry Costs
  Mr. NcNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of the(a) Inquiry into the Bradford City Football Club fire in May 1985, (b) Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989 and (c) Shipman Inquiry was. [48030]
  616W
  Mr. Denham
  I understand from West Yorkshire Police that it is no longer possible to identify the costs of the Police Inquiry into the Bradford City Football Club fire in 1985. Financial arrangements for West Yorkshire Police Authority in 1985 were made through the former West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council, which was replaced in 1986. This information can only be retrieved at disproportionate cost.

  I understand from West Midlands Police that the cost of the Police Inquiry into the Hillsborough Stadium disaster totalled £3.8 million.

  I understand from Greater Manchester Police that the costs of the Shipman Police Inquiry totalled £1.65 million.

  Policing (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect the Budget will have on policing in Cheltenham. [52938]

  Mr. Denham
  Police forces in the south-west and Wales have received extra funding to make communities safer. Avon and Somerset Police received a cash boost to step up operations against street offenders and all forces in the south-west and Wales, including Gloucestershire, received funding allocations based on careful assessments of their current requirements and commitments to provide an enhanced counter-terrorist capability. The overall level of funding allocated following the Budget, to police forces in the south-west and Wales for counter terrorism purposes, £1.8 million, has been made public. To break this down further in public could compromise security.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of service of a special constable is in working in(a) Jarrow, (b) South Tyneside and (c) the UK. [61488]

  Mr. Denham
  I am informed by the Chief Commandant of Northumbria Police Special Constabulary that the average length of service for special constables in Jarrow and South Tyneside is three years.

  Complete data concerning the average length of service are not available centrally. The most recent available Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) returns regarding specials in post were for March 2000, and these asked how long specials had been in post within bands of less than six months, six months to two years, two to five years, five to 10 years, and over 10 years. These figures show that most specials in England and Wales fell within the band of length of service of between two and five years at that time.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Department plans to introduce incentives to encourage people to become career special constables. [61489]

  Mr. Denham
  The police reform process is an opportunity to achieve a stronger, increasingly professional special constabulary. We are introducing a range of measures to improve the recruitment and retention of specials. These include: a new headline role
  617W
  focusing on intelligence led patrolling and crime reduction initiatives; a new national foundation training package for special constables; joint Home Office/Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) good practice guidance covering recruitment, management and deployment of specials; new conditions of service and conduct regulations.

  In January 2002 we ran a press campaign targeting Specials as part of the national recruitment campaign for the regular Police Service. We are also considering whether we can increase the opportunities for recognising the skills and experience specials acquire in forces and in their wider workplace. And as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) recently announced in his speech at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), we will also be working with employers who are specials.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables have operated in the Jarrow constituency in each year since 1997. [61283]

  Mr. Denham
  I am informed by the Chief Constable of Northumbria Police that the number of specials is not collected at constituency level, but is collected within force at Area Command level. The Jarrow constituency falls within the South Tyneside Area Command. For the South Tyneside Area Command, figures are available for the previous three years as follows:

  1 April 2000: 29

  1 April 2001: 28

  1 April 2002: 25

  Rural Policing
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on rural policing in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [61129]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The deployment of resources within a police force area is a matter for the Chief Officer who will assess local needs in line with operational priorities and the force policing plan, and allocate available resources accordingly. Records of the amount of spending on rural policing are not held centrally.

  The funding formula for Police grant in England and Wales allocates 0.5 per cent (around £38 million) of total funding in relation to sparsity of population. In addition, in June 2000 we introduced the Rural Policing Fund that allocates additional resources to police forces to enhance policing in rural areas. The fund was £15 million for 2000–01 and £30 million for 2001–02 and 2002/03.

  Policing in Scotland is a devolved issue and is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department is taking to maintain a police presence in rural and remote areas of England and Wales. [62168]

  Mr Denham
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The deployment of resources, including police officers, within a police force area is a matter for the Chief Officer
  618W
  who will assess local needs in line with operational priorities and the force policing plan, and allocate available resources accordingly.

  The funding formula for Police grant in England and Wales allocates 0.5 per cent (around £38 million) of total funding in relation to sparsity of population. In addition, in June 2000 we introduced the Rural Policing Fund that allocates additional resources to police forces to enhance policing in rural areas. The fund was £15 million for 2000–01 and £30 million for 2001–02 and 2002–03. The rural policing fund benefits 31 police forces. Devon and Cornwall constabulary receive the highest allocation from the fund, just over £3 million.

  Firearms
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Metropolitan Police on the purchase of additional firearms in the last 12 months. [61847]

  Mr. Denham
  There have been no direct discussions between the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police on the purchase of additional firearms in the last 12 months.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the recruitment of more black and Asian officers. [62198]

  Mr. Denham
  The issue of recruitment and retention is discussed at the regular meetings I have with the Commissioner. Those discussions include issues affecting the employment of minority ethnic officers.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what crime prevention projects in schools are funded by his Department. [62096]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: We have funded a number of schools based projects and diversionary schemes as part of the Home Office Crime Reduction Programme and through the Youth Justice Board's youth crime prevention programme.

  These include, the Crime Reduction in Secondary Schools (CRISS) programme which comprises of 34 projects covering 105 schools at a cost of £12 million over three years, and the Youth Justice Board Youth Inclusion programme at a cost of over £8 million which include school based elements.

  We are also supporting the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) led Police in Schools initiative which will deliver 100 police officers in schools in 34 identified London Education Authorities (LEAs) by September 2002.

  Venture International Projects
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons Venture International Projects did not secure a contract to
  619W
  provide accommodation services to the National Asylum Support Service; with reference to section 23 of the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993. [57944]

  Angela Eagle
  Venture International Projects Ltd expressed an interest to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) in providing accommodation services for destitute asylum seekers. Their offer was fully considered but they were not awarded a contract. For reasons of commercial confidentiality the details of this decision may not be disclosed.

  ID Entitlement Card
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his ID entitlement card provisions will be published. [59259]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Knowsley North and Sefton East (Mr. Howarth) on 5 February 2002,Official Report, columns 872W, in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated that he intended to publish a consultation paper on the subject of entitlement cards by the summer. This remains his intention.

  Civil Contingency Secretariat
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the remit of the Civil Contingency Secretariat is; and to whom they report. [60715]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The remit of the Civil Contingencies Secretariat is to make the United Kingdom more effective in planning for, dealing with, and learning lessons from emergencies and disasters.

  The Secretariat services the Civil Contingencies Committee, which I chair and in addition as part of the Cabinet Office reports to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister (Mr. Blair) through the Cabinet Secretary (Sir Richard Wilson).

  Telecoms Companies
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to require telecoms companies to retain records of calls made. [61152]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are discussing with Service Providers, the Information Commissioner and the Agencies concerned the voluntary Code of Practice provided for by part II of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001. Following this process the draft Code will be placed before Parliament.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years of cyclists riding on pavements, broken down by police authority. [62146]

  Mr. Denham
  Information for 1996 to 2000 is shown in the table.

  Statistics for 2001 will be available in the autumn.
  620W

  Persons1 proceeded against for riding a bicycle on the footway(pavement) by police force area, 1996–2000

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Police force area

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Avon and Somerset

  6

  6

  5

  6

  3

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  37

  7

  3

  4

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Cleveland

  —

  2

  —

  1

  3

  Cumbria

  26

  39

  39

  28

  16

  Derbyshire

  4

  10

  9

  3

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  6

  7

  11

  9

  2

  Dorset

  2

  2

  4

  2

  6

  Durham

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  Essex

  55

  127

  241

  51

  23

  Gloucestershire

  4

  1

  5

  —

  3

  Greater Manchester

  10

  4

  20

  10

  9

  Hampshire

  92

  194

  496

  95

  29

  Hertfordshire

  2

  4

  21

  4

  —

  Humberside

  3

  93

  36

  6

  16

  Kent

  4

  —

  8

  3

  2

  Lancashire

  4

  10

  7

  1

  3

  Leicestershire

  3

  6

  1

  1

  2

  Lincolnshire

  37

  14

  8

  15

  4

  London, City of

  17

  31

  13

  2

  —

  Merseyside

  13

  9

  8

  3

  2

  Metropolitan Police

  40

  19

  54

  40

  10

  Norfolk

  14

  1

  14

  1

  2

  Northamptonshire

  2

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Northumbria

  1

  4

  10

  20

  19

  North Yorkshire

  1

  2

  2

  27

  12

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  1

  2

  2

  5

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Staffordshire2

  1

  —

  2

  3

  —

  Suffolk

  6

  10

  2

  3

  2

  Surrey

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sussex

  15

  7

  1

  9

  —

  Thames Valley

  2

  2

  —

  1

  4

  Warwickshire

  —

  1

  2

  3

  1

  West Mercia

  4

  21

  18

  4

  7

  West Midlands

  4

  3

  2

  3

  10

  West Yorkshire

  2

  1

  1

  6

  16

  Wiltshire

  2

  3

  3

  4

  1

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Gwent

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  South Wales

  —

  4

  1

  1

  —

  England and Wales

  423

  648

  1,055

  376

  223

  1These data are on the principal basis.

  2Staffordshire Police were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' courts for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table

  Assaults
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) black and (b) white youths died as a result of (a) knife attacks and (b) firearm attacks in (i) the Metropolitan Police district and (ii) England in 2001. [61850]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the attached table. During 2000–01, there were eight black youth victims of sharp weapon homicide throughout England (seven of which occurred in the Metropolitan Police district). There were 11 white youth victims of sharp weapon homicide, two of which were within the Metropolitan Police district.
  621W
  For firearm homicide, there were no black youth victims throughout 2000–01. There were four white youth victims, none of which occurred within the Metropolitan Police District.

  Number of knife and firearm attacks on black and white youths, 2000–01

  Sharp Weapon Homicide

  Firearm Homicide

  Black youths

  White youths

  Black youths

  White youths

  Met Police

  7

  2

  0

  0

  England

  8

  11

  0

  4

  Notes:

  'Youth' has been taken to mean aged 18 and under.

  Data is based on financial year 2000–01.

  Leave to Remain
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of people having been granted time-limited exceptional leave to remain in Britain have not left Britain when the permission expired in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [62366]

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refusals of extensions of exceptional leave to remain in Britain there were in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [62293]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the numbers of UK citizens who(a) have been and (b) remain with al-Qaida and Taliban forces in Afghanistan. [58701]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: It is not possible for the Government to provide figures for the number of United Kingdom citizens who may be involved with terrorist or other groups in Afghanistan. British citizens are free to travel abroad and they are not obliged to inform United Kingdom authorities of their reasons for travelling.

  The Government have put in place comprehensive measures to tackle terrorism whether committed in the United Kingdom or overseas. The police and the security services attach the highest priority to the investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences.

  Football Supporters (Travel Bans)
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many football supporters resident in the West Mercia police authority area have been banned from travelling to the FIFA World Cup. [63377]

  Mr. Denham
  1,049 individuals are currently subject to football banning orders preventing travel to the 2002 World Cup. Of these, 19 are resident in the West Mercia area.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes the Budget of 17 April will make to policing in Herefordshire. [51650]

  Mr. Denham
  Police forces in the West Midlands have received extra funding to make communities safer. West Midlands Police received a cash boost to step up operations against street offenders and all forces in the West Midlands, including West Mercia Police, received funding allocations based on careful assessments of their current requirements and commitments to provide an enhanced counter-terrorist capability. The overall level of funding allocated following the Budget, to police forces in the West Midland region for counter terrorism purposes, £910,000, has been made public. To break this down further in public could compromise security.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central about the case of Mr. 0. Z., reference Z90292/2. [62853]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]: I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member about this case on 17 June 2002.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the letter from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight of 25 April, concerning immigration case G350999. [60579]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 20 June. I apologise for the delay in replying.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 22 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Parveen Akhtad. [61684]

  Mr. Blunkett
  A reply to my right hon. Friend was despatched on Thursday 13 June 2002.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Torbay of 9 April on behalf of Mr. Crossling of Torquay. [62069]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 11 June 2002.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on financial support for asylum seekers. [57265]

  Beverley Hughes
  Destitute asylum seekers can apply for support whilst their claim is being considered. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) deals with applications for support. Asylum seekers requiring support can request subsistence and accommodation, subsistence only or accommodation only. Current levels of support are provided in the table. Where accommodation is requested this will normally be provided on a no choice basis in one of the dispersal areas. Accommodation is fully furnished and includes
  623W
  kitchen utensils. The costs of the accommodation including associated utility bills and council tax are met centrally.

  Levels of Support with effect from 8 April 2002

  £

  Qualifying couple

  59.26

  Lone parent aged 18 or over

  37.77

  Single person aged 25 or over

  37.77

  Single Person aged at least 18 but under 25

  29.89

  Person aged at least 16 but under 18 (except a member of a qualifying couple)

  32.50

  Person aged under 16

  33.50

  Some asylum seekers remain supported by local authorities under the interim provisions. Others are supported under income support arrangements.

  The budget for National Asylum Support Service (NASS) in 2000–01 was £38 million*. This figure includes grants totalling £22 million* to the voluntary sector for the provision of services to asylum seekers and refugees. Total spending on asylum support in the year 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 was £751 million*. This includes grant payments of £580 million* to local authorities and the Scottish Executive for provision of accommodation and support for asylum seeking adults and families under the Interim Regulations and for unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC). A further £12 million* was paid to local authorities and the Scottish Executive directly by NASS under contracts to provide accommodation and related services for dispersed asylum seekers. £46 million* was paid directly by NASS to private sector accommodation providers for the provision of accommodation and related services to dispersed asylum seekers.

  The budget for NASS for the last financial year, 2001–2002, was £40.0 million*. This figure included grants totalling £18.1 million* to the voluntary sector for the provision of services to asylum seekers and refugees. The budget for asylum support for 2001–2002 was £1,094 million*.

  The NASS budget for 2002–2003 is £40.5 million*. This figure includes grants totalling £18.6 million* to the voluntary sector for the provision of services to asylum seekers. The current budget for support is £434 million.
  * All figures rounded to nearest £ million.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if asylum-seeking adults with dependent children who do not qualify for support will be allowed to work. [59994]

  Beverley Hughes
  Generally speaking asylum seekers are not allowed to work whilst their application for asylum is being considered. But under the terms of the employment concession an asylum seeker can apply for permission to work if, and only if, their application remains outstanding for longer than six months without a decision being made on it. There are no plans to amend the way the concession operates. The concession is applied across the board, to supported and unsupported asylum seekers alike.

  An asylum seeker with dependant children who does not qualify for support is not automatically allowed to work.
  624W
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects cash-only support for new asylum applicants to end. [62530]

  Beverley Hughes
  The White Paper, Secure Border Safe Haven, published 7 February 2002 made it clear that we are looking at the case for abolishing the "cash-only" option and the Bill currently being debated by Parliament does include a provision for an Order making power for the withdrawal of the cash only support option either wholly or in specified circumstances. However, no decisions have been taken about when and how the power, if agreed, will be exercised.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many languages are spoken among those whose claims for asylum are registered and undetermined. [62174]

  Beverly Hughes
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: The number of applicants who have applied for asylum and are currently awaiting an initial decision on their asylum application is not available by either language spoken or nationality, and would only be available at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files.

HEALTH

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter to him dated 7 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to John and Maureen Wilson. [61687]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent on 21 June.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter to him dated 29 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Beryl Clark. [61688]

  Mr. Milburn
  A reply was sent on 20 June.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter dated 2 May from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough about the Leicester Royal Infirmary and the Leicester Epilepsy Concerned Parents and Carers Group. [63950]

  Mr. Lammy
  A reply was sent on 19 June.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire of 16 January, on behalf of his constituent Mrs. A. Tremlett. [52480]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: A reply was sent on 19 June.

  Hair Dyes (Cancer)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the report by the European Commission concerning links between hair dyes with cancers. [51469]
  625W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The document issued by the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Cosmetics and Non-Food Products (SCCNFP) on 27 February 2002, is a discussion paper on "Assessment Strategies for Hair Dyes".

  The initial findings of the SCCNFP suggest that all 57 permanent hair dyes are suitable for use in consumer products. However, the UK, along with other member states, has some concerns about the scientific methodology the SCCNFP have used to reach their conclusions, and for the sake of public reassurance and business confidence we have asked them to re-evaluate their studies with more evidence-based methodology.

  Radiation
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means Her Majesty's Government intends to evaluate the relative importance of new evidence in respect of the effects of practices which give rise to exposure to ionising radiation as is required under Article 6 (iii) of the Basic Safety Standards Directive covering radiation exposures, Council Directive 96/29/Euratom, 13 May 1996. [61970]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  I believe this question is intended to refer to Article 6 (ii) of Directive 96/29/Euratom. The Department is preparing an administrative note describing the way that decisions will be taken by the responsible Secretaries of State under Articles 6 (i) and (ii) of the Directive. The note will be published in due course.

  The responsible Secretary of State will, in accordance with Article 6 (ii) of the Directive, consider whether a review of an existing class or type of practice should be carried out whenever new and important evidence about its efficacy or consequences is acquired.

  The responsible Secretary of State will assess very carefully any information which comes to his or her attention which suggests that a review of justification may be appropriate. If the responsible Secretary of State decides to undertake a review, interested bodies and members of the public will be invited to comment on the Secretary of State's initial assessment of whether the class or type of practice continues to be justified. Any representations made to the responsible Secretary of State either about the case for carrying out a review or about whether a class or type of practice continues to be justified will be very carefully considered before a final decision is reached.

  Fire Standard Spending Assessment (£ per head)

  Authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Avon

  23.83

  24.78

  25.64

  26.74

  27.79

  29.57

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  20.72

  21.93

  22.76

  23.50

  24.72

  25.72

  Buckinghamshire

  20.13

  21.13

  21.91

  22.29

  23.73

  24.52

  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

  19.67

  21.07

  21.92

  22.56

  23.38

  24.07

  Cheshire

  21.51

  22.70

  23.12

  23.58

  24.98

  25.73

  Cleveland

  36.00

  37.74

  38.95

  39.95

  41.72

  43.58

  Cornwall

  23.44

  24.84

  25.62

  26.27

  27.65

  28.30

  County Durham and Darlington

  23.03

  24.09

  24.86

  25.77

  26.72

  27.06

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the average response time was to departmental correspondence from Government departments to(a) members of the public and (b) hon. Members in the last 12 months; [62826]

  (2) what percentage of letters from (a) members of the public and (b) hon. Members exceeded the average response time in each year since 1998; [62827]

  (3) what the target response time is to departmental correspondence in Government departments; and what percentage of letters exceeded the target response time in each year since 1998; [62828]

  (4) when he will publish the latest Government statistics on the volumes of and performance on departmental correspondence. [62829]

  Mr. Douglas Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  Departments' handling of hon. Members' correspondence is published in the form of an annual report. For details of departmental performance in 2001, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, on 24 May 2002, Official Report, column 674–76W. The handling of correspondence from members of the public forms one of the six service standards that focus on the performance of the main central government departments and agencies in dealing with the public. Details of Departmental performance against these standards has previously been published by the Cabinet Office in the form of an annual report. The last report covers the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 and was published at the end of July 2001. This and previous reports are available in the Library of the House.

  In future, Departments and agencies will be required to report on their progress in improving handling of correspondence as part of their Service Delivery Agreements which will be published in departmental annual reports and on departmental websites.

  Fire Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) of 12 June 2002,Official Report, columns 1296–98W, if he will express the Fire Service SSA figures as a sum per head of population in each Fire Service authority area. [63759]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Fire SSA figures as a sum per head of population in each fire authority area, for the six years ending 2002–03, are shown in the table:
  627W

  Fire Standard Spending Assessment (£ per head)

  Authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cumbria

  23.40

  24.72

  25.74

  26.02

  27.11

  28.26

  Derbyshire

  22.38

  23.36

  24.77

  25.17

  25.80

  26.33

  Devon

  22.81

  24.31

  24.73

  25.73

  26.69

  27.55

  Dorset

  21.20

  22.14

  23.09

  23.69

  24.62

  25.26

  East Sussex

  24.03

  25.38

  26.35

  27.31

  28.70

  29.66

  Essex

  22.26

  23.22

  24.01

  24.58

  26.15

  26.90

  Gloucestershire

  19.58

  20.05

  20.78

  21.76

  21.86

  22.68

  Greater Manchester

  28.37

  29.91

  30.65

  31.55

  32.86

  33.49

  Hampshire

  20.49

  21.70

  22.39

  23.32

  24.43

  25.65

  Hereford and Worcester

  18.48

  19.15

  20.54

  21.12

  21.54

  22.52

  Hertfordshire

  21.77

  22.84

  23.11

  24.91

  25.66

  26.48

  Humberside

  27.03

  27.78

  29.12

  30.02

  31.15

  31.86

  Isle of Wight

  24.92

  27.06

  28.48

  29.80

  30.94

  32.05

  Isles of Scilly

  147.34

  155.06

  158.44

  160.90

  161.53

  165.15

  Kent and Medway Towns

  21.39

  22.71

  23.34

  24.31

  25.59

  26.47

  Lancashire

  25.18

  26.24

  27.22

  28.09

  28.86

  30.29

  Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland

  20.96

  21.74

  22.29

  23.02

  23.85

  24.58

  Lincolnshire

  18.31

  19.01

  19.53

  20.01

  20.70

  21.77

  London

  35.42

  36.84

  37.98

  39.27

  41.51

  43.27

  Merseyside

  33.91

  35.32

  36.67

  37.29

  38.39

  39.06

  Norfolk

  19.23

  19.78

  20.66

  21.18

  21.60

  22.39

  North Yorkshire

  19.60

  20.82

  21.99

  22.56

  23.63

  25.19

  Northamptonshire

  19.78

  20.77

  21.44

  21.57

  22.72

  23.37

  Northumberland

  25.34

  26.23

  27.55

  28.28

  29.72

  30.47

  Nottinghamshire & City of Nottingham

  22.25

  23.57

  24.13

  24.72

  25.70

  26.22

  Oxfordshire

  20.73

  21.82

  22.18

  23.02

  24.13

  25.18

  Royal Berkshire

  22.09

  23.30

  23.68

  24.57

  26.19

  27.43

  Shropshire

  19.13

  19.44

  19.97

  20.57

  21.43

  21.79

  Somerset

  18.90

  19.79

  20.98

  21.44

  22.54

  23.14

  South Yorkshire

  24.78

  26.11

  27.36

  27.94

  28.78

  29.77

  Staffordshire Fire Authority

  19.99

  20.83

  21.19

  21.92

  22.51

  23.05

  Suffolk

  18.31

  19.07

  20.18

  20.71

  21.51

  22.11

  Surrey

  22.34

  23.25

  23.91

  24.69

  25.92

  26.96

  Tyne and Wear

  31.54

  32.19

  32.88

  33.90

  35.65

  36.84

  Warwickshire

  20.74

  22.13

  22.43

  23.03

  23.87

  24.50

  West Midlands

  27.42

  28.63

  29.79

  30.71

  31.73

  32.87

  West Sussex

  21.67

  23.28

  23.04

  24.78

  25.80

  26.97

  West Yorkshire

  27.21

  28.26

  29.04

  29.46

  30.85

  31.23

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  17.71

  18.61

  19.70

  19.96

  20.83

  21.37

  * Current name of fire authority. A number of authorities were affected by local government reorganisation on 1 April 1997 and 1998 and (London) 3 July 2000

  NB-In the case of combined fire authorities, for example, Kent & Medway Towns, the fire SSA is allocated to the constituent local unitary authorities.

  Better Public Buildings Initiative
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government Offices for the Regions are taking to deliver the Prime Minister's Better Public Buildings Initiative. [59831]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The management of the Government Offices' own buildings comes under the Estate Strategy for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. A good example of Government Offices responding to the Better Public Buildings initiative is the project for a new home for the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber. The scheme aims to be an exemplar of design excellence and sustainability.

  The Government Offices also play an active role in encouraging better public buildings by working in partnership with other regional agents. For example, the Government Office for London procured City Hall, the new Headquarters for the Greater London Authority. This building, designed by the architects Foster and Partners, is due to be handed over to the Mayor on 24 June 2002.
  628W
  Government Offices have responsibility, in conjunction with local partners, for the delivery of European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) which have supported many projects to develop public buildings. One example is the showcase Millennium Point building in Birmingham which received over £20 million ERDF.

  Parish Councils
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many parish councillors in England and Wales have signed up to the new Parish Councils Code of Conduct; [63798]

  (2) how many parish councillors in England and Wales have resigned since the introduction of the new Parish Councils Code of Conduct; [63799]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the position of parish councillors in England and Wales who do not sign the Parish Councils Code of Conduct. [63800]
  629W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Over 4,300 parish councils in England have notified the Standards Board for England that they have adopted new codes of conduct. No central records are kept of the number of individual councillors who have given an undertaking to observe the code.

  Parish councillors are under no obligation to inform the Government or the Standards Board if they choose to resign. Around 30 parish councillors have written informing us that they have resigned in response to the introduction of the code of conduct.

  All parish councillors are now subject to the code. On election, new parish councillors must give a written undertaking to observe the code before taking office. When a council has adopted a code, its existing members must within two months give a written undertaking to observe the code, or cease to be councillors. In those councils which have not yet adopted a code, there is no obligation on existing councillors to give a written undertaking to observe a code, although all such councillors are subject to the provisions of the national code. In Wales, these matters are the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Health and Safety Directorate
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the Fire Health and Safety Directorate will co-ordinate its work with the Health and Safety Directorate. [63683]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Fire Health and Safety Directorate of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, now sponsored by the Department for Transport, are both working toward the goal of making homes and workplaces healthier, safer and better places to live and work. They continue to work very closely together.

  Timber Products
  Mr. Sheermen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures his Department has taken to encourage local authorities to procure timber products from sustainable sources. [63060]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities are responsible in law for their own decisions on procurement. It is for them to decide whether or not to procure timber products from sustainable sources. In doing so they need to have regard to achieving Best Value and abide by relevant Procurement legislation.

  My Department has not issued specific guidance on this issue. Central Government's timber procurement policy statement is widely available and can be adapted or adopted by local authorities if they wish. Officials from my Office, DEFRA and the OGC are working with local government through the Improvement and Development Agency to explore means by which local authorities can pursue sustainable development through their procurement activities.

  Cheltenham Borough Council
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish(a) his decision
  630W
  on the new electoral arrangements for Cheltenham Borough Council and (b) an order implementing his decision. [63640]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Borough of Cheltenham (Electoral Changes) Order, made on 30 November 2001, implements these decisions.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  New Deal
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people from ethnic minorities in(a) Hackney, (b) Newham and (c) Tower Hamlets have obtained jobs through the New Deal for Young People in each year since it was established. [56999]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  People from ethnic minorities moving into jobs through NDYP

  Unit of Delivery

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Hackney & City

  375

  626

  636

  342

  Newham

  312

  426

  403

  404

  Tower Hamlets

  309

  393

  314

  289

  Note:

  1Up to the end of January 2002.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many young people in Glasgow, Cathcart have found full-time work as a result of the New Deal; [58879]

  how many people in Glasgow, Cathcart have found full-time work as a result of the New Deal for the over-50s; [58880]

  how many people in Glasgow, Cathcart have found employment as a result of the New Deal for Lone Parents. [58881]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the table:

  Programme

  Number of people in the Glasgow Cathcart parliamentary constituency helped into jobs (at the end of March 2002)1

  New Deal for Young People

  570

  New Deal 50 plus

  80

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  250

  Note:

  1A breakdown by full- and part-time jobs is not available.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to improve the job prospects of those with mental health problems. [60786]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have a wide range of programmes that have proved successful in helping people with disabilities, including those with mental health problems, secure work where they are ready and able to do so.
  631W
  Over 8,200 people were helped into work through the New Deal for Disabled People pilots and building on that success we have established a national network of Job Brokers. The New Deal enables those with a health condition or disability to find and move into work and to help themselves to become, and remain, independent. And from this April we have introduced new permitted work rules in Incapacity Benefit to make it easier for people to make the first moves into work.

  People with mental health problems can also take part in all the main Jobcentre Plus programmes and have full access to its services. Disability Employment Advisers provide specialist support to disabled jobseekers, disabled employees and their employers. The roll-out of integrated Jobcentre Plus offices is providing disabled people with work-focused meetings with a personal adviser to ensure they are aware of all the help and opportunities available to them.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reform housing benefit; and if he will make a statement. [61154]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 695W.

  Broadband
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the benefits of access to broadband services for the(a) Benefits Agency and (b) Employment Service; and if he will make a statement. [61799]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department's Modernisation programme as a whole will deliver improved customer-facing services, reduce fraud and error and help it to operate more efficiently and flexibly. A new IT infrastructure, including broadband network services, is being installed to support the Modernisation programme and help achieve its benefits.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets he has set for the roll out of broadband services in(a) benefits agencies and(b)Jobcentre Plus offices. [61800]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Broadband network services are being installed as part of the Department's new IT infrastructure to support its Modernisation programme. Almost all of the former Employment Service staff and over half of the staff in the rest of the Department already use broadband-class data networks. It is intended to complete the roll out of the Department's broadband network by the end of the 2002–03 financial year.

  Carers Allowance
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for carers allowance (formerly invalid care allowance) have been refused in(a) Angus and (b) Scotland in each of the last five years. [62387]
  632W
  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) Angus and (b) Scotland were in receipt of (i) carers allowance (formerly invalid care allowance) and (ii) both carers allowance and income support in each of the last five years. [62391]

  Maria Eagle
  Information on the number of Invalid Care Allowance recipients, broken down by area, is available only from 2001. At 31 December 2001 there were about 37,100 recipients in Scotland and 465 in Angus. The numbers of Income Support recipients who also receive Invalid Care Allowance is in the table.

  Numbers of Income Support recipients in Scotland and Angus who also receive Invalid Care Allowance1,2

  Angus Parliamentary Constituency3

  Scotland Government Office Region

  February 1998

  200

  17,900

  February 1999

  200

  17,600

  February 2000

  200

  18,800

  February 2001

  200

  19,700

  February 2002

  300

  20,600

  Notes:

  1 Figures include cases where the partner of an Income Support recipient is in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance.

  2 Figures are based on a five per cent. sample, which is subject to sampling variation, and rounded to the nearest hundred. Those for Angus are based on a very small sample and provide only a general indication of the numbers of recipients in that area.

  3Parliamentary constituencies are defined using the relevant ONS postcode directory and are based on the May 1997 boundaries.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, February 1998 to February 2002.

  Benefits
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of the incentives in the benefits system for young people(a) to marry at an early age and (b) to have children at an early age; and if he will make a statement. [62400]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: There are no incentives within the benefits system for young people to marry or have children at an early age. In general, young people under the age of 18 are excluded from receiving income-related benefits. The majority of benefit recipients under the age of 25 are single with no dependents.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  East Timor
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) pursuant to his answer of 9 May 2002,Official Report, column 310W, on East Timor, why no information about the deaths of British citizens Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters killed in East Timor in 1975 was passed by the British Government to their families between 1975 and 1994; [57023]
  633W
  (2) for what reason no information about the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters was passed to their families between 1977 and 1994. [59326]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In 1975–76 the British Government were in contact with the relatives of Brian Peters and Malcolm Rennie to pass on information about their deaths.

  I am informed that from our archived files it does not appear that any new information came to light between 1977 and 1994 that would require passing on to the families. In 1994 the relatives resumed contact with the FCO.

  We have begun to prepare these documents for release to the families. This process is likely to take around a couple of weeks. We will then need to clear the documents with the Australian Government, which will take another month. We expect to release the documents as soon as possible after that.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Australian Government concerning the UN investigation into the deaths at Balibo, East Timor in 1975. [59898]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding reply of 10 June 2002]: Our diplomatic staff in Dili have maintained regular contact with their Australian colleagues on this issue.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government were informed of Indonesia's plans for a full scale invasion of East Timor in 1975. [59900]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer of 10 June 2002]: The British Government were of course aware of reports of Indonesian involvement in East Timor ahead of the invasion in 1975, but the situation was far from clear and reports were difficult to verify. In the absence of any British representation in the area, HMG had no independent means of doing so. The UK deplored the Indonesian invasion and never recognised the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he next plans to meet representatives of the Indonesian Government; and if he will raise the case of the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters in East Timor in 1975 at that meeting. [59897]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The Government continue to take an active interest in this case and have raised and will continue to raise our concerns with the Indonesian authorities at every appropriate opportunity.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role his Department has played in the UN investigation into the deaths at Balibo, East Timor in 1975. [59895]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: British diplomatic staff in Dili have remained in close contact with UN investigation team in East Timor.
  634W
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make his Department's non-intelligence papers on the Balibo case available for study by the UN, the relatives and independent experts. [59896]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: We have begun to prepare these documents for release to the families. This process is likely to take around a couple of weeks. We will then need to clear the documents with the Australian Government, which will take another month. We expect to release the documents as soon as possible after that.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the status is of the UN investigation announced in September 2000 into the Balibo case, including the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters in East Timor in 1975; and if he will make a statement. [59894]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Denis McNamara, the Deputy SRSG in East Timor, has confirmed that the UN investigation remains open. Our Ambassador in Dili will continue to monitor developments closely.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 May 2002,Official Report, column 310W, on East Timor, what further information regarding the deaths of Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters he has received from the new investigation. [62592]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Denis McNamara, the Deputy SRSG in East Timor, has confirmed that the UN investigation into the death of the five journalists in 1975 remains open. The UN investigation team has submitted a request to the Office of the Attorney General of Indonesia to be allowed to interview possible witnesses in Indonesia. We will continue to maintain regular contact with the UN pending the outcome of the enquiry.

  Kashmir
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the situation in Kashmir. [63084]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the current situation in Kashmir with his European Counterparts at the EU General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 17 June. The topic was also on the agenda of the previous week's General Affairs Council, at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) represented the UK.

  Government Information
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 May 2002,Official Report, column 306W, on Government information, how many internal reviews under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information have been conducted by his

  635W
  Department since 1 January 2000; and how many have been completed within the target time of 20 working days. [63045]

  Mr. Macshane
  Four and one.

  Belarus
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of developments in the human rights situation in Belarus since September last year; and if he will make a statement. [63323]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since the flawed Presidential elections in September last year, we have registered no improvement in the human rights situation in Belarus. Despite the release from prison of one prominent figure in March, political opponents of the regime, the independent media and human rights NGOs continue to suffer harassment. With our EU partners and others, the Government will continue to convey our concerns about these abuses to the Belarusian authorities.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Belarus. [63322]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our relations with Belarus remain constrained by our concerns over human rights violations and lack of reform. We restrict senior-level contacts and confine our assistance to projects aimed at developing civil society and the NGO sector, as well as humanitarian aid for Chernobyl victims.

  Lamassoure Report
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government's policy is towards the Lamassoure Report approved by the European Parliament on 16 May. [63364]

  Peter Hain
  The Lamassoure Report is one of many contributions to the on-going debate about the future of Europe and, more specifically, the division of competences between the EU and Member States. My intervention to the European Convention on 15 April set out the Government's thinking on competences. A full transcript is available on http://european-convention.eu.int or www.fco.gov.uk.

  EU Applicant Countries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the UK has given to each EU applicant country since 7 June 2001. [63443]

  Peter Hain
  The UK pays 19.6 per cent. of EU pre-accession assistance (the total figure for such assistance was €3,240 million in 2001 and €3,328 million in 2002).

  Last financial year, the Department for International Development provided further assistance for the Candidate Countries through its bilateral programme of assistance. The amounts spent per country was; Baltic States (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) £1,595,765, Poland £2,526,998. Hungary £1,264,405. Slovakia £2,180,647, Czech Republic £725,416, Slovenia £82,800, Romania
  636W
  £5,430,728, Bulgaria £,760,117, Turkey £2,485,074. DFID did not provide any specific assistance for Cyprus and Malta.

  The Department for International Development also provided £2,254,120 for Central and Eastern European Regional Projects.

  The UK was the second largest contributor to the EU's TAIEX programme, which delivers technical assistance to Applicant Countries, including transposition of legislation in 2001 and is the leading Member State so far in 2002. Over 20 UK civil servants have been selected in the last year to work on new twinning projects in applicant country Ministries, making over 50 either in the countries or preparing to arrive. The UK won the second highest number of new twinning projects in 2001 (25) and has won involvement in eight more so far in 2002. The UK has now won its one hundredth such project and was the first Member State to become involved in projects in all 12 eligible countries.

  Through bilateral Action Plans, the Foreign Office spent £1.8 million in the EU applicant countries during the last financial year. An additional £608,541 was spent from Command Programme Budget allowances devolved to the Embassies in the Candidate Countries. Further assistance has been provided through functional departments' budgets (e.g. Global Conflict Prevention Fund) but to provide the information requested would incur disproportionate costs.

  UKREP
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are employed at UKREP. [63444]

  Mr. MacShane
  The number of staff employed at the UKREP Office in Brussels is 152.

  Arms Trade
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department have had with the Iranian Government regarding unlicensed production in Iran of BAE Systems/Heckler & Koch's G3 rifles and M P5 submachine guns. [61984]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have had no recent discussions with the Iranian Government in this regard. We are not aware of any such unlicensed production of the weapons in question.

  UKvisas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much it cost to rebrand the visa operation as UKvisas. [62785]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The direct cost of re-branding JECU to UKvisas was £9,354.56. There were other related costs, all met from existing resources and staffing.

  The decision to change to UKvisas was to project a clear, easily understood and up to date identity for the entry clearance operation.

  Business Ambassadors
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of the business ambassadors, and how many business ambassadors he has appointed since 7 June 2002. [62786]

  Mr. MacShane
  The current Ambassadors for British Business and the date of their appointment are listed below.

  Ambassadors for British Business

  Name

  Date appointed

  Sir David Alliance CBE

  November 1997

  Sir David Brown

  November 1997

  Lord Browne of Madingley

  November 1997

  Sir Trevor Chinn CVO

  November 1997

  Iain Dale CBE

  November 1997

  Sir Patrick Gillam

  November 1997

  Allan Gormly CBE

  November 1997

  Sir Ronald Hampel

  November 1997

  Lord Haskins

  November 1997

  Sir David John KCMG

  November 1997

  Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge

  November 1997

  John M Neill CBE

  November 1997

  Lord Paul of Marylebone

  November 1997

  Tony Pedder

  November 1997

  Sir Ian Prosser

  November 1997

  Sir Ralph Robins DL

  November 1997

  Anita Roddick OBE

  November 1997

  Sir Nigel Rudd DL

  November 1997

  Lord Simpson of Dunkeld

  November 1997

  Sir Paul Smith CBE

  November 1997

  Sir Martin Sorrell

  November 1997

  Sir Richard Sykes

  November 1997

  Sir Robert Wilson KCMG

  November 1997

  Sir Peter Bonfield CBE

  March 2000

  Digby Jones

  March 2000

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 63W, on unpaid advisers, if he will list the steps that were taken to ensure no conflicts of interest arose as a result of this appointment. [62971]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19 June,Official Report, column 332W.

  Iraq
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Iraq. [63076]
  638W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have no diplomatic relations with Iraq. We have limited official-level contacts. We use them to urge Iraq to comply with all relevant Security Council resolutions, including on weapons inspections, so allowing Iraq's reintegration into the international community.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what happens to the funds raised by the sales of impounded Iraqi oil form ships stopped by coalition forces; and how such funds have been used over the last five years. [63173]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under UN Security resolution 778 (1992), the proceeds, less expenses, of the sale of seized illegal Iraqi oil are paid into the UN escrow account which funds the UN "Oil for Food" humanitarian programme.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ships were stopped by coalition forces with Iraqi oil on board in contravention of UN sanctions in each of the last five years. [63172]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of ships diverted by the Maritime Interception Force (MIF) is:

  1997—26;

  1998—40;

  1999—19;

  2000—82; and

  2001—115.

  The figure for 2002, up until 18 June, is 89.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met officials from(a) the UN and (b) the EU to discuss the status of the Western Sahara. [63326]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UK Officials are in regular contact with UN and EU officials. We continue to support the efforts of the UN in trying to find a just and durable resolution to the Western Sahara dispute.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the status of the Western Sahara with the Moroccan Government. [63327]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly discuss the issue of Western Sahara with the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco. My predecessor my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Ben Bradshaw) raised the issue during his visit to Morocco in September 2001 and when he met with Mohammed Benaissa the Moroccan Foreign Minister during his visit to London in March 2002. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also discussed the subject with Mohammed Benaissa during his visit to London in February 2002.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill
11.5 a.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill would allow for the identification and protection of a network of nationally important marine wildlife sites throughout the territorial waters of England and Wales below the mean low water mark, without preventing legitimate economic use of the marine environment. Areas designated under the Bill would be known as marine sites of special interest.
Noble Lords might be forgiven for wondering why I, who come from a land-locked county, would sponsor such a Bill. I am certainly not an expert in matters of the marine environment, but I am trying to learn. I firmly believe that the marine environment is valuable to all of us, wherever we live, and it is not sufficiently protected. The Bill comes at the right time to enable us to take the first pragmatic step towards broad legislation for the marine environment around England and Wales.
Over half of the wildlife in the UK is found in our seas—from weird and wonderful sea squirts to majestic basking sharks, from deep-water corals to immense kelp forests. That wildlife is as much a part of our natural heritage as Windsor Great Park, where I walk on a Sunday, or the Lake District, where I walk in the rain in the summer.
The Bill was introduced in another place by my honourable friend Mr John Randall last summer and received broad all-party support. Mr Randall carried out extensive consultation, which included participants in the Government's review of marine nature conservation and representatives of the ports, fishing organisations, energy interests and leisure interests. Most respondents agreed on the need for nationally important marine sites to be designated, although views on how to go about that varied. My honourable friend listened to all those views and tailored his Bill to respond to the specific requirements of the marine environment. It is not a case of creating SSSIs at sea.
After Committee stage, the Government made amendments that were designed to meet the remaining concerns of those who had a direct interest in the Bill. In addition, all interested bodies were offered meetings on the Bill at the second stage in its development, and, of course, that offer still stands. Some environmental organisations would like the Bill to go further and have expressed their keen disappointment that it was amended by the Government in another place to
986
reduce its power. Most other bodies with a direct interest in the economic development of the marine environment were reassured by the government amendments that the Bill would not make any unreasonable changes.
My noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Geddes and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, were kind enough to let me know in advance of the debate that some of the port representatives still had some concerns and that they had contacted my noble friends. English Nature had a further meeting with representatives of the ports before the Jubilee recess. This week, I met two representatives, Mr Dempster and Mr Whitehead, whom I thank for their time and consideration. I know that they will send me further briefing about their concerns before Committee stage.
It is clear that activities that currently fall within the category of legitimate commercial use of the marine environment will continue to do so, if the Bill is passed. The Bill does not give new powers to anyone to prevent development in the marine environment and does not impose further restrictions on port expansion. Indeed, most major ports already operate in internationally important wildlife sites. The Bill will not present additional obstacles to the development of ports or of offshore wind energy.
The Bill seeks to build upon the work of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which created an effective system of protection on land through the SSSI network and introduced a power to designate sites as marine nature reserves. Since that date, only three sites have been so designated under that Act. Successive governments have undertaken reviews that have identified the need to address shortfalls in the Act with respect to the marine environment. In 1999, your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Union concluded that a new approach was required to protect sites in the marine environment and that the relevant provisions of the 1981 Act should be reviewed to provide a workable and effective protection for important marine areas of nature conservation interest. That is just what the Bill is designed to do.
Too few protected sites have been designated in the marine environment. Of the 6,500 or so sites of special scientific interest in the UK, virtually none extends below low water. There is an urgent need for marine sites of special interest to be defined in order to protect and manage nationally important wildlife sites in the marine environment, sites that do not or will not benefit from European designations. The Bill would cover English and Welsh territorial waters from mean low water level out to 12 nautical miles. The responsibility for Scottish and Northern Irish territorial waters has, of course, been devolved.
Protection and enhancement of nationally important marine sites of special interest will need proper enforcement. To that end, public bodies will be given a new duty to further the conservation of such sites, and they will be able to develop management schemes for that purpose. The statutory nature conservation agencies concerned are English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. They will be

987
able to make by-laws for the protection of a marine site of special interest, but importantly, those by-laws cannot affect the exercise of any competent marine authority's functions or the rights of anyone, wherever vested.
One of the main things that the Bill would do is simply allow work to take place to identify nationally important marine areas. I will explain the provisions of the Bill in more detail. Explanatory Notes are available in the Opposition Whips' office and they go into far more detail than is appropriate for me at this stage. I have placed a copy in the internal post to all noble Lords who I was aware would speak today. As the notes were not produced by the Government, they were not accepted by the PPO for display there, but they are always readily available at the Whips' office for any noble Lord.
Clauses 1 to 6 list the powers under which nationally important marine sites of special interest can be notified and if necessary amended or withdrawn at a later stage. The Bill permits the identification, designation and modification of marine sites of special interest. They may be "special" on wildlife, geological or physiographical grounds. These clauses ensure that the Bill is complementary to the designation of European marine sites and that there is no duplication of protection measures at a site.
It is also important to note that English Nature and CCW cannot forge ahead on any of this until the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales have first published the criteria by which MSSIs are to be selected.
In another place, the Minister made it clear at the Report stage that consultation would be taken very seriously at all stages, both in the drafting of the criteria and then in the decision about whether to confirm a notification of a site.
If English Nature or CCW decide that they should use their power to notify a site as an MSSI, they must notify all competent marine authorities which have functions in or adjacent to the proposed MSSI and also, as far as possible, anyone who has property rights or other statutory rights in relation to the site. I recognise that adequate consultation concerning the designation is vital.
The period of consultation is three months and the period during which the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales consider whether to confirm that is a maximum of six months.
Clauses 7 and 9 state that English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales must establish and maintain a register or list of the designated MSSIs and keep the list up to date in the light of any changes made to the sites designated. The register must include the co-ordinates of each site and a chart illustrating its boundaries. The register must be available for inspection free of charge and at reasonable times in local English Nature and CCW offices. It is open to English Nature and CCW to put the information on
988
the world-wide web. In addition. Clause 7(1) states that the appropriate conservation body may install markers.
These provisions were introduced to the Bill by the Government at the Report stage in another place and the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who is unable to be present today, raised a concern on the matter with me and would ask the Minister to give an explanation of why the Hydrographic Office cannot be required to place the relevant information on its charts.
Clause 9 imposes duties on competent marine authorities to further the conservation of marine sites of special interest. But the Bill does not give anyone any new powers to veto activities in a marine environment.
Clause 9(2) provides that when a competent marine authority, such as a port, plans to undertake an operation, it must consider whether that operation is likely to damage a feature for which an MSSI has been notified. But the body would make that decision on its own behalf: it would not be imposed upon it by another body or person.
Subsection (3) provides that if the body decides that an operation is likely to damage the particular interest for which the MSSI has been notified, it must notify the appropriate nature conservation body of its intention to take action. Before going ahead with its development plans, the body must then wait a maximum of 28 days to receive the advice of English Nature or CCW. But if the body wants to ignore the advice and press ahead with its plans, it can do just that. It is only asked to do as little damage to the site as is reasonably practicable.
If the body concerned believes that the action it wants to take is an emergency, it can go ahead without doing any consultation at all. Indeed, it does not need to consult where its activities are in accordance with a management scheme. In addition, the clause does not require a review of existing and ongoing activities.
Finally, for repeatedly consented activities, rather than going through the process over and over again a competent marine authority can enter into an agreement as part of a management scheme which would avoid repeat consultation for the same activity. That is common sense.
Clauses 10 and 11 provide for the establishment of management schemes for MSSIs. Not all sites would need a management scheme, as not all sites would be subject to activities that need managing.
Clause 12 was one of those introduced by the Government and sets out a requirement about sustainable development. I invite the noble Lord. Lord Whitty, in response, to explain the Government's intention behind this key new clause, which states that a person or body must have regard to the desirability of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the exercise of any function under the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 14 allow English Nature and CCW to introduce bylaws for the protection and management of MSSIs where other relevant marine

989
authorities are unable to act due to statute constraining the making of by-laws themselves. The by-laws are made under Section 37 of the 1981 Act and it is important to note that they may not interfere with the exercise of any competent marine authority's functions or affect the rights of anyone else.
The offence created is one of intentional or reckless disturbance of marine sites of special interest. The offence does not apply to competent marine authorities which are exercising their functions. The Bill also provides a defence where the damage was the incidental result of a lawful activity that could not have been reasonably avoided.
This provision was inserted by the Government at the Report stage in another place and it would be most helpful if the Minister could expand a little on why the offence should not trouble the legitimate user of leisure craft in particular.
Finally, Clauses 15 to 17 deal with technical issues such as application to the Crown, expenses, Short Title and commencement and the fact that the Bill covers only England and Wales.
I hope that in the time available I have given a reasonable explanation of the objectives and provisions of the Bill. I thank all those organisations which have briefed me, in particular the RSPB and English Nature and I thank DEFRA for its extensive and invaluable assistance. The work done by the department to amend the Bill to meet concerns expressed by environmental bodies and commercial concerns was invaluable. Any errors today and henceforth are mine alone.
I thank those noble Lords, whatever their standpoint on the Bill, who have put their names down to speak today. I believe that the Bill gives us a valuable opportunity to take a step forward for marine nature conservation. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)
11.19 a.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the Member of Parliament for Uxbridge, John Randall, for his success in the Private Member's Bill ballot in another place. He has done remarkably well, getting the Bill through all its stages. Wisely, he then liaised with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to see whether she would introduce it in your Lordships' House. He did so, I believe, because of her knowledge of our national heritage. If the Bill is passed, it will be a remarkable achievement for that young man.
I welcome the Bill. It augurs well and is full of promise. It covers a wide area of conservation possibilities, including most of the countryside and some seas and rivers. So much that one immediately doubts what specifics will emerge, but at least the framework is there.
My interest in the Bill concerns mainly fishing. I am convenor of the Lords and Commons Fly Fishing Club, former chairman of the Anglers Conservation
990
Association and a member of the Salmon and Trout Association—although, as the years role on, my activities in these counsels are lessening.
So, in regard to conservation and protection, I draw attention to the North Sea drift-net fishery—a subject I have raised on the Floor of the House many times—and the problems connected with it. The main conservationist complaint concerns the use of nylon monofilament gill nets. Trawling the North Sea, at times a mile in length, the nets are white, practically invisible and take, quite indiscriminately, thousands of salmon which are returning to their spawning grounds, especially to the Yorkshire Esk and the Scottish salmon rivers. But, worryingly, they also take diving birds, marine mammals, porpoises and dolphins. When the gill nets break they become ghost-net killers of all those species—silent, unseen, plundering the oceans of marine and bird life. Unlike hemp nets, they carry on for years. For the sake of conservation, these nylon monofilament gill nets should be banned. What is more, the North Sea drift-net fishery should be closed.
I know that some progress has been made on gradual closures because the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and his working group are working with the Salmon and Trout Association and the Government to try to do so, but the need is more urgent. Even the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which helped to frame this legislation, must be concerned at the effect on diving birds, which are being continually threatened and killed.
Is the Minister aware that we are constantly embarrassed within the fishing nations of the North Atlantic and the North Atlantic conservation organisations? Only Ireland and probably Greenland still use gill nets. So why allow this anti-conservation practice to continue, bearing in mind all those who want a ban? We know that Scottish interests and sporting and tourist organisations want one, but so do conservation groups, the Salmon and Trout Association and NASCO, the North Atlantic Salmon and Conservation Organisation.
Another of my concerns is the increasing activities of the predatory cormorants operating over and in our rivers and inland waters. They are an absolute menace. In small trout lakes and fish farms, they catch and maim rainbow trout. Their take kills the profit of small fly-fishing lakes. Apart from their killing rate—that is, those fish that are taken—many of the bigger trout are scarred from the attacks on them. They become diseased and spread contamination. So there is a need on conservation grounds for a stricter control of cormorant numbers. There should be a relaxation of the shooting allowed and, indeed, periodic culls. More worrying still, they are now nesting around lucrative fish-feeding waters. Some 250,000 winter in the United Kingdom, and the number is increasing each year.
I hope that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds will co-operate with the Government on this matter. We shall be taking more positive steps to curb the activities of these fish killers. That is what they are. So, here again, what of protection and conservation?

991
No doubt the Environment Agency and DEFRA should be brought in to process a solution and should be encouraged by the Government to do so.
11.24 a.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I, too, express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important Bill.
The protection of wildlife in our country has made significant advances in my lifetime. Living, as I do, in an area where there are important reserves for marine wildlife, I recognise the value of the work and the importance of the Bill. At the same time, we have to recognise the possible effects of legislation such as this Bill on human activities, which are also of general utility, and the need to achieve the required balance between nature protection and beneficial work by human beings. There is a potential conflict and we will need to work hard to ensure that there are no unnecessary differences. To explain my meaning I shall give a few examples drawn from my own experience.
Some 10 years ago, I stayed on the island of Islay as the guest of a Scottish lady. My visit coincided with an awkward local argument. The nearby distillery at Bowmore used peat in the production of its excellent spirit, the rich flavour of which derived in part from the peat and peaty water used in the process. The peat bog used to produce turf was nearly exhausted but the distillery had foreseen this and had bought an alternative hog nearby. It then appeared that the replacement site was being used as a resting place by barnacle geese in their long annual migration to the Arctic. As this species was protected by European legislation, local wildlife groups, including the RSPB, protested vigorously to the Commission in Brussels, which sent its environmental inspector—a redoubtable gentleman, Herr Dr. Ludwig Krämer—to look into the complaint.
The Scottish Office was uncertain how to guide the inspector, wishing to appear impartial but, at the same time, to be helpful to him. It eventually provided a comfortable car, driven by a very sensible Scottish lady chauffeur—an admirable arrangement. After some days of negotiation, the distillery located another peat bog nearby which met its requirements, not used by the migrating geese, and bought it. Thus the interests of both conservation and local prosperity were safeguarded, a model solution.
Some years later, having spent five years in Rome, I received an urgent plea from the RSPB, of which I am a member, which was alarmed at the threat to the annual migration of the honey buzzard across the Mediterranean. This rare bird winters in West Africa and migrates each spring to Northern Siberia. It is a heavy bird and cannot maintain its altitude in level flight on long sectors. So, to cross the Mediterranean, it waits on the coast of North Africa for a thermal up-current. Having reached the required altitude, it locks on its navigation to cross the Mediterranean,
992
eventually arriving in Sicily or Puglia, by which time it is very tired, losing altitude rapidly and presents a target for the lines of waiting marksmen.
Normally the Italian League for the Protection of Birds, LIPU, which is an RSPB affiliate, arranges for the Carabinieri in southern Italy to be present and to protect this scheduled species. But, during the year in question, the Carabinieri had been diverted to other urgent matters and the birds were suffering severe losses. Could the embassy please intervene with the Italian authorities as a matter of urgency? Fortunately, the Minister responsible was a good friend and he quickly responded to the request. I cite this case to show that formal legal protection of an endangered species may not be by itself sufficient to provide protection in every case.
Another interesting event involving marine birds, which I am sure your Lordships will recall, was the proposal to build a new civil airport for London on Maplin Sands or Foulness. This, too, was vigorously opposed by the RSPB because the mudflats were being used by a different protected species, the Brent Goose, undertaking another long seasonal migration between, it was said, Siberia and Iceland. Maplin was an invaluable resting place for these geese, which were able to refresh themselves by eating a particular type of salty grass which grew on the mudflats and was very nourishing. There was no alternative source of food for the birds, we were informed.
This campaign had a powerful impact and the proposal to build an airport at Maplin was eventually abandoned early in the lifetime of Harold Wilson's second administration, I think chiefly at the instigation of Anthony Crosland, who disliked a large project which he felt we could ill afford. By chance, some years later, I happened to meet an arable farmer who cultivated land near Maplin, in Essex, and I asked for news of the Brent Geese. His reply was that they were flourishing exceedingly and, having exhausted the supply of salted grass, had found his winter wheat just as nourishing. The moral of this tale is more mixed, and we may now be inclined to think that, if Maplin had gone ahead in the 1970s, our airport problems would be a good deal less severe than they are, and that the migrating birds would not have suffered unduly.
My current interest derives from observing the great work being done near my home in East Suffolk at Orfordness. There is an important RSPB reserve at Havergate Island and other bird and botanical sites on Orfordness, protected by EU legislation, our own SSSI designation and the Ramsar convention. The threat here is nature itself, given the expected rise in sea levels and the increased volume and velocity of the tides in the neighbourhood. It appears from some remarks made to me informally by Mr Elliot Morley after a recent briefing meeting at Portcullis House that the Government regard themselves as having a legal obligation in international law to protect these sites, but see no equivalent obligation to protect the physical integrity of some neighbouring territory on which the livelihood of local farmers depends. I am not one of their number.

993
I cite this last example because I cannot believe that, however great is the obligation to protect birds—and that is beyond dispute—there is no corresponding obligation to examine what more could be done to protect the legitimate interests of those living nearby, citizens who make a valued contribution to the economy and who pay their taxes. We may feel, at present, that we have no need to grow more food, or to maintain production at current levels; and that we can always import more from elsewhere if required. But we cannot be sure what the international balance between demand and supply will be of, say, wheat in 50 years' time—although I note that the consumption of the best quality white bread flour is growing rapidly in Africa as embourgeoisement of the population proceeds; nor can we assume that we shall be wealthy enough to pay for a greater volume of food imports at some future date.
In short, the conservation of marine wildlife is an excellent and praiseworthy objective which requires legal protection. But let us not forget the reasonable interests of citizens and of the farmers who inhabit our country and produce food. I do not oppose the Bill, but I suggest that we have not yet found the necessary point of balance. However, the wording of Clause 9(1), referring to physiographical features, appears to give the new management agencies greater freedom of action than the Government are themselves yet ready to contemplate. I invite them to consider these aspects afresh, and to help in seeking practical solutions which combine the protection of marine species with the protection of the environment itself, to the benefit of society as a whole.
One other lacuna seems to be the absence of any reference to marine archaeology in the areas covered by the Bill, which refers entirely to marine wildlife. At a recent meeting of the All-Party Archaeological Group with English Heritage—which was, happily, brought about by its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, there was general agreement that Her Majesty's Government need to pay more attention to the protection of marine archaeology in the offshore area that is covered by the Bill.
This is not a subject where lasting solutions can be found which relate only to abstract rights for particular species in isolation.
11.34 a.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have no financial interest, but I must declare two former "hats"—one as Minister for shipping and one as a Minister for the environment. I have therefore seen this problem from both sides.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay on finally getting her Second Reading debate. As the House will know, we have waited a long time for it, at great inconvenience. I was looking forward to the debate some weeks ago. I was looking forward to it again when, for a second time, it was removed from the list of business without any consultation. Today is considerably more awkward. Having been shabbily treated in the past in terms of the Bill, I feel that I might
994
treat your Lordships a little shabbily by leaving early this afternoon in order to catch a flight to Inverness. It is my only recourse. It would have been preferable had this debate been held at the normal time when I could have kept your Lordships happy with a much longer and more interesting speech.
I believe that my noble friend is well meaning in her proposal, but that on this occasion—unusually—she is misguided. This is not a Private Members Bill; let us be absolutely clear about that. It is a government Bill. It has been substantially drafted by DEFRA. Indeed, my noble friend gave the game away. She said on more than one occasion: you will have to ask the Minister to give an answer. She said that in response to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. At another point, she said that she would have to ask the Minister to explain one of the new clauses.
I strongly object to Back-Benchers using Back-Bench time to deal with a government Bill. It has happened once this Session with the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, which was clearly a government Bill; and here we are again taking up Back-Bench time with government legislation.
Any noble Lords who know DEFRA well will realise that, sadly, anything that comes out of that department has to be scrutinised line by line. Some of us have been very bruised in the past by what DEFRA produced. The department's record to date gives me no great confidence that this Bill will be any better. At Committee stage I shall table a considerable number of amendments in an attempt to rectify some of the deficiencies and to elicit further answers. I shall certainly seek to alter the Bill as it stands.
What is the need for this Bill? My noble friend spoke glowingly of what it could do. What she failed to declare is that there are already 42 different types of designation in the coastal zone, most of them statutory. They vary, and include: world heritage sites; nature conservation sites; Ramsar sites; marine nature reserves; national nature reserves; concerns relating to fish farms; country parks; blue flag beaches; heritage coast; national parks; and nature conservation review sites. There is a mass of statutory and non-statutory provision already affecting our coasts. So this is not the first piece of glowing legislation; it is not the first shaft of sunlight coming in to help the environment. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, will know, there is a huge and complex mass of legislation already covering this area.
But there is more to it than that. There are the water framework directives. As I understand it, most of their content is duplicated in this Bill; so all we are doing is wasting rather a lot of time. I hope that the Minister will explain how he sees the water framework directives working.
More glaringly, there is no mention of the current review of coastal areas being carried out by the Government. A major review group, including all those involved with this important part of our landscape, is currently meeting to examine all the aspects, not just some aspects. It will take about two years for its work to come to fruition. Why are we

995
legislating when that work is still being undertaken? If we continue with this legislation, what is the point of the review group? I should be very upset if I were serving on the review group attempting to devise a sensible blueprint for the way forward only to find that the Government were legislating in the middle of discussions and undermining part of that work.
Moreover, some of your Lordships will have seen DEFRA's lovely glossy brochure entitled Safeguarding Our Seas. The glossier the brochure, the less detail there is. There are some good, hopeful things in this one. The executive summary on page 3 highlights a new initiative on protecting important habitats. The Secretary of State writes:
"we will announce the first sites to receive Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area status under the Habitats and Birds Directives beyond 12 nautical miles later this year".
She goes on to say that the Government,
"will follow up the Interim Report of the Review of Marine Nature Conservation by testing some of the ideas developed during the review in a regional seas pilot scheme in the Irish Sea".
A considerable amount of work is already being carried out and monitored. Together with the work of the review group, that should be the basis on which we legislate for marine coastal areas. We should not be debating a government Bill in Back-Bench time, tackling only a small portion of the problem.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have had the pleasure of debating with the noble Earl on many occasions. I am very glad that he is not on this side now. Is he really saying there has not been consultation between departments in the past when Private Member's Bills have been introduced?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. I have introduced a Private Member's Bill to your Lordships' House. There is always consultation with departments. That is perfectly natural and usual. However, a Bill of this nature is unusual as a pure Private Member's Bill. It has been mostly written by the Government, so it is much more of a government Bill than a Private Member's Bill. It is good to see my old sparring partner from the European Commission and this House and I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
If we are to proceed with the Bill, it needs strengthening. It will be easy for lawyers from both sides—the environmental side and the port side—to attack the Bill as it stands. They will inevitably benefit. The Bill needs to be clarified, particularly on the environmental side. Much could be done that is not done in the Bill. There has been a substantial retraction from the environmental aspirations of my honourable friend in another place. That was done by the Government. We should review that and examine many of the environmental areas. There should be exclusion zones against the fishers and certain types of shipping. There should be protection to maintain rights of access to and from ports. We also need better provision for review and for change of circumstances.
996
It would probably be extremely difficult to create another Felixstowe, given the amount of legislation. Felixstowe has done wonders for the economy of south-east England and for the whole of Britain. We want to preserve the right to establish a new port to take advantage of new opportunities.
Who wrote the Explanatory Notes? I understand that the Government did not write them. It would be helpful to know who did and what authority they have, as that will influence the amendments that we table.
I apologise again for having to slip away early to catch the plane north. At least Scotland is not burdened with the Bill.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has a good flight to Inverness and that his stay in that beautiful part of the United Kingdom will cheer him up a bit and enable him to return to our deliberations in a slightly more positive frame of mind.
I declare an interest as vice-president of the Council for National Parks and a supporter of other nongovernmental environmental organisations. I warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for the patient way in which she has waited for the debate and her dogged determination to ensure that we have proper time for a sensible debate. What are Fridays for, if not to have the space for a sensible debate rather than bemusedly discussing issues in the early hours of the morning?
The Bill is welcome. As the Wildlife and Countryside Link has argued in its Marine Charter, the seas around the British Isles are a particularly special asset to value and protect. Our marine environment supports many thousands of jobs and industries and is a place of enjoyment for millions of people each year. It is home to a particularly rich maritime cultural heritage and is one of the most diverse marine environments of any country in Europe.
However, there is a developing crisis, which makes urgent action imperative. The crisis is evidenced by, for example, dramatic declines in fish stocks, which now face collapse, increasingly litter-strewn and oil-covered beaches, the poisoning of marine mammals by toxins and the disappearance of natural sea defences such as wetlands. Other signs of stress include the build-up of radioactive substances in sediment, the impact of sex-changing chemicals on marine life, threats to human health and cultural heritage and changes in sea condition as a result of climate change.
The Bill will be judged by its effectiveness in helping to meet such challenges. However, effective action for the rest of the British Isles beyond England and Wales is also essential. The Bill can be only a beginning. There is an indisputable and pressing need for long-overdue measures to secure a comprehensive and integrated approach to management of the marine environment as a whole—a point well made by English Nature. In that respect, the Government's recently published strategy for the conservation and sustainable development of that environment is timely.

997
In the mean time, however limited our consideration of the Bill, it is important for the Government to convince us that the current complexity and dilution of responsibility, evidenced in the confusing number of authorities with different priorities, is being overcome. They must also convince us that there will be adequate arrangements for enforcement and that legislative aspiration will not remain little more than just that because of a shortage of resources to turn the legislation into convincing action.
As a resident of a national park and as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks, I have seen the immensely important role that they can play in bringing different interests together and ensuring effective co-ordinated management. It is far from clear to me why the Government remain so reluctant to look at the relevance of the national park model for the management of the marine environment.
There are other issues on which we need reassurance from the Government. For example, can we be certain that the required laudable commitment to sustainable development in Clause 12 will not, in a perverse way, lead to decisions by Ministers not to confirm sites which are clearly of special interest? In connection with Clause 9(2), can we be left in no doubt that competent marine authorities will be expected to take full account of the advice of the nature conservation bodies about whether an operation is likely to damage the special interest of a site? Can we be told exactly how the Bill is expected to play its part in the regulation of sea fisheries which have the potential to damage marine sites of special interest? It is worth noting that these are three issues on which, for example, the Countryside Council for Wales, among others, is understandably exercised.
There is no doubt that this Bill is an indication that we may at last be inching towards a meaningful environmental and heritage strategy in our legislative concerns. As such, it is to be commended and those behind it congratulated. But surely it is self-evident that unless we are unforgivably to fail our grandchildren and their descendants, we have to change our mind set in politics from one of policy beginning to take the environment into account to one of an overriding central and muscular political commitment to the environment, and indeed to heritage, against which almost all other legislation has to be tested. Time is certainly not on our side.
11.52 a.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in the 32 years I have sat in your Lordships' House, I have always welcomed the very few and far between occasions when a noble Lord has said that someone else has said all that he is going to say and he is not going to repeat it, and then actually sat down. It has not happened very often: it is going to happen now.
I would like to associate myself with all that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said. I would like to add that my party, the Green Party, is very much in favour of this long overdue Bill. At Committee and Report
998
stages I shall do my best to see that it goes forward. I will cast my vote against any attempt to sideline or change it in a major way. I very much welcome the Bill. I thank those who have brought it forward and I sit down.
11.53 a.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in rising to speak on this Bill I declare my interest as a patron of the British Wind Energy Association. As a director of Clipper Windpower, a company that is based and operates exclusively in the United States, we may well consider devoting future investment to offshore wind projects in the United Kingdom, but this activity is not in our current portfolio. I am also executive chairman of Consort Resources Ltd which has interests in offshore UKCS gas production. I do not intend to concentrate my remarks on issues to the potential benefit or disadvantage of the oil and gas industries.
My concern, my contribution, is based on my longstanding interest in the marine environment and my life-long commitment to the importance of renewable energy, strengthened during the years I worked as a Minister for the Environment in the late 1980s and Minister for Energy in the early 1990s.
It is the case that the Bill before us has a title which will appeal to everyone. No rational individual can be opposed to marine wildlife conservation. The headline is indeed the best part of the Bill, matched only by the conviction and excellent intentions of its proposers both in your Lordships' House and in another place. I agree with them that we have a duty and an imperative to protect our marine habitats in the same way as we should devote resources to protect the offshore environment for future generations.
My principal concern is that the Bill can be seen as representing an ad hoc piecemeal approach to the conservation of marine wildlife, which, in the context of the work already announced and commissioned by the Government, fits uneasily with the well co-ordinated international collaborative work programme taken forward at Bergen earlier this year. Consequently, it is in danger of becoming muddled, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, alluded, with other work and particularly with the important Bergen work programme and marine conservation and thus risks being compromised by the passage of this legislation at this time. I argue that there are important initiatives in train as a result of Bergen, which make this well-intentioned Bill potentially piecemeal, potentially unnecessary and pre-emptive and which may ultimately be inconsistent with the Government's approach to marine conservation generally; namely, the pathway, target, objective route best encapsulated in the phrase "environmental management".
The North Sea conference in Bergen promised an integrated approach, recognising that a holistic approach was required by all member states. It is right that marine wildlife conservation is quite properly heading in the direction of the target, objective pathway approach that I have mentioned. Ministers in

999
Bergen in March of this year emphasised the need to take as a priority an integrated eco-system approach to the management of human activities affecting the North Sea. The important point is their recognition and agreement that considerable further work was required before new national legislation could effectively reflect results of that important work programme.
The work programme to which I refer was detailed in Section 1, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Bergen declaration. Together these paragraphs constituted an important 13-point plan, which include research and information gathering, shared integrated expert advice and assessments of the North Sea, designing and implementing a strategy for achieving dialogue with all relevant stakeholders for the development and implementation of the eco-system approach, and much more.
This is no insignificant work programme. As the basis for future policy formulation at national and trans-boundary levels in Europe, it has considerable merit. But even fast tracked, it is recognised in paragraph 7 that this work will take time. The Ministers,
"agreed that by 2010, relevant areas of the North Sea will be designated as marine protected areas belonging to a network of well managed sites, safeguarding threatened and declining species, habitats and ecosystem functions".
It is therefore my firm view—here I am in total agreement with my noble friend Lord Caithness—that this Bill is in danger of pre-empting this process; a process which eschews new designations, although the declaration acknowledges, as will the House, the designation-based approach to the Wild Bird and Habitats Directive.
Committed to implement the ecosystem approach, the first priority of Ministers was to develop,
"focused research and information gathering which address the driving forces of North Sea ecosystems variability".
This Bill fails in that objective. It pre-empts that welcome and important work. In that context this very well intentioned Bill is before us at the wrong time.
However, my concern does not end with the importance of the timing of this measure, for I believe that there are a number of issues in the proposed legislation which are flawed. Not only is the legislation before us at the wrong time, but it may be the wrong Bill at the wrong time. The fact that this Bill is necessarily limited to the territorial seas of England and Wales is a case in point. It is essential that any legislation we consider on this subject addresses marine wildlife conservation in all United Kingdom Continental Shelf waters.
I have already mentioned the importance Ministers attach to stakeholders in our coastal waters. Interestingly, in the Bergen declaration, there is specific reference in Section 9 to "the promotion of renewable energy". Section 68 is worthy of your Lordships' consideration and is welcomed by all of us who seek a thriving offshore wind energy business. This paragraph is strong endorsement from Bergen for
1000
offshore wind energy, which has already been blighted by over-lengthy, prescriptive, legislative processes in the UK.
If we are to be anywhere near the Government's target for renewable energy sources by 2010, we shall have to depend on a flourishing, well financed offshore wind energy industry. Yet this Bill provides neither clarity of responsibility nor the framework necessary to see the accelerated development of offshore wind projects. For example, the British Wind Energy Association, the DTI and Crown Estates have readily appreciated, in planning for offshore wind energy developments, that there is no magic to the 12-mile limit. What should be addressed is the entire ecosystem of a discrete bio-geographical area. European law recognises this through the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive which will become UK law in the foreseeable future.
Additionally and against this background, the notification process as drafted could damage the prospect of offshore wind energy achieving its potential contribution to the UK energy mix.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, has there been any communication by the European Commission that the Bill is not to be welcomed?
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I have had no communication from the European Commission either welcoming or rejecting this Bill. The point that I am making and, I hope, arguing as cogently as I can, is that this Bill which is very well-intentioned in many respects, is pre-empting the exhaustive, important and welcome process that Ministers have agreed as a result of their meetings in Bergen. And that process has been welcomed and initiated by consecutive Ministers from both sides of this House over the years.
What I would regret is that however well-intentioned and welcome this Bill is—I know the noble Lord feels that very strongly—it should not come to your Lordships' House piecemeal or fail to take into account the wider implications for the far more important work, recognised by the Government, which has emerged from the Bergen declaration. This work needs to be taken forward. It is recognised by both sides of your Lordships' House as requiring a good six years before we get the sort of results coming from the sort of quality research we need to protect our marine wildlife.
I am for that objective as strongly as the noble Lord is. I have believed in that passionately since the days when I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment. I would not wish to see hasty legislation pre-empt that important process. It may well be that the noble Lord will persuade me that I am wrong in having come to that conclusion. I look forward to hearing from him.
Let me give the noble Lord some examples about how this process could pre-empt important work. The notification process as drafted, could damage the prospect for offshore wind energy achieving its

1001
objectives. Let us consider how this notification process is drafted. By Section 3(1), English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales can:
"notify a marine site of special interest by reason of…flora, fauna".
Under Section 3(2), the Secretary of State for the National Assembly must, following consultation with English Nature or CCW, publish his criteria in accordance with which nature conservation bodies are to notify MSSIs. It is not clear to me which comes first.
It appears that under Section 3, English Nature or CCW can notify an MSSI at any time even if there are no published criteria. It may be that, in due course, some consistency may he achieved, but this can only happen over time in the absence of any pre-published thresholds for designation.
What this means is that any offshore wind promoter may have no advance knowledge of interests that could lead to a designation. This is a development risk which those funding wind power developments will find difficult to accept. The increased risk will commensurately increase the cost of financing projects and this, in all probability, will limit the number of projects the Government need to see brought to development if they are to meet renewable energy targets.
A further difficulty arises in that it is the wind developers who are often the very organisations discovering offshore nature conservation interests on behalf of the nature conservation bodies. There is, in most cases, very little pre-existing information. The very process of E1A involves producing information which, in turn, may lead to a designation. We need to give very careful thought to such overlapping roles if conflicts of interest are to be overcome.
Turning to controls over development, the fact is that there are none. Under Section 9 a decision-maker who perceives that a proposed operation may damage the interests of the MSSI, must notify English Nature or CCW who have a maximum of 28 days to give their views. The decision-maker can ignore any negative views expressed by the nature conservation body, although it must tell that body how its representations have been taken into account. It must give consent to the proposed operation in such a way that is consistent with management schemes which are provided for within the Bill.
There are many other aspects into which we shall go in detail during the committee stage. I should like to conclude by saying that offshore wind energy is an industry which enjoys strong encouragement from the Government, the European Community and in the Bergen declaration of March 2002. It should not be prejudiced by well-meaning but unnecessary legislation at this important stage in the Bergen process.
12.7 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, could I first declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Conservation
1002
Group in your Lordships' House and as a Member with close involvement in a variety of conservation bodies.
Like other Members, I am appreciative of efforts made in the other place to present this Bill. I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, on the presentation of the Bill and on the case that she offered the House in support of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, spoke of hasty legislation. I recall in 1981 in the consideration, with colleagues, of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, seeking to promote the protection of the marine heritage. We did not get very far. That was 20 years ago. There have been suggestions over those two decades that progress should be made and I am glad that we are likely to make some progress.
The Bill has been described as not terribly significant. I believe it is significant. It is important. I would hate to think that we would have to wait for another decade, because in the 20 years that have elapsed since the 1981 Act the damage to the marine fauna and flora has been substantial and, I believe, accelerating.
When one reads that our coastal cetaceans are dying of poison or we see the destruction of fish stocks or the damage done in our estuarial and coastal areas, then this seems a modest Bill. It is not designed to stop development around our coasts; it is designed to establish some areas where there is a prospect of our ecological inheritance being maintained.
The House should also be aware that over the past 20 or 30 years there has been a great deal of progress in cleaning up our rivers. When I think back to my first days in the other place, the rivers serving and adjacent to my constituency were little better than open sewers. There was no prospect or fish in the Rivers Don, Rother and Dearne. Not long after I entered the other place, I discovered one contractor who was ma king a lot of money removing acid from steelworks and disposing of it by driving to the River Dearne at two o'clock in the morning and discharging it straight into the river.
Yet today there are lots of fish in the Rivers Dearne, Don and Rother because of determined action not to wait at great length for the passage of laws. People were committed to taking action. The public and private sectors were involved, as were local authorities and the Yorkshire Rivers Authority, then the Yorkshire Water Authority, now Calder. The steel industry in my area spent a vast sum of money to ensure that it did not discharge poison into the River Don.
We have cleaned up the rivers, so the amount of filth entering our estuaries is reduced, but we are not prepared to do anything hastily to ensure that estuaries and coastal areas see a reduction in pollution.
This is an essential Bill. There may be attempts to change it but I am not sure whether there is any merit in change. But it is essential that this Bill, in a suitable form, becomes enacted. It is about time that we took greater care in and gave priority to the proper stewardship of our coastal areas.
12.9 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is as much a pleasure to follow—in more ways than one—the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, who played a most distinguished part in Committee in another place on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as it is to congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay on introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House.
This is of course Second Reading, but, as my noble friend Lord Caithness reminded us, in the words of clergy reading marriage banns, it is also the third time of asking. One happy consequence of our taking this debate in mid-morning instead of, at our earlier essays, in the middle of the night, is that the number of noble Lords wishing to speak has grown and nature has been reversed—if the metaphor is excused and not misunderstood—by a rolling stone gathering some moss. Those of us who have loyally sought to support this Second Reading from the beginning can reasonably echo the remark of the Bellman in The Hunting of the Snark, itself of course a marine expedition:
"What I tell you three times is true".
I have to confess, however, that though my stamina would have kept me here till the close in the small hours on the earlier occasions, I have had a three-line Whip engagement at the University of London just after lunch today since long before our first putative Second Reading. I therefore fear that I may not be here at the close, and ask your Lordships to forgive me. I shall avoid asking any questions for the Minister not to need to answer.
I am myself a Londoner from way back, apart from evacuation, parts of education, the Army and abroad, but I have lived beside the Thames for the past decade, where the voracity of cormorants, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, not only outside this Palace but also on stretches such as Wapping Reach, demonstrates vividly how in the past 40 years fish have come back into the Thames—as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, was saying elsewhere a moment ago—in species now in three figures. However, my lot has also on vacation been cast beside the sea in our own waters. As a boy, eight of our family summer holidays in 11 years, between my age of eight and 18, were spent in or around St. David's in the Pembrokeshire National Park, where offshore Skomer, one of the three marine nature reserves referred to by my noble friend Lady Anelay, is found; where the beaches get all the EU stars; where the cliffs have all the colours of John Piper's palette; and where the seabirds would effectively illustrate any textbook of their 27 British species without need for a printed page.
When my own children were young, we had a similar number of holidays at Lochaline, on the Sound of Mull, where the ruins of Lochaline Castle, the ancient castle of the Lords of the Isles, watch over the whales, dolphins and seals which reign over that channel just as the cormorants reign over Wapping Reach. My children were also for eight years at school within a mile of the sea in the Isle of Purbeck, where of course
1004
the Dorset and east Devon coast was in December last year made a world heritage site and thus recognised as having the same global significance as the Great Barrier Reef. Finally, in Northern Ireland, I used to sail in their marine nature reserve, at Strangford Lough, in a remarkable boat, self-built by its owner, with a concrete hull.
All of this experience was both an education and a joy. Closer to home in the context of this debate, I was the government Whip in the Committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, referred, on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill 1981, opposite the noble Lord, Lord Graham, as opposition Whip. The government's piloting of the Bill was in the hands of my noble friends Lord King of Bridgwater and Lord Monro, and on the government side my noble friends Lord Kimball and the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish notably supported us. I have referred to the part played by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. In another place, the Father of the House, Tam Dalyell, is a veteran survivor of that Bill. That Committee stage too was a joy, for everyone on it was both in love with the subject and deeply expert upon it. Unlike Bills in the Commons today, it received 105 hours in Committee without guillotine or programme Motion.
With the benefit of experience, the SSSIs were perhaps not sufficiently protected by that legislation. However, a greater omission at the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy said, was felt to be the attention, or perhaps inattention, given to marine conservation. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 did not make a significant difference in that respect. This is why the admirable initiative in this Bill of John Randall, the Member of Parliament for Uxbridge—happily referred to in a ministerial slip of the tongue in another place as the MP for Oxbridge—has been so widely welcomed. He had demonstrated his naturalist prominence, notably in ornithology, during the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill in the previous Parliament. He consulted widely on this Bill last year with representatives of what he described at Third Reading as the marine industries, including fisheries, ports, shipping, offshore oil and gas and wind energy as well as with leisure interests.
Of course I acknowledge that the Bill was substantially rewritten by the Government on Report. Of course I acknowledge the Bill is not everything that wildlife interests would wish. Of course I acknowledge that the Government's own thinking and programme on these marine matters is still in gestation, but the strategy document Safeguarding Our Seas, to which my noble friend Lord Caithness referred, and published last month, is an index of present government attention to these matters. Of course I realise—my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Caithness have introduced the thought into the debate—that that hoary academic standby, the doctrine of unripe time, may be adduced. I should perhaps add diffidently that I hold a Harvard MBA and that I am not unaware of economic considerations and would not discount them. However, for myself, I hope that these alternative siren voices will not be heeded by your Lordships.

1005
The Minister in the Commons, Michael Meacher, himself alluded to Scylla and Charybdis in recommending the Bill at Third Reading in another place. Legislative time is always at a premium, but the 19 years between the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said—interrupted only, I think, by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994—demonstrate how difficult it is to find time for conservation legislation in this Parliament. Those who might wish to delay this legislation could cite the judgment of Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson's great Texan colleague, that the three wisest words in the English language are "Wait a minute". But a minute, an hour, a week, a month or two decades are not proof against the opposite aphorism that the best is always the enemy of the good.
Mr Meacher said at Third Reading:
"The Bill is very worth while",
and that,
"The measure has also shown us a new and significant role for private Member's Bills. Although they are often enacted, they are sometimes confined to a relatively small role. I would never describe their role as insignificant, but it could be more important. This is unquestionably an important Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/02: col. 1190.]
He went on to illustrate that in three particular ways.
I followed the arguments of my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Moynihan about the Government contribution to the Bill, but it was Mr Randall who introduced his Bill, to which the Government added their own amendments and new clauses. I myself hope that, once this Bill is an Act, we shall return to these marine issues as and when further thought has been taken. But in the mean time, I remind your Lordships of the Chinese advice:
"In long journey first step most important".
12.18 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as a vice-president of the RSPB, of the Marine Conservation Society and of the Council for National Parks, all of which have declared an interest in the Bill.
I most warmly welcome the Bill, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on the way in which she has introduced it. She has left very little which needs to be explained. I hope that her success with the Bill continues.
I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has left the Chamber because I wanted to express to him my disagreement with his assertion that government support for a Bill makes it a government Bill; it does not. I have been a Member of the House for 20 years. I had the privilege of steering three or four Bills through the House when my party was in opposition. On at least two of those occasions the then Conservative government were very helpful to me and gave me a great deal of advice and information which resulted in the Bills' successful passage. I should like to think that that still applies. If the Government help anyone in opposition, that does not invalidate a Bill. The noble Earl was perhaps a little too bitter about that matter.
1006
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made some interesting points. I am afraid that I did not absorb everything that he said. I shall need to read his comments and perhaps return to them at a later stage. However, perhaps he might consider that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
I believe that we are all agreed that the Bill could be a useful step in marine protection and that in the past the subject has excited far more than its fair share of disagreement. Several noble Lords referred to the difficulties arising from the 1981 Act. I remind noble Lords who were not Members of the House at the time that the section on marine nature reserves had to be added at a late stage with support from all sides of both Houses. It is significant that of the eight sites that were identified initially, only two have been notified. However, a third, Strangford Lough, was identified later and has since been approved.
All protected marine sites have a commercial value. It has been established beyond doubt that commercial interests in the vicinity of a protected marine site have improved. Generally, fish stocks well outside a marine protected area have improved and have gained in commercial value.
The Marine Conservation Society welcomes the Bill as a means to identify and protect sites of national rather than European importance. However, the society has concerns about some of the clauses. I wish to mention just two. First, Clause 9 requires the appropriate conservation body to be consulted before any potentially damaging operation is undertaken. That is quite right. However, if the site is damaged by the operation, there is no requirement in the Bill for the damage to be restored. That is a sad omission.
Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, there is no statutory requirement for the boundaries of MSSIs to be marked on admiralty charts, which means that there is no practical way in which the majority of sea users will know when they are passing through an MSSI unless it is one of the sites selected for designation by markers. I do not expect the noble Baroness to deal with those points today. If we have a later stage of the Bill, they could be discussed then. However, despite those concerns, the Marine Conservation Society believes that the Bill in its present form is well worth while and it would not seek to endanger its progress by trying to amend it.
My noble friend Lord Judd dealt thoroughly with the views of the Council for National Parks. Will the Minister ask his department to look into the concept of marine national parks based on the land national parks? Of course the regulations would have to be substantially different.
There is general agreement that the Bill as it stands is welcome and valuable, and that given the pressure on parliamentary time it should be allowed to pass in its present form. I am sure that both the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, are aware that if we make even the slightest amendment to the Bill it will not pass as there is no time for it to go back to the Commons. It would he sad if we were

1007
unable to obtain this useful measure for that reason. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will give the Bill a speedy passage.
12.24 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I add my voice to those of other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Anelay for giving us the opportunity to discuss the Bill today rather than the other night when I had lost my voice!
First, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Port of London Authority which is responsible for providing a safe regime for navigation from a line drawn approximately between Harwich and Margate to Teddington at the end of the tidal Thames. This is an area of approximately 400 square miles of water which includes a number of marine nature conservation sites already protected under the habitats regulations, as well as the water that flows past your Lordships' House as we speak.
London is one of Britain's three largest ports, handling over 50 million tonnes of cargo in 2001, with some 39,000 commercial ship movements within its area last year alone. I am pleased to tell your Lordships that the Port of London Authority enjoys good working relationships with the conservation agencies which also have significant interests in the environment of the Thames and its estuary.
It is a fact worth drawing to noble Lords' attention that 95 per cent of all the United Kingdom's trade by weight and volume is transported by sea and that efficient and safe access to and from the nation's ports, such as Felixstowe, Southampton, the Humber, Tees and Hartlepool, as well as London, is essential to every man, woman and child living in these islands.
In November 2000 the Government published a policy document, Modern Ports: A UK Policy, which placed great emphasis on safety, economic success and environmental sustainability. In the document the Government recognised the need for future port expansion to meet growing demand in some sectors and emphasised that sustainable development must recognise the importance of meeting economic, social and environmental objectives at the same time. In Modern Ports the Government also promised a review of the existing marine nature consents regime with a view to rationalising and simplifying the consent and inquiry procedures for port developments.
The review commenced only three weeks ago and the ports have not yet had the opportunity to make their input into the process. It is, therefore, to be regretted that this well-meaning Bill is being promoted prior to the conclusions of that review; for I am sorry to say that our existing marine nature conservation laws and regulations appear to have grown like Topsy, with differing requirements depending on whether they are based on UK (home grown) proposals or European diktats (directives). What is needed is an integrated system, not piecemeal legislation. Indeed, English Nature has itself called for a streamlining of the regulatory consents process without diluting the
1008
associated environmental standards. The Minister of State, Michael Meacher, when speaking on this issue in another place, stated that government should not further complicate an already complex, piecemeal mosaic, and that a simplistic solution should not be applied to a complicated problem. I agree with him wholeheartedly.
I fear that those promoting the Bill may have got the cart before the horse. We should really encourage the Government to produce the conclusions of their review before the Bill receives further consideration in your Lordships' House. I am not convinced that the Bill in its current form takes sufficient account of the importance of balancing social and economic interests with environmental concerns. For instance, harbour authorities do not specifically have to be consulted regarding the criteria for selecting sites. That cannot be right. At a later stage I shall propose an amendment to redress that.
There needs to be much wider recognition by everyone that it is in our estuarial ports that the conflict between nature conservation and economic necessity is most acute. It is the role of government to ensure that social, economic and environmental needs are accorded equal consideration and that an equitable balance is maintained between them in the interests of all who live in these islands.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rise to speak after the noble Baroness; I love to follow her but I cannot do so on this occasion. She indicated her opposition to the Bill. Nothing that she said prevents discussions from taking place afterwards on a major basis.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for circulating the Explanatory Notes, which were most helpful, and for her speech, which at times was extremely graphic and even poetic. I, like others no doubt, have been tempted to amend the Bill to make it even more environmentally benign. But, like Eve's apple, amending the Bill represents a temptation we should resist.
I do not say that idly. I hope that my credentials in relation to the environment are not in question. I had the honour of being the Commissioner for Environment in the European Community. One of the principal successes of those years was the European Year of the Environment. The conservation of marine wildlife formed a significant part of it. I am talking about 1986 to 1987.
That is why I want to conserve the Bill. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, supports that view. The Bill has been substantially considered and amended in another place. Some now want to wreck it altogether; I want the Bill to become part of our law. If it goes back to another place, it is likely that it would never return here, or perhaps would do so in 20 years' time. That would be a dire outcome.

1009
Like my noble friend Lady Nicol, I do not think that we have the pleasure of seeing Bills of such importance being introduced into either House of Parliament with sufficient regularity. This Bill has a decided advantage. We have heard various suggestions, particularly from my noble friend Lady Nicol, which I am sure would be very helpful. At a later stage, they could be carried through. However, that is not the case today. My plea is that the Bill, as redrafted, should now be agreed to. Within reason, debating ameliorations today could be helpful for the future. However, I repeat that the incentive to introduce such alterations should not be put to the test.
It goes without saying that what is required is an even more comprehensive approach so far as conservation and marine management are concerned. We have every reason to hope that the Government's working group on marine conservation will be enormously influential in the longer run. Having set it up, the Government must take account of its expert views. The UK has entered into various important international obligations. I hope that they will have the effect of protecting marine wildlife beyond our territorial waters. However, there must be sound domestic legislation to ensure that the wildlife within our islands, and their habitats, are properly safeguarded.
Following extensive consultation, the Bill as it stands contains a provision that is designed specifically for the marine environment. It provides for the proper consideration of the importance of any scientific site prior to the go-ahead being given to any contemplated development that may threaten it.
In considering the Bill, it is important to emphasise that the last word in determining the status of SSSIs and marine sites of special interest lies with the Secretary of State. One would assume that he or she would have the interests of the environment at heart.
My noble friend Lord Whitty spoke on this matter in 2000 in your Lordships' House. He said:
"I accept that there has been a lack of progress on designating marine conservation areas, as compared with land-based ones".
The Member of Parliament who sponsored this Bill, Mr Randall, said that he agreed wholeheartedly with that. My noble friend went on:
"We now have the will to pursue an increase in identification and powers to enforce marine conservation areas of all kinds".— [Official Report, 16/10/00; cols. 840–1.]
It goes without saying that the Bill, soon, I hope, to become an Act, will be tested in everyday practice. If it is found wanting in any material respect, we should have no qualms about amending it at a later stage. Let us see. Equally, however, we should have no hesitation about having further consultation with those who have specialist knowledge. This is a moving feast of which we should be a part. That, I believe, is the aim of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Let us examine carefully what has been best practice internationally.
1010
The Bill has been considered and reconsidered elsewhere. National sites of marine importance are protected to a degree that was simply not the case before. The ability to reconcile development and conservation through the Bill is greatly improved. What has been achieved through wider discussion is also highly significant. That, together with the protection afforded to international sites through European legislation, means that many problems are on their way to resolution. It is true that we have not addressed all the potential difficulties—some will reveal themselves in the future—but I believe that a very good start has been made.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, the House is surely extremely grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay for introducing this subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, reminded us, the proposals in the Bill require us to look again at the potential conflict between the objectives of environmental conservation on the one hand and economic and recreational activity on the other. I believe most sincerely that all those objectives are laudable. As has already been said today, the issue is how to strike a balance between them.
I say at the outset that I do not have any direct interest in ports, offshore energy or other commercial activities that will, or may be, potentially affected if the proposals in the Bill reach the statute book. However, as some of your Lordships may be aware, I have long had an interest in maritime affairs and renewable energy, and therefore I have studied the Bill with considerable interest.
It is hoped that all informed commentators will agree that present legislation governing marine environmental protection is in need of overhaul. Indeed, the Government acknowledged that when promoting the Countryside and Rights of Way Act., As has been said, they recognised that marine conservation raised a series of special and distinct issues. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Caithness advised the House, they established a Review of Marine Nature Conservation to look at the whole area.
The terms of reference for that review were to evaluate the present statutory and voluntary marine nature conservation measures, including European initiatives, and to put forward,
"practical and proportionate proposals for improving marine nature conservation".
The review is being conducted by a committee which comprises representatives of government departments and conservation agencies, together with sectorial interests, including ports, leisure interests, fishing and offshore operations.
Again, as we have been told—I believe that it is well worth repeating it—the review produced an interim report in May last year. That interim report recognised that current legislation for marine conservation was not satisfactory and noted that marine nature conservation raised complicated and difficult issues. In particular, it recognised that the answer was not

1011
simply to extend the SSSI regime into the marine environment. The report proposed that a pilot scheme should be established, known as the "Regional Seas Project",
"to demonstrate both the application of new concepts and examine how far the conservation management needed within the pilot area"
no pun intended there—
"could be delivered through existing systems".
The pilot scheme has now been set up, as we have been advised, in the Irish Sea, and the results are expected to be available by the end of next year. When those results are available, the review of marine nature conservation will have completed its work.
It is of interest that when the Bill was originally published, it was discussed at a meeting of that review group in August last year. Saving the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who, sadly, is not in her place at present, with the exception of the RSPB representative, all other members of the group agreed that, while the objectives of the Bill were laudable, it was not an appropriate solution to the issues which the group had been considering and that the "quick-fix" approach in the Bill was not the answer.
The problem is the familiar one of a series of statutory regimes enacted at different times for different purposes, which now constitute a complex web of legislation. Arguably that does not serve the best interests of either the conservationist or business. My noble friend Lady Wilcox has already reminded us that the Minister, Mr Meacher, in another place—I shall not give the whole quotation again, but it is significant—said,
"we must not apply a simplistic solution to a complicated problem".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/10/01, col. 594.]
As my noble friend Lord Caithness reminded us, do we really want a 43rd piece of legislation on this subject before the review has had a chance to give its report?
That said, I recognise of course that the other place, in its wisdom, has seen fit to give the Bill its blessing, albeit in an amended form. It was substantially amended, and thereafter unscrutinised, in another place. Therefore, I believe—indeed, I am absolutely certain—that it is the duty of this House to look most carefully not only at the provisions of the Bill in the form in which they are now presented, and in particular to look at the implications for the ports, offshore energy, fishing and recreational interests, which may or may not be affected; it is also important that we look at its timing.
As I said at the outset, overarching all this is the need to strike a reasonable balance between desirable but potentially conflicting objectives. This country has a rich heritage in its coastline and its marine environment which we must surely seek to protect. However, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, so wisely said, our coastal waters are also the scene of considerable and important economic activity. I am concerned that, in its present form, the Bill may not
1012
strike the right balance. Assuming that the Bill proceeds, I shall, at a later stage, table amendments to redress that imbalance.
Quite separately from the review of marine nature conservation, the Government have, as my noble friend Lady Wilcox has just said, embarked on a review of the marine consents procedures with their White Paper, Modern Ports. The paper undertook that the Government would,
"work with the industry and other interests to rationalise and, where possible, simplify the consents and enquiry procedures for port developments".
After some delay, this exercise has now been launched. It was announced in the marine stewardship report published last month, which undertook that the Government would—this is my final quotation—
"review the regulatory framework affecting coastal and marine development, including ports, with a view to simplifying the regulatory system and protecting the marine environment".
But, as my noble friend Lady Wilcox has just reminded us, the exercise started only last month. It has only just got under way, and the initial fact-finding stage is therefore the very beginning of its progress.
Surely it is not an appropriate moment to introduce yet another new regime for designation of protected marine sites at a time when the Government are in the process of seeking to rationalise and simplify an already complex regime. Marine environment is very close to my heart. I dearly want to see it protected, but surely we must get it right and not get off to a false start.
12.49 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, at this stage of the debate I do not have much to contribute by way of technical considerations, but I have a background of past activities that make me aware of the importance of our marine coastal environment and its conservation. For five years I was a member of the Natural Environment Research Council, which has several inshore—I do not know whether to talk about "inshore" or "offshore"—marine research stations. Prior to that I was president of the Royal Geographical Society, and although I am not a geographer I became familiar with our geomorphologically more important stretches of coast. I also recall my experience as chairman of the National Trust which protects nearly a half of our heritage coast in England and Wales, although its ownership does not extend into the sea.
From that background I find it increasingly odd that there is no protection of the coastal marine environment equivalent to that provided on land by the SSSI designation under the Act of 1981, to which reference has been made. I understand that the SSSI designation could not automatically relate to the sea. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, it enabled the MNRs to be set up. Of course, the MNR designation is not the same as an SSSI, nor has it been particularly successful. I am glad that the Government recognise that.
For all those reasons I am glad to add my support for the Bill. Either the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, or the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said that we had waited

1013
21 years since the Wildlife and Countryside Act and even if I were a life Peer I would not be here if we had to wait another 21 years. It does not make sense to wait any longer. We would have to wait for a Private Member's Bill to achieve the progress that we hope will be made by this Bill.
I have been impressed by the debate. We have heard a long and distinguished list of knowledgeable speakers who for the most part have been supportive. It is encouraging that the White Paper—nowadays it is a glossy paper but I believe that it amounts to a White Paper—has been most supportive of the Bill. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the debate.
I found Safeguarding our Seas a most encouraging document. It is an excellent overview of the whole maritime environment and of the Government's intentions. If there is a gap, it is perhaps in relation to where responsibilities lie and who does what. In that sense the Bill fills at least part of the gap.
I shall not say anything about the details of the Bill, which for the most part appear unexceptional. I wondered what was meant by "sustainable development" in Clause 12. It is a fashionable, much over-worked phrase that can mean almost anything to anyone. However, I believe that the White Paper has a perfectly sensible definition which is good enough for me and I imagine that it could be the basis of ministerial guidance. I hope that that will allay the fears, for example, of the Countryside Council for Wales which had a concern on that point, as did one or two noble Lords.
Previous speakers have raised many points. Some want to strengthen the Bill; some wish to weaken it, wreck it or destroy it, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, "Remember that the best is the enemy of the good". I too had written that down. Changing the metaphor, I add that half a loaf is better than no loaf. The Bill is somewhat modest, but it is better than anything that has gone before.
I have been sent material by English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. English Nature, as we have heard, is supportive and makes the point, which is surely right, that the Bill,
"is seen in the context of the comprehensive and integrated approach",
highlighted in the White Paper. On the other hand, the CCW was rather dismissive. I do not propose to deal with what it said, but I found its reasons somewhat insubstantial.
I also made contact with my old organisation, NERC. It advised me that while conservation falls largely outside NERC's remit, colleagues at marine laboratories are generally supportive. The Wildlife and Countryside Link, an important umbrella body, goes further and regards the Bill as a major step forward.
1014
We have a wonderful coast with rich and variegated marine eco-systems. Nevertheless, the Bill, modest though its measures appear to be, gives us the capability to improve significantly how we look after our marine environmental heritage.
12.55 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for presenting the Bill to the House. Like the previous speaker, and as a relatively new Member of the House, I have been very impressed by the knowledgeable debate. I believe that the strength of the House is the knowledge possessed by noble Lords, irrespective of whether they agree with each other.
One of the first Bills that I followed in any depth was the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. Among other matters, that touched on conservation issues about land. I believe that this Bill complements the CROW Bill because it aims to strengthen the laws relating to nature conservation and to protect wildlife in the marine environment.
In 1999 the UK Government defined "sustainable development" and among other objectives they outlined effective protection of the environment and prudent use of natural resources. I believe that this Bill covers those two aims admirably. Sustainable development has become an increasingly important part of public consciousness; they are certainly words that are used more often, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said. It has become part of the Government's thinking as witnessed in their publication Safeguarding Our Seas: A Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of Our Marine Environment. It is also part of the debate surrounding the European Union's strategy for sustainable development. The union defined that phrase as:
"A dynamic process which enables all people to realise their potential and improve their quality of life in ways which simultaneously protect and enhance the earth's life support systems".
We need to emphasise the need for this kind of legislation in the UK and in Europe in relation to our seas. I want to read to your Lordships a short extract from an article in the May report of the Labour Animal Welfare Society. I declare an interest as a member of that society
"(mid-water) trawlers, operating to the south and west of Britain and France are catching unacceptable numbers of dolphins. While these fisheries are yet to be properly monitored, hundreds of dead Dolphins wash up on English and French beaches every year. The UK and other National Governments and the European Commission have a responsibility and a legal requirement under EU law to monitor and address this problem—although a small number of UK boats are involved in the fishery, the overwhelming majority are based in France who have failed to take action"
As has already been stated, the Bill is supported by such powerful advocates as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which estimates that 70 sites would gain protection in England and Wales under this legislation, and by English Nature, which stresses the importance of seeing the Bill in the context of a comprehensive and integrated approach to the marine environment.

1015
As the RSPB said in its support for the Bill, protected marine sites are needed to allow sensitive species, including dolphins, porpoises, puffins and gannets, to breed, feed or over winter safely without disturbance. Better enforcement of wildlife protection measures is also essential. The changes proposed in this Bill would help level the playing field, giving marine sites and species similar protection to those on land.
I particularly welcome three parts of the Bill: the register of marine sites of special interest; the powers for the establishment of management schemes of special interest and, if necessary, by direction; and the offence of international or reckless disturbance of marine sites of special interest. This is an important Bill and I hope that it receives the support of the Government.
1 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I am sorry to make my intervention in the gap. Having one's name knocked off the list of speakers in a deferred debate without notice is an arcane aspect of Lords' procedure of which I was unaware.
I declare an interest as chairman of ACOPS. I returned this morning from Nigeria where we were dealing with an inter-governmental conference on the devastated and endangered environment of African coastlines. I welcome the introduction of this Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. It is an important step in protecting the marine environment which my noble friend Lord Callaghan fought for when setting up ACOPS 50 years ago in 1952.
I have two substantial points which I hope the Government will consider carefully as they take their policies forward following this Bill. The first, touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is the marine sites of special interest introduced in Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. Will the Minister ensure that when those sites are under threat from the expansion of ports and other developments, changes will be permitted only for genuine conservation reasons and with real consultation as is proposed in the strong Clause 4, especially subsection (4)(c). It should be more thorough than has happened in recent years in the highly questionable permission given for the abandonment or even movement of outstanding sites of special scientific interest we have seen in the UK.
My second point is that this legislation should be followed by more comprehensive marine legislation, as other noble Lords indicated. That has been called for by many organisations in the UK, from the commercial to the environmental and scientific. Such legislation, which I and colleagues discussed earlier with Mr Meacher, should include some significant change to the administration of ocean policy in the UK so as to bring ocean policies together with those of the atmosphere and wider global and regional environmental questions.
In the United States the policy branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fulfils that role and provides unique global leadership.
1016
That administration also includes fisheries. Because the movement of fish, birds and pollution are not confined to coastal waters, they have to be considered globally. We need an agency in the UK to deal with those issues more effectively and transparently than hitherto. The introduction by this Government of the Food Standards Agency has been a great success in the complex area of food, health and agriculture. Why not an Ocean and Atmospheric Agency for the future?
I conclude by saying that I hope noble Lords have read Moby Dick. The author commented that the British sovereign, at his coronation, is anointed with whale oil and when kings ate their feasts in London, before 1350, they would always eat whale meat, such was the nature of the marine environment in those days. It seems we are getting back to it.
1.3 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches we warmly welcome the arrival in this House of the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill. I join other noble Lords in congratulating, first, the honourable John Randall who introduced the Bill as a Private Member's Bill in the other place, and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who has had to be so patient in awaiting its consideration on the Floor of your Lordships' House.
We associate ourselves with the wise remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, relating to the Government's attitude to Private Member's Bills throughout the decade. Reading the debates in another place, it was clear that one of the things that pleased Members was that the debate was good natured and centred around a common interest. That is all to the good for political life.
For that reason I regret the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Perhaps he was sitting so close to where the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, normally sits that he was overtaken by a wish to play the role of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who likes to create debate in your Lordships' House by making comments with which we can all disagree.
In common with the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, and other noble Lords, I am pleased to see this matter come before us, having been disappointed that the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill could not contain provisions relating to marine conservation. I suffered a baptism of fire as a Front-Bencher on the CROW Bill and hope that this Bill will have a swift passage through this House.
It is a great mark of recognition that we have arrived at the position where marine life, for all the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is to be given the importance it warrants in that at least half the species under the sea are to be found in our coastal waters. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, mentioned that the Dorset coast—my home area—recently received the accolade of becoming a World Heritage Site. It is indeed a wonderful coast.
This Bill will protect areas equally worthy of protection but which would probably fail to have any recognition under European designations because of

1017
containing, for example, the RAF site on the Taw and Torridge estuary. That would probably preclude the area being a European site, but it may well be able to benefit from a designation under this Bill.
The Government will have to consider carefully how to link the protection given in this Bill with the 42 different types of designation mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the way that this Bill links to those and other pieces of legislation. Guidance given to agencies trying to enact them will be important.
The noble Lords, Lord Mason of Barnsley and Lord Bridges, gave us examples of how good conservation can make good economic sense and the whole adds up to sustainability. That is where the National Park model raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks—could prove valuable. It enables issues to be considered in the round and concentrates on the involvement of stakeholders. There is much to be learnt from working with that model.
I listened with interest to the long experience of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, particularly with the National Trust, which has much to offer as an example in the way it has managed to involve stakeholders in its decisions.
The noble Lords, Lord Judd, Lord Chorley and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, by association with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, expressed reservations about exactly what Clause 12 will mean. I look forward to the Minister's explanation as to exactly what the Government intended when they added Clause 12 to the Bill.
The main opposition to the Bill in this House seems to have arisen from those with a specific interest in wind farms. I share their concern that renewable energy sources should be able to go ahead. It would be pointless to offer species protection only for them to die out as a result of climate change. So we must examine the issues of renewable energy and ensure that they are enabled by this Bill and not prohibited. Noble Lords have spoken only of wind farms. Of course there are huge opportunities in tidal power. In Committee, I shall want to return to that matter and explore how the Bill in the Government's view affects tidal power, in particular in view of the interesting point raised by my honourable friend David Heath in another place, that the Bill only protects that which is under the water, not above. So the Bill might be said to have bigger implications for tidal power than for wind power.
I ask the House authorities to consider the issue of Explanatory Notes not being available in the Printed Paper Office for Private Member's Bills. That does not help Members of your Lordships' House. It is an arcane rule which could do with overhaul.
Finally, I turn to the issue of charts. Can the Minister explain why there will be a requirement to register the sites when no map will be available to those who use the seas? It is strange to have the one requirement without linking it into the other. Perhaps over the years one of the mistakes of land-based maps
1018
has been that they have not identified N1SSIs. That may be why so many sites have declined into unfavourable conditions—no one knew where they were.
With those few reservations I should like to wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House. I would not wish to see any amendments tabled that would preclude that speedy passage and the Bill being put on the statute book forthwith.
1.11 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay for introducing her Private Member's Bill today and for giving noble Lords a chance to express their views and to share in many cases—predominantly behind me—some of their concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to taking the CROW Bill through the House as a baptism of fire. It was not my first baptism of fire. But with hindsight, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is acknowledging, I think we missed a trick. At the time I indicated that my knowledge of what went on under the sea was not as good as my knowledge of what went on on land. I suspect that for most of us it is true that we see what we see above the land. We do not—obviously, perhaps—give as much thought to that below.
Therefore, certainly from my point of view—I know we spent an enormous amount of time discussing that Bill in this House—it was one of the aspects that we did not conclude. We got the biodiversity plan on to the statute book, but the marine part we missed.
On first reading through my noble friends Bill I thought it rather wishy-washy, too conciliatory in tone and unlikely to make an impact. I then began to realise how very little had been done by anyone else. It was, I thought, better to support a little Bill, simple and short as this one is, advancing one step at a time—a step perhaps in the right direction.
The world's awakening to the fragility of our environment has been sluggish. Even today many governments pay only lip service to preservation, conservation and the application of sustainable technologies, but I recognise too, as has been repeated today, the need for a balance between conservation and commercial and social activity.
The Rio Earth Summit was back in 1992, some 10 years ago. The Jakarta mandate, setting the scene for action on marine and coastal biodiversity, was in 1995—seven years ago.
There are now over 6,500 SSSIs. But they normally stop at the mean low water mark. Only a few go beyond. There are now three such marine nature reserves—Lundy, Skomer and Strangford Lough. As my noble friend, the originator of the Bill, pointed out, there is no special protection for the likes of Bracklesham Balls, Lyme Bay or the Worthing Lumps. There must be many other candidates for protection and conservation all around our coastline.
I am aware that there are interestes, particularly in shipping, wind farm and fishing that would prefer the status quo. Perhaps I may say that if I were English

1019
Nature, looking at the length of our coastline, I would not go picking fights at this stage in all aspects. Instead, if the Bill were to pass, I should concentrate on the areas where there are no major commercial activities and wait for some of the measures outlined in Chapter 2 of Safeguarding Our Seas to catch up with me. There is a balance to be struck.
However, I believe that we should do something. The Bill gets an honourable mention in Safeguarding Our Seas in the chapter on "Protecting Marine Biodiversity". Section 2.41 states:
"The Government is pleased that the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill, a private member's Bill produced by John Randall MP, has completed the Commons stages and now will be considered by the House of Lords. The Bill, if enacted, will permit the notification of marine sites in England and Wales which arc of special interest by virtue of their fauna, flora or geological or physiographical features. Such sites will be of national importance".
The rest of the chapter on protecting marine biodiversity sets the historical background. It tells the reader that the UK is working internationally to protect coral reefs, is currently carrying out a review of Ramsar sites, failed with its proposal to give basking sharks international trade protection and has established a consultative forum on whaling—another forum, another form of consultation.
Noble Lords have recognised that there is a great deal of disjointed activity and a great deal of consultation taking place. The chapter talks about negotiating agreements, exploring feasibilities, working to develop legislation, developing new approaches to evaluate, and so on. Fine, but at the moment we are not doing anything. Some of my noble friends say—quite rightly—with a good deal of force that there are current negotiations taking place and perhaps it would be wiser to wait.
In 1998 there was a consultation on SSSIs, from which came the review of marine nature conservation. To speed this on its way the Government set up yet another working group. They stated:
"This group includes Government Departments and agencies, regulatory bodies, the devolved administrations, conservation NGOs, commercial and leisure interests".
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to that. In March 2001, after two years work, it produced its interim recommendations. That was 14 months ago. I am confident that we should expect its final report sometime before Christmas 2003 on the evidence of that timetable. My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to that.
However, even then, there will doubtless need to be other layers of consultation. I notice that local authorities are not mentioned in the working group. But I am sure that, as usual, they will do the lion's share of the tacky end of the work. As with the control of imports of illegal meat, it will be the local authorities who get to enforce the marine protection regulations—whatever they turn out to be.
The protection of marine animals is no easy task, but we need to smarten up our act and—perhaps I may suggest—get on with it, although I know that three or four of my noble friends behind me do not agree.
1020
On 7th June 2002 Mr Elliot Morley MP, in a "Newsnight" interview, stated that it would cost a lot of money and take three years to research the damage done to dolphins, porpoises and some small whales by pair trawler nets. He did not take into account the great body of evidence already gathered by animal welfare bodies, the Institute of Zoology and concerned private individuals. Yet he seemed to know precisely what would be involved.
By March this year, only three months short of two years later, he was able to respond to a Written Question on cetacean by-catches. He replied that the Sea Mammal Research Unit would be conducting trials during March into the use of separator grids in nets in the offshore bass fishery in the South West. Can the Minister give us some idea of how successful those trials have been? Are plans underway to make use of those separated grids immediately and make them compulsory in United Kingdom territorial waters or even on UK registered vessels?
As my noble friend Lady Anelay said, this is a little Bill. I recognise that it has been heavily altered in another place. It has strong connections with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, as I mentioned. But the fact that it poses questions and difficulties for us is no reason why we should not at least debate it further. The one issue on which, I believe, we are all are agreed is that we want marine life to be conserved and to flourish. The question is: is the Bill the right measure at the right time and in the right place? How do we balance commercial sensitivities with conserving our wildlife? I thank my noble friend—my good friend—Lady Anelay for giving us the opportunity to have a full debate today.
I shall now touch on one other matter raised by noble Lords: the need for renewable energy. That is a huge problem for this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, spoke of wind energy, as did my noble friend Lord Moynihan. To consider the matter in a different context, I find it totally unacceptable that we have about 800,000 acres of set-aside land in our country that could be providing us with energy crops at a time when half the world is starving.
My noble friend has set us a great challenge today. I thank her for introducing the Bill.
1.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, must be gratified by the course of this debate. There has been much praise not only for her work and the knowledge of the subject that she has gained in promoting the Bill but for the way in which she presented the Bill today and for her energy in pursuing it and in talking to everyone involved, so that we could have the kind of informed debate that we have had today.
I have no doubt that the noble Baroness herself will want to pick up many of the remarks in support of the Bill in her summing up. I shall largely concentrate on the criticism of the Bill, but in doing so, everyone

1021
should recognise that throughout the Chamber from every speaker there has been either outright support for the Bill or support for its principle and objectives. That is a commendable achievement and a demonstration that we are close to consensus in the House, although some important problems of timing and balance remain.
My noble friend Lady Nicol and others have dealt with the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who is not in his place. The Bill was not initiated or even provoked by the Government. It is a Bill that the Government felt had merit and which we have amended significantly. Nevertheless, the principle of the Bill is that of a Private Member's Bill and it should be treated as such, although the Government's support is clear.
I am of course aware that some users of the marine environment have significant concerns about certain of its provisions, while, on the other side of the argument, some environmentalists fear that it does not go far enough. There are also concerns about its timing. Timing for any Bill is never exactly right. There are parallel processes and inevitably some people will argue that we should have acted sooner and others that we should wait until something else occurs.
The important thing is that the Government have a coherent overall approach to marine conservation set out in the document that has been referred to and by my right honourable friend Michael Meacher on many occasions. The Bill forms part of that overall strategy. Parts of the Bill will not be implementable until other things have happened—I shall return to that later. The point is that we now have parliamentary time to set the main principles in primary legislation.
One of the main processes taking place in parallel with the Bill is my department's Review of Marine Nature Conservation, to which several noble Lords referred. That brings together all the major stakeholders and is intended to develop an ecosystem-based approach to managing the marine environment. It has already issued an interim report, which sets out its general sense of direction. The interim report recognises the need to identify and protect nationally important sites. The ongoing work of the review will assist in the drawing up of selection criteria and the identification of such sites and will undoubtedly help to influence the size and scope of suitable areas of the kind facilitated by the Bill. So, contrary to that work being in contradiction to the Bill's purpose, it is complementary to it, and the Bill's provisions will form an intrinsic part of the strategic approach to marine conservation.
As I said, in order to take account of the outcome of the review, the Government will need to delay implementation of some of the Bill's provisions until the review has concluded its work. If I understood him rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said that that group had registered its concerns that the Bill's provisions pre-empted its conclusions. I am informed that that was not precisely the group's conclusion, although it undoubtedly expressed reservations about
1022
the difficulty of transposing the SSSI regime into the marine environment and about the possible burdens and difficulties that aspects of the Bill present.
But most of those concerned—certainly most of those concerned with the conservation and preservation of the marine environment—recognise that those are two strands of a strategic approach. We set out that overall strategy in Safeguarding Our Seas, and the first of a series of marine stewardship reports has been produced, which is also an ongoing process, the benefits of which will feed into the Bill's implementation.
This is a complex area, and I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others have complained that we are adding to the complexity and layers of regulation in the marine area. The Government recognise that issue and one of the amendments made in another place was to ensure that there is no duplication between internationally important sites and MSSIs. Some noble Lords also consider that the Bill increases the complexity of existing marine consent regimes and pre-empts the findings of other government initiatives in the marine area. But, again, how the Bill is implemented will be informed by those reviews—not only the review to which I referred but the Review of Development in Coastal and Marine Waters, begun by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer in his previous capacity. That is now being continued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. That review, too, will feed into how the Bill is regulated. It is a review of regulations and consent procedures and is obviously an important element in how the Bill is implemented.
In summary, the other activities and initiatives that take into account and deal with the stakeholders are part of that overall strategy. Rather than pre-empting or going against the principles of the Bill, they are complementary and supportive. The whole point is that we end up with a balance. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred early in this debate to balance and many other noble Lords have picked up that theme.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, if I heard the Minister correctly, he said that the reviews that are under way are complementary to the Bill. I do not understand how he can say that, as the reviews have not come to their conclusion.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Bill provides powers for the competent authorities in this area that they will implement in designating and managing sites and in establishing criteria for the balance in reaching those judgments. The operation of those authorities will be informed by the outcome of those various reviews. In other words, the substance of several of their decisions will be helped by the outcome of those reviews. That should not stop us enacting the powers and, eventually, implementing those powers, in order to carry out those decisions. It is important that the kind of considerations that the reviews address are taken into account when the authorities come to exercise their judgment. Because we are looking for a balance, it is important that they take into account each of those reviews.

1023
Legislation is a complex matter, and it is important that we take account of a wide range of other interests, in addition to conservation issues. In its interim report, the group to which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred emphasised that there must be a maximum community of interest. As far as it goes, the Bill strikes a balance. The amendments made by the Government in another place made that clearer. That is exemplified, in particular, by the clause on sustainable development, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen referred. It enables us to take into account all strands of sustainable development—economic and social, as well as environmental.
It is important that we are in a position to evaluate all the dimensions without allowing any of them to override another. The environmental considerations are vitally important, but the other considerations must also be taken into account. In some cases, developments that might, in the first place, be seen to be of economic importance might bring substantial environmental benefits, greater perhaps, in some cases, than those brought by the full powers of protection for the site. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the issue of sustainable, renewable energy, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. There are environmental benefits with that, as well as potential economic benefits, and they may outweigh any damage to a protected site caused by construction. We do not want the judgments to be made in such a way as to act to the detriment of the development of renewable energy—offshore wind farms or the other forms of renewable energy suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.
It is important that we allow port development and other economic activities to continue. However, we must take account of the principles of the Bill. The clause relating to sustainable development means that having protected sites will not create a series of no-go areas for developers—that is not the intention—provided that the development is compatible with the aim of sustainability. It is also true that, in dealing with the marine environment, we are dealing with risk areas, about which there is, sometimes, uncertain knowledge. In such cases, decisions on the likelihood of a negative outcome are not based on sufficient information. We must, therefore, take a precautionary approach.
Under previous legislation, issues relating to the various strands of sustainable development are handled together. Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, which deals with the designation of SSSIs—mainly on land—requires the authorities to,
"have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas".
It is not a one-dimensional approach to sustainable development.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also referred to international developments and, in particular, to the Bergen declaration, in which process my colleague
1024
Michael Meacher is also heavily involved. That declaration does not imply that states should wait until all the information handled in those proceedings is brought together in international decisions before taking steps to protect sites of national interest. The Government accept that the provisions of the Bill should not be implemented, until the review of marine nature conservation has been completed, but measures to protect sites of national interest need not await the outcome of the Bergen process. We can take steps that are compatible with that before that review reaches its conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also asked about the criteria for notification and suggested, I think, that marine sites of special interest should be notified prior to the publication of the criteria under Clause 3(2). The criteria allow the agencies to identify the sites, so we will publish the criteria before the sites can be identified.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, said, the Bill specifies—mostly in Clause 9—the way in which competent marine authorities should act when they propose to carry out operations or authorise any activity that would be likely to damage a marine site of special interest. Clause 9(1) specifies that, in exercising its functions, a marine authority must take reasonable steps to ensure that, before deciding to undertake or give consent to an operation that is likely to damage an MSSI, it must inform the appropriate nature conservation body, which will then have 28 days in which to comment on the proposal. The authority must make its judgment on the basis of the comments received. My noble friend Lady Nichol asked whether there was also a power to take action if damage had been done. That is not covered by the Bill, which deals with the designation of sites.
Noble Lords also asked why the legislation was not UK-wide. We always tend to get such questions in your Lordships' House. Most of the matters are devolved matters. Although we wish to maintain an overall UK approach to international matters, there may be different legislation for different parts of the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley raised the issue of the use of drift-nets. My noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised issues relating to North Sea fishing and the effect of the use of drift-nets on other species. Beyond a limit of six nautical miles, drift-net fishing for salmon is prohibited. It is also the Government's policy to phase out the North-east Coast Salmon Drift-Net Fishery. That was started 10 years ago in 1993, and the number of licences has reduced since then by over 50 per cent. We will continue to phase out that activity. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked whether I could report on the research into that matter. I cannot do so today, but I shall make inquiries and get her an answer.
There were several queries about shipping. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, referred to concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, who is not able to be with us today. There is nothing

1025
in the proposals that restricts the general right to navigate the territorial seas. The Bill is fully compliant with our international obligations in that regard.
For mapping and identifying sites, it is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, important that seafarers are made aware of the location of MSSIs and that the conservation body is required to keep that register. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, would want to know why the Bill does not require it to be put on the authoritative charts. The answer is not very satisfactory; it is rather technical and legalistic. We are in discussion with the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office to see how we can ensure that such sites are marked on the appropriate charts. However, in terms of law and statute, I regret that the Bill cannot provide for that because it cannot provide for the Hydrographic Office to mark the sites on Admiralty charts. Despite its great authority in the area, the office has no separate legal identity under any Act of Parliament and therefore cannot have a duty placed on it by any Act of Parliament. That is the technical answer but we hope that Admiralty charts come to identify the sites.
I hope that I have dealt with some of the issues of concern. I believe that the Bill strikes the appropriate balance in the mechanism it proposes. It is part of a coherent whole to the strategy on marine conservation identified by the Government which will take into account other interests in addition to the environmental dimension.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others who said that 21 years is long enough to wait. There are difficulties in respect of parliamentary time for Private and Public Bills and we ought to seize this opportunity to put the principles of the Bill on to the statute book. I therefore hope that we will bear that in mind in moving to the next stage of the Bill.
1.41 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. I am grateful for the kind words spoken from the three Front Benches and I thank in particular noble Lords who have supported the Bill from the Back Benches: the noble Lords, Lord Mason of Barnsley, Lord Judd, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Lord Hardy of Wath, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Chorley and Lord Hunt of Chesterton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. All made it clear that it is vital to have protection of our marine environment and that we need it now. Others who have their own objections supported the Bill's objectives but questioned whether now is the right time to introduce it, whether it goes too far or not far enough.
Perhaps I may refer as best as I can to some of the issues which were directed specifically at me. If I omit any matters, I shall he pleased to talk to noble Lords about them between now and Committee stage. I begin with the timing of the Bill which is at last being debated at Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Caithness
1026
was offended that the Bill had been "pulled" twice having appeared on the Order Paper. I regret any inconvenience to him with regard to the timing of this debate.
It is right that an explanation should be given. On the two previous occasions, the Private Member's Bill, which does not take precedence over the time of government Bills, had been listed at a time which it was hoped would be convenient to your Lordships. On the first occasion, government business had to jump ahead of the Bill and it was estimated that we would finish our debate between 2 and 2.30 a.m. On the second occasion, government business suddenly became longer. A speakers' list, which it was thought by usual channels would extend to only a dozen, finally totalled 35, which would again have meant finishing our debate between 1 and 1.30 a.m. I can only apologise for the delay in reaching Second Reading but I hope that for most noble Lords eleven o'clock in the morning is somewhat more convenient time to start the debate than eleven o'clock at night.
My noble friend Lord Caithness objected to the fact that the Bill had been amended so severely in the Commons and believed that it had become a government Bill. My noble friend Lord Geddes expressed similar concern. I can state only what I know to be true: that it is very much the Bill of my honourable friend John Randall. It is his "baby"—or perhaps as he is such a keen ornithologist I should say that it is his "chick"! If in the other place the Government gave it extra feed to fatten it up, that has made it a healthier Bill but certainly not a government Bill. I was grateful in particular for the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, with her experience of what has happened over many years under both governments, about the assistance which may be given by governments to Private Members' Bills. If it were the position that a government could not amend a Private Member's Bill for fear of it becoming a government Bill, I suspect that noble Lords would find there would be no Private Members' Bills.
My noble friend Lord Caithness asked a specific question about who provided the Explanatory Notes. In my opening remarks, I commented on the fact that they had been written by the RSPB with advice from DEFRA. My noble friend wanted to know the precise name of the person. As is the wont when these notes are produced from someone's computer, the evidence appears in hard print. We see the name of Duncan Huggett, who works for the RSPB, and even the date and the file name on his computer.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, used this Private Member's Bill debate as an opportunity to raise matters on fishing which are dear to his heart. I feel that that is a legitimate use of this kind of debate and I thank him for his support of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the importance of attaining a balance between economic development and conservation. I agree with every word he said on that matter. He questioned the fact that the Bill makes no reference to marine archaeology and referred to a meeting last week with English

1027
Heritage. I, too, attended that meeting as a member of the All Party Archaeology Group, now the second largest such group in both Houses.
When I took the National Heritage Bill, a Private Member's Bill, through your Lordships' House, I commented that I had looked carefully at whether it would in any way contradict the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill. At that stage I received advice from the RSPB that although there had been initial concerns, it decided that the two Bills were complementary and not contradictory. That remains the belief of interested parties. There is therefore no mention of marine archaeology, it having been dealt with as satisfactorily as possible in another Bill.
Several concerns were expressed about the fact that the Bill might pre-empt the results of the review of the marine nature conservation currently being undertaken by the Government. My noble friends Lord Caithness, Lord Geddes and Lord Moynihan raised issues on that and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for pointing out that the provisions of the Bill are complementary to that review and that the Bill can be built into the wider process of marine conservation which is currently under way.
The regulatory impact assessment of the Bill also identifies the fact that it will fit in with the RNMC's continuing work. As Ministers made clear today and in another place, it is envisaged that the implementation of the Bill if passed would be delayed until the review had concluded its work and made its final recommendations. In this way, the work carried out by the review in identifying species and habitats of national importance will be vital in assisting the implementation of the Bill. That appears in paragraph 13 of the RIA, which I should be delighted to make available to noble Lords if they wish. As I mentioned in opening, passing the Bill now will allow the preparatory work to be done so that the Bill can be implemented more quickly when the time comes.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan was concerned about an issue addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty: sites might be notified before the criteria are published. As I hope that I made clear in my opening remarks, the Bill makes it essential that criteria should be drawn up by the Secretary of State and published before a further step of notification could take place. Indeed, there will be consultation at that stage.
Questions were posed by my noble friend Lady Wilcox about the criteria for selecting sites. It is the intention that the ports shall be consulted on the criteria before they are published.
My noble friends Lady Wilcox and Lord Geddes raised the issue of the review of consents. My noble friend Lady Wilcox asked that the Bill should not proceed until after the government review on consents has been completed. I join the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in believing that the Bill will not prejudice the outcome of that review or the legislation that will flow from it. Furthermore, it is important to take into account the statement made in another place on 16th May by Mr Michael Meacher. When questioned about
1028
the review of the marine consents regime, the Minister said—I apologise for the length of the quote but it is relevant to the point properly raised by my noble friend—
"The purpose of the review of the regulatory system that affects development in coastal waters is to reconcile the divergence of interest that has been apparent so often in the past between economic development and marine conservation. The Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill that the hon. Member for Uxbridge … promoted is designed to do precisely that: designate marine sites of special interest and involve all the economic players—for example, those who want port development, offshore oil development and wind farms. They all need to be involved in developing policy. It is not one or the other; we can do far better than in the past in reconciling interests".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/5/02; col. 899.]
I firmly believe that it is important to reconcile those interests. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for pointing out that the consents review will feed into how the Bill is implemented.
The issue of whether or not this Bill should be UK-wide in its application was raised. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for addressing that matter. The reason that I have looked at this issue in great detail is that on these Benches my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, who is not in her place today, has always made it clear to me that I should consider in particular the case of Scotland. It was in that respect that I looked very carefully to ensure that where devolution had occurred, the Bill was complementary to it and that the matter of the boundaries between Scotland and England had been properly resolved.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox made the point that this was another piece of the mosaic in legislation and that one ought to wait further. The word "wait" has been used many times today. She quoted Mr Michael Meacher when he was apparently saying, "Do not let us do this. Let us hold off". But, of course, that was at Second Reading before amendments were made which ensured that the Bill could be taken forward in a proper form. By the time the Bill reached Third Reading Mr Meacher said that it is unquestionably an important Bill and listed the reasons why it should go on the statute book as soon as possible.
There was a rightful concern, which I share with my noble friends, that regulation should not be too burdensome. No one likes regulation. Human nature is such that we all want to be able to act as freely as possible, whether in our personal or commercial environment. But I do not believe that the marine environment is any more legislatively complex than the terrestrial environment. The sustainable development clause which underpins the Bill will ensure that there is a right balance and that economic development is not unfairly affected.
If I have missed anything, I shall write to noble Lords. I am aware of the time and the fact that the Minister has had questions addressed specifically to him. It would be wrong for me simply to duplicate some of his answers where they covered my points too.
I believe that the Bill gives us the opportunity to change for the better the way in which we manage our environment without compromising the needs of those carrying out the economic and commercial

1029
development that we all need. It is about achieving a balance between economic development and nature conservation, and improving our knowledge about what is out there and needs to be protected. Marine wildlife may largely be hidden from view—apart from the cormorant, which has had an extremely bad press today—but, however hidden it is, its conservation matters to the public and, I am sure, to all noble Lords. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2002
1.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships may be aware, we introduced in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 powers for the police to issue penalty notices for disorder offences. These powers are due to be piloted this summer to test their effectiveness. We introduced the powers to provide the police with a new disposal option for dealing with low-level nuisance crimes which reduces the amount of police time spent on paperwork and court time in dealing with prosecutions yet provides a punishment for the offender.
In preparation for the pilots we are laying before the House a number of orders provided for under Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The draft amendment order for consideration today provides for the addition of a new penalty offence to those listed in Section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. We will shortly be laying before the House a further two orders, subject to the negative resolution procedure, setting the level of penalties and the format of the penalty notice.
Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 provides for penalty notices to be issued for a number of disorder offences which are listed in Section 1(1). Section 1(2) allows the Secretary of State to amend the list of offences by order. This draft amendment order provides for the addition of the offence, under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or the display of any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
1030
Section 5 does not involve racially motivated behaviour, the threat of violence or the intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress, which are covered in other offences and which would not be appropriate for penalty notice disposal.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act was in the original list of penalty offences included in the Bill. Members of another place raised some objections and we agreed to drop the offence prior to the Bill completing its parliamentary procedure. However, the Government reserved the right to use the affirmative procedure to put back Section 5 if further consideration concluded that this should be done. We have had time to consider the matter in greater detail and in the light of representations made by the Association of Chief Police Officers. ACPO's view is that the penalty notice for disorder schemes would be seriously hampered by the omission of this offence. Its advice is that this offence is used operationally to deal with a very similar type of offending to that covered by Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967—disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place. Section 91 is already a penalty offence. But while Section 91 requires the offender to be drunk, Section 5 does not. It is wider drawn and a significant number of offences currently occur under it. We believe that it would be anomalous for a person who is behaving in a disorderly manner and is drunk to receive a penalty notice but for a person behaving in a similar way who is not drunk not to be given a penalty notice.
In the interests of consistency, we have accepted police representations that Section 5 of the Public Order Act should be added to the list of penalty offences and its use tested in the forthcoming pilots. ACPO's views on the need for the inclusion of this offence have received the strong support of the five police forces which will be running the pilots. They see the penalty notice for disorder scheme as providing an additional tool for dealing with low-level nuisance behaviour on the streets in a quick and effective way. I ask your Lordships to support this amendment order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].— (Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the Minister has given a helpful summary of the background to the order. Like my honourable friend Mr Dominic Grieve in another place, I have misgivings about the incorporation of this offence into Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Misgivings were voiced not only in another place but in your Lordships' House during the passing of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.
The fact that there is an element of subjectivity in this offence is a cause for concern, as is also the fact that as a serious offence it carries no record. Another possible objection raised in another place—that it would merely invite the offender to run off into the crowd—might be no bad thing if it stops him offending again.

1031
However, the Minister referred to the strong recommendation that ACPO has given to the order. With these reservations, I am pleased to note that Ministers have given an undertaking that the order will be piloted for a limited period to test its utility. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the period of that piloting scheme, if that has been fixed. Ultimately, considerable weight must be attached to a recommendation of this kind by ACPO. It is for this reason that we support the order.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to express the concern of these Benches about the order. As the Minister has said, the original version of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill included the offence under Section 5 of the 1986 Act as one of its penalty offences. The provision was still contained in the Bill when it reached this House, and it was strongly opposed in this House by my noble friends. I have re-read in Hansard the debate that took place on 30th April 2001, when an amendment to remove the offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 was strongly pressed by my noble friends Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Thomas of Gresford.
What eventually happened was that, in the run-up to the general election, the Government agreed to drop the offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act from the list of penalty offences. Therefore, the Bill was enacted without that provision being included. It is a matter of some considerable concern to us that, barely 12 months later, the proposal has comes back before this House in the form of a statutory instrument.
This proposal was opposed on grounds of principle, particularly—as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has said—because this offence carries a substantial subjective element. In particular, when the offence is one of threatening or insulting behaviour, one has to know who was threatened, who was insulted and whether the conduct was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to feel threatened or insulted. So it is not a classic penalty offence, which is simply a matter of either yes or no. One thinks of the original penalty offence; namely, a parking offence. In that case, someone is either wrongly parked or he is not. With this proposal there is a much more substantial subjective element, which makes it unsuitable for inclusion as a penalty offence.
We are concerned also about the practicality. In particular, we believe that if an officer is trying to serve a penalty notice on someone who is threatening or abusing him or someone else in the locality, it will prove a matter of some difficulty. We also have serious doubts as to whether penalty notices will be observed in terms of payment. It is our belief that this type of offence does not lend itself to the penalty notice procedure.
Obviously, this cannot be the subject of a lengthy debate or a Division on a Friday afternoon, so I shall not seek formally to object to the order. Nevertheless,
1032
I want to make it clear that, although we shall not vote against this statutory instrument on this occasion, it is one with which we disagree.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given to the order by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. He raised two reservations, but I understood him to say that, in the light of police support for the order, he is minded to support it.
So far as concerns subjectivity, the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, are right. There is a subjective element, because the offence is committed only if a person is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. That will require the police officer concerned to exercise some degree of subjective judgment—as he would if the offence were dealt with in a way other than by a fixed penalty notice. He will need to go through precisely the same decision-making process. I do not believe that the fact that the matter is subjective places it out of court so far as concerns this particular section.
An important point to make is that, if the recipient of the fixed penalty notice objects and believes the officer's judgment to be wrong, he will have the right to have his case heard in court.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, raised the question of whether this offence was too serious to be a fixed penalty offence. This is the least serious of a range of offences involving the causing of alarm, distress or harassment, and we have taken the view that it is not so serious that it cannot be dealt with by this procedure.
The noble Viscount asked specifically how long the proposal would be piloted in the four areas. The answer is that they will pilot it for a year. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made it clear that, although he would not vote against the order, he objected to it. He is right to say that the issue was raised at the time the Bill completed its passage in this House. But it was made clear that we reserved the right to reintroduce such a provision by order-making power after consultation, and that is what we have done. It is consistent with what we said. We have consulted and, what is more, the proposal will be piloted.
I also draw attention to the point that I made in my opening remarks; namely, that Section 1(1) allows in the existing Bill for a fixed penalty notice to be served in respect of Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The view was taken that it would be anomalous not to allow it in this case as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised the issues of subjectivity, seriousness, and practicality; namely, will this proposal make matters worse? That is a matter for the police to decide on an operational basis in individual cases. But as I have indicated, police representative bodies and the four areas that will pilot the proposal—those that know most about the practicalities—-believe that it should be included. In the light of those remarks, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 2002
2.7 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in 1988, the Criminal Justice Act introduced a power to ban the manufacture, sale and import of 14 specific offensive weapons, including butterfly knives, swordsticks and a range of martial arts equipment—all considered to be wholly unacceptable and without legitimate use.
When this list of offensive weapons was devised, it was not, I understand, intended to be definitive and there was an acceptance that further items, equally unacceptable, might be added to the list. On the basis that we accept that some weapons have no conceivable legitimate purpose, we are moving today to add the category of disguised knives to the schedule of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order.
The existence of disguised knives was first brought to our attention by the Chief Executive of the British Airports Authority. He pointed out to us a headline article in a Sunday paper, "Knife Terror on BA Jet", which described how a journalist made a return journey from London Heathrow. That person escaped detection while carrying three disguised knives, including a three-inch stiletto blade hidden within a ballpoint pen.
While I would not condone the action of this journalist, it brought home the threat of disguised knives deliberately manufactured to look like an everyday object someone would normally carry with them—such as pens, combs, brushes, telephones, lighters—and which is designed to be easily portable and concealable.
In his letter, the Chief Executive of the BAA called upon us to take urgent action to prevent the sale and supply of disguised knives, currently available without restriction in shops or on the Internet.
We share this concern. Disguised knives are unacceptable. I can see no legitimate reason why any individual would wish to carry a comb with a four-inch blade deliberately concealed within its handle, other than to evade detection and use it as a weapon. I do not mean the common penknife or sporting knife, but knives that tell a lie about themselves—knives manufactured to look like an everyday object and which hide their deadly potential.
Legislation exists to deal with the possession of these items in public but there is nothing to stop their manufacture, sale or import. This is not acceptable and the ease with which these items can be bought makes it of the utmost importance that we take action and reduce the number of disguised knives in circulation. This will make our airports and airlines safer, not least in the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Centre.
1034
The most effective means of stopping supply is by adding the category of disguised knife to the Offensive Weapons Order 1988 which will make it an offence to manufacture, sell, hire or lend or give away these dangerous items. Police and customs will have the powers they need to take action.
We view airline and airport safety as a matter of priority and, as we wish to deal with disguised knives quickly, we have not consulted widely over this issue but have worked closely with other government departments, the police and customs to move this forward. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Parliament introduced a parallel measure yesterday.
All our minds have been focused on airport and airline security following attacks on the World Trade Centre. The New York State Senate recognised earlier this year the threat of disguised knives and, as one of its Senators rightly said, given the lessons of September 11th, we cannot afford to overlook the threat to security that disguised knives present.
Prohibiting the sale, manufacture and import of disguised knives is a matter of public safety. It. is the most effective measure we could take to stop their supply and make it more difficult to get hold of these. Action is a matter of priority. I urge your Lordships to support this measure. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th May be approved. [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this seems an eminently sensible order and we are happy to support it.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, this type of weapon might, in a more innocent age, have been described almost as a novelty. However, in the world of post September 11th, there is no element of novelty about these weapons. The whole world is aware of the apparently innocuous weapons used to hold up passengers and crew of at least one of the aircraft involved in that terrible day.
My wife is an expert at having her nail scissors discovered in her hand baggage. If she is lucky, she is given a chance to post them back to herself. If unlucky, she never sees them again.
These knives are apparently designed with the express purpose of being disguised and undetectable, either to the eye or, more significantly, to airport X-ray scanners. They can have no legitimate purpose and as such it is undesirable that they should be available for purchase or carriage in public.
The order will appear to have the secondary advantage of assisting in raising levels of security in other public places, such as football grounds, clubs and courts of law. We certainly support this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration (Entry Otherwise than by Sea or Air) Order 2002
2.12 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Immigration (Entry Otherwise than by Sea or Air) Order 2002.
This is a small and somewhat technical measure. It relates to people travelling to the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland across the land border between the Republic and Northern Ireland who require leave to enter.
Although it applies both to arriving passengers and illegal entrants, its main effect will be in relation to the latter. We have no plans to set up immigration controls on the border. It is a technical measure; the power to set removal directions in respect of an arriving passenger who is refused leave to enter or an illegal entrant as set out in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. In either case there is power to give directions to the captain, owners or agents of the ship or aircraft in which the person to be removed arrived in the UK.
There is a fallback position that allows directions to be given to the owners or agents of any other ship or aircraft where directions might be given to the captain, owners or agents of the carrying vessel, but the Secretary of State concludes that this is not practicable or that they would be ineffective. However, that fallback position assumes that the original arrival in the UK was by ship or aircraft. If there was no ship or aircraft involved in the first place, there can be no captain, owners or agents. Consequently, it would be impossible to give them any instructions to remove someone and this residual power to remove cannot apply.
That does not mean that someone who enters the UK illegally across this border is immune from removal; it simply means that they cannot be removed as an illegal entrant. Instead, we have to go through the curious process of granting them leave to remain for a short period. At the end of that time, unless they apply for further leave, they become overstayers and liable to removal as such. In the case of overstayers, removal directions do not refer back to the original arrival, so this problem does not arise.
However, that procedure is not satisfactory. First, it seems illogical, to put it mildly, to grant someone leave to remain in order to be able to remove them. Secondly, and more importantly, once they have that leave, they are no longer liable to detention under the Immigration Act powers and have the opportunity to disappear altogether.
That gap in our removal powers has existed for a great many years. I have no evidence that it has been widely abused, but it would be undesirable to allow it to continue. The order closes the loophole by providing that where someone who requires leave to enter the United Kingdom or who is the subject of a
1036
deportation order has entered or is seeking to enter the UK from the Republic of Ireland otherwise than by ship or aircraft, the relevant parts of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act apply to them in a modified form, allowing removal directions to be given immediately. The cost of such removals will be borne by the Secretary of State. In theory, such directions could be given in respect of an arriving passenger. In practice, they are more likely to be given in respect of people who have entered illegally. In the case of the former, the order will apply to passengers arriving on or after the date on which the order is made. In the case of illegal entrants, it will apply irrespective of the date of entry. The order does not affect anyone's immigration status. Those who have come in illegally by this route are already illegal entrants and will continue to be so. The difference is that if the order is approved it will be possible to deal with them as such. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, immigration is a highly controversial issue and no doubt we shall have a good deal of controversy in your Lordships' House in the next few weeks. However, we accept that the order is a technical matter that closes certain loopholes to make the procedure technically more logical. We therefore do not propose to object to it.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The order clearly closes a loophole and we have no objection to it.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I would not normally be here at this time on a Friday, but it was drawn to my attention during the week that there could be ramifications arising from the order that have not yet been explained. The Minister will be aware how complicated Northern Ireland affairs can be, as he has been dealing with them for a number of years. In the centre of Belfast and other parts of the city, the Middle East problem has spilt over. In so-called republican areas, all you can see is the whole place festooned with Palestinian flags, while the loyalist areas are festooned with Israeli flags.
Until two or three weeks ago people laughed at this. They thought that it was not too serious—it was just one tribe showing its loyalty to a particular cause. However, I was reminded during the week that two of the Palestinians—gentlemen, persons, terrorists or whatever they were called—who were in the Church of the Nativity and were released under an international agreement by the Israeli forces were given sanctuary in the Republic of Ireland. I understand that they are still there. There is no question of their removal or deportation.
Given the sensitivity of the Northern Ireland problem, are those two individuals to be restricted to the territory of the Republic of Ireland or would they be free to cross the border into Northern Ireland? One can readily see that if they were allowed into Northern

1037
Ireland—in other words, into the United Kingdom—their presence could be exploited by all sorts of paramilitary groups on one side or the other.
I do not want to be controversial, but I should like the Minister to define the status of those two people who were in the Church of the Nativity during the siege and are now in the Republic of Ireland by international agreement. Would they be free to come into Northern Ireland? If they came in, would they be deported as undesirables? I hope that it does not happen, but the presence in Northern Ireland of one or both of those individuals could be exploited by the various warring elements in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister explain what will be the status of those people? Will they be allowed into Northern Ireland? Would the Government of the Republic have anything to say on the matter or would it be this Government which would determine whether or not they were acceptable?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the details of the case that my noble friend has referred to. But this order does not affect the position. It is trying to create a procedure which makes it easier to remove illegal entrants. I do not know the position as regards the people to whom the noble Lord referred. They will be subject to immigration control. Leave would be required for them to enter the United Kingdom and if they sought permission, no doubt the points raised by the noble Lord would be taken into account. It would be up to the United Kingdom Government to decide whether those men should be given leave to enter. But I make it clear that this order does not affect the matter either way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002
2.11 p.m.
Lord Whittyrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st May be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall refer to the regulations and the two codes on the Order Paper which relate to them. These regulations implement Council Directive 1999/74/EC by amending the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 as they apply to laying hens.
The regulations add new schedules to cover each type of production system. Schedule 3A covers non-cage systems of production, such as barn and free-range. Schedule 3B sets out new requirements for laying hens kept in barren battery cages and bans these cages completely after 1st January 2012. Schedule 3C lays down minimum standards for "enriched" cages.
I am aware that many welfare groups believe that enriched cages will not significantly improve welfare. For that reason the Government will be carrying out a full public consultation exercise on the future of enriched cages.
1038
Schedule 3D sets out general provisions applicable to all systems. The regulations will allow the practice of beak trimming to continue in all systems until the end of 2010, but in the mean time we will be agreeing to an action plan with all interested parties to address this issue.
Council Directive 99/74/EC makes provision for a review looking at various systems for keeping laying hens and the health, environmental and economic impact of these systems, the review to commence by 1st January 2005. Proposals will he put forward based on the Commission's report and the outcome of the World Trade Organisation negotiations.
I turn briefly to the welfare codes of recommendation for laying hens and for meat and breeding chickens. These species are currently covered by the code on domestic fowl which dates back to 1987. The new laying hens welfare code will provide guidance to the regulations for producers. In the absence of EU proposals for meat chicken welfare standards, and in the light of ongoing concerns about the welfare of meat chickens kept in intensive systems, it is opportune to address a new code on meat chickens.
Welfare codes are made under Section 3(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. Codes exist to help stockmen care for animals and are a positive force for improving the welfare of farmed animals. In the event that a livestock keeper is prosecuted for causing pain or distress, suffering or injury, a breach of the code can be brought forward as part of the evidence.
The regulations and the new codes will apply in England only. Similar regulations and codes are being produced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The regulations and codes have been subject to full public consultation. The regulations and welfare codes form an important part of the Government's animal welfare strategy as it applies in the poultry field. I commend these measures to the House.
Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 1st May be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I intervene briefly at this late hour in the week on the basis of some knowledge of the various conditions in which animals and birds are kept. For four years in another place I chaired the Select Committee on Agriculture. In the period of my chairmanship, I presided over three inquiries, one of which was an inquiry into intensive methods of food production, known at that time very generally and very broadly as factory farming. It is not a pleasant memory. Like every Select Committee, that committee took a great deal of evidence. We had splendid advice, particularly splendid veterinary advice. It was the visits that I remember with some horror. We saw veal calves in crates, tethered sows, broiler chickens densely gathered in broiler houses and laying hens in battery cages. I wonder whether the new regulations make some recommendation on how many meat chickens per square metre will be allowed.

1039
I well remember visiting a very large broiler house in Yorkshire which I entered with a member of my committee, Miss Joan Maynard. It was darkish and dusty and we could scarcely move our feet because the chickens had been so densely gathered. When we emerged and had the protective clothing that we needed taken from us, Miss Maynard turned to me and said, "I shall never eat chicken soup again". I said, "Why not Joan?". She said, "Because I would feel the feathers in my teeth", such was the intensity of that place. Miss Maynard's political views and mine were somewhat far apart, but she was an excellent member of that Select Committee and was basically a very kind person who championed the lot of the British farm worker for many years.
When we deliberated on cages, we were horrified when we were shown caged laying hens. In making our eventual recommendations, however, we had to take into account investment and the fact that there might be a flood of foreign eggs into Britain if we proposed any quick changes to the system, which had by then become a very strong one. I think that, at that time, more than 90 per cent of British eggs were produced through the battery system. So the recommendation in our report was that the Minister should seek Community agreement on a minimum of 750 square metres per bird and that he should refuse to agree to anything less than 550 square metres per bird. We also in our report strongly recommended further research and consideration of alternative intensive systems, quite a number of which we saw during our inquiry.
The Select Committee's report, which I signed, was produced in June 1981. It is now June 2002. The cages are still in existence, and are now to continue until 2012. I very much regret that that is far in the future. There are, however, some redeeming features of the present situation. It is a fact, for example, that Britain has larger sales of free-range eggs than any other country in Europe, which is pleasing. However, cages will continue to exist for all this time. As the Minister said, from 1 January 2003, no new cages will come into existence. I suggest, however, that we should take some lead from Germany which proposes abolition by 2006. Nevertheless, there has to be change in all 15 member states. With that number of states, there is bound to be a brake on change. I have heard a suggestion that Belgium and Holland may well follow Germany's lead on the timing. I wish that we could do the same.
I wish also that a case could be made for Community support, in the form of capital support, to make possible and effect change. Can more research be carried out on humane alternatives and on the general well-being of animals and birds? I was surprised to hear on "Farming Today"—I believe that the relevant broadcast was on Wednesday this week—that there might be a reduction in the Government's spending on agricultural research and development. That was an unconfirmed report. I hope that it is not true.
Finally, as the former chairman of a Select Committee which a long time ago considered this method of egg production, I hope that we shall see
1040
some improvement in the relevant timescale. I refer to birds which are kept in awful conditions. I was brought up on a Northumbrian farm and I remember exactly the natural instincts of a laying hen. It is an appalling thought that the cages we are discussing will be allowed to remain until 2012. Even then, a new model of cage may be permitted although it does not have the support of various organisations, including the RSPCA.
2.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says and I am grateful for his personal opinion. That is what this House is about.
I should declare a past interest as someone who qualified as a poultry farmer and kept poultry but was on contract with Thornbers to produce parent stock; that is, the stock that farmers bought. My poultry were free-range—they had to be in those days—and were kept in deep litters.
Although I hear what my noble friend says he knows very well that I shall not support him all the way down the line that he took. I wish to make some important points. However, before I do so, I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining the regulations. I understand that, broadly speaking, the farming sector welcomes them. We also accept them in principle but I have some questions for the Minister which I hope he will be able to answer today.
It is essential that we have a vibrant and profitable egg industry. Like any business, it needs to plan long term, and to plan long term and reinvest it needs to make a profit. It is not supported by the UK taxpayer. My noble friend will be interested to hear that, currently, 72 per cent of UK egg production comes from caged hens, 22 per cent from free range and 6 per cent from barn hens. From 1st January next year new barren cages will be banned. Enriched cages will be required—the industry accepts that. However, what assurance can the Minister give that all EU countries have laid down the same start date and that they will enforce it? The enriched cages will require substantial capital. The regulatory impact assessment indicates that the cost to the industry will be more than £400 million. The egg industry calculates a further running cost of £109 million each year.
When these regulations were debated in another place, Mr Morley was sympathetic to the representations made concerning the cost of complying with the new regulations and indicated that money might be made available in the form of a restructuring loan or some funding support from the rural development framework. Can the Minister bring us up to date on that?
The egg industry employs some 8,000 people directly. It is the biggest user of cereals—some 800,000 tonnes each year. The majority of eggs sold through supermarkets come from the UK and nearly 50 per cent of value eggs are from caged hens. The future viability of the industry does not impact solely on egg producers but has a knock-on effect on cereal growers, the processing sector and, ultimately, the wider food

1041
industry. In a good year, the UK industry makes a profit of about £10 million but the norm is much nearer £5 million.
Will the Minister confirm that he is satisfied that the regulations will be adopted and implemented in all EU countries? Is he confident that the UK has not gold-plated the EU regulations? Will he tell us whether the German Government, who, as my noble friend said, are considering banning cages altogether, are planning to give investment loans to egg producers who are having to convert from those cages to other systems? If so, do the German Government need to seek approval from the EU Commission to do so? If—a further "if"—the UK Government decide in future to ban all cages, would they, too, seek such financial aid for egg producers who currently use the cage system?
My noble friend indicated that Holland and Belgium were also considering banning cage birds. My understanding, from a meeting that took place this week, is that Holland and Belgium are having a rethink. Germany is coming up to an election later this year, and that country may change its mind, too.
I turn to the Official Journal of the European Communities and to Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19th July. Paragraph 8 in the annex states:
"In order to prevent feather pecking and cannibalism, however, the Member States may"—
I highlight that word—
"authorise beak trimming provided it is carried out by qualified staff on chickens that are less than 10 days old and intended for laying".
My understanding of the qualification and the timing laid down is that they are current practice in the UK industry.
The regulations were debated in another place in the Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 12th June 2002. At col. 6, Mr Morley said,
"it was not necessary, and not my intention, to provide for a continuation of beak trimming beyond 2010".
That is obviously at odds with "may", which appears in the European directive. What assurances can the Minister give the House that he will persuade other EU producers to cease the practice? Does Mr Morley's statement mean that the Government may take a contrary stand in the longer term? That matter has been raised with the NFU and the British egg industry; it is not defined in the regulations.
The Minister will be aware that breeders are working on increasing the docility of laying hens. Until that has been successfully achieved, beak trimming is an important protection for the animals.
We all recognise the need for a high standard of animal welfare but that must not be used to put UK producers at a disadvantage. In particular, we must not allow the Continent to send us eggs produced to lower standards than those that required of our producers. If we carry on, such practices will be banned among our producers. As a consequence, those eggs are often cheaper.
I have been lucky enough to visit Deans at Bilsthorpe. I have seen for myself the new enriched cages that we discussed earlier; many of them are being
1042
trialled for DEFRA. I was impressed by the extra room that the birds will have in future. The difference between the current practice and the enriched cages is noticeable. Following my visit, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raising two issues. He was kind enough to reply to me. I received his letter yesterday. The first issue was about the scratching area in the new enriched cages, about which I had reservations. The second issue, perhaps nearly as important, involved the proposed claw-shortening device that is being added to the cages. Noble Lords may wonder why that is important. As I have suggested, it involves great cost to the industry, which has to plan. The industry needs guidance from the Government about what is or is not required of it. My understanding from the letter that the Minister sent me yesterday is that research is being carried out continually. Unfortunately, that may not produce a result before some people commit quite a lot of money to the new egg cage system.
As I said, I understand that a review of the cage system of production is due to take place in 2005 and that it will be ongoing. I understand that it will be based on the scientific research being undertaken. But I am concerned about the fact that the Government propose to push ahead with consultation on the future of bird cages, and to consult widely, before that scientific evidence is available. In our earlier discussions on marine wildlife, a plea was made that we should listen to what is being said and that we should take account of available research. Again, I ask the Minister to do so. Perhaps he will take up that point when he replies.
In another place, Mr Morley indicated that the industry was in favour of the consultation going ahead. However, I have spoken to the British Egg Industry Council and I understand that that is not the case. Its view is that such consultation should not take place until research has been completed.
The CAP reform plans have obviously been delayed following the announcement of the American farm Bill. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord where that leaves the UK and the EU in relation to the discussions on animal welfare that were to take place within the WTO talks. Will the EU countries commit their producers to additional restrictions and, if so, what does he believe will happen to our egg industry?
I believe that the Minister knows that in America cages of an equivalent size to ones in this country, which hold five hens, hold on average seven or eight hens. Obviously that gives American egg producers a competitive advantage. If, in the important talks that are due to take place, the topic of animal welfare is not to be included because of the new American farm Bill, that poses a question as to the future viability and profitability of the whole egg industry which is enormously important to this country. Perhaps I may add a small rider to that. Eggs are an important commodity for many people on lower incomes because they provide an important level of protein.
I understand that the Welsh Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee voted on Wednesday by five votes to four to ban all battery

1043
cages from 2006. I am sure that I am right in saying that the regulations which we are now taking through relate only to England. But surely we should not end up with a situation in which Welsh farmers and egg producers compete in a different way from English egg producers. I have many friends who produce eggs in Wales and, indeed, in Scotland. I wonder whether the Minister is as concerned as I am that we may well be faced with a very difficult situation within the UK. I realise that the committee's decision must go to a fuller, plenary session, but I believe that the situation that we are facing is most worrying.
Lastly, I turn to the matter of catching and handling birds, in particular, when they are being removed from cages. I understand—indeed, I used to do it in my day—that the normal practice is to catch hens by two legs and lift them when destocking takes place. However, once hens are caught, they are often carried by one leg. The regulations which we are approving state that birds must be carried by two legs. Will the Minister clarify whether that is an EU or a UK requirement? Again, my understanding is that it is an English or UK, rather than EU, requirement. If that is so, what justification is there for altering the present practice? The one point on which I believe the noble Lord will agree with me is that there is great concern in relation to exporting our vibrant and viable egg industry.
Finally, I raise the whole issue of food security. I am sure that other noble Lords will be as disappointed as I am to read in the newspapers today of the fear of a new epidemic among Chinese chickens. That only underlines the need for us to continue to have a self-supporting, vibrant egg industry.
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this step forward in animal welfare regulations. New regulations can be introduced for British chickens, but if through the lack of clear labelling of produce buyers are driven to buy not just from countries in Europe that impose less stringent regulations but also from countries on the other side of the world with much lower standards of welfare, overall welfare standards will not be raised. The Government are committed to better publicity for farm assurance schemes and to clearer labelling of origin but we are yet to see any tangible evidence of that on food.
Within the regulations, the issue of good husbandry is examined in the codes and I particularly welcome the frequent examination and thorough inspection of stock outlined. The noble Baroness alluded to chicken flu which has raised its head in south-east Asia again, as outlined in The Times today. Unlike foot and mouth disease, that is an infection that killed literally millions of people throughout the world in the last century, so it is particularly serious.
1044
We also welcome the code of recommendations on record-keeping with regard to medicines. I believe that the use of antibiotics in poultry, as in all meat, is of great concern not only because we eat meat and eggs but also because we use the compost that results from recycling chicken litter. I understand that such compost can be labelled "organic", although it comes from chickens that have suffered from heavy antibiotic usage.
Overall, we welcome the regulations but with the proviso that the Government must address the issue of labelling. In heating chicken houses that contain fewer chickens in compliance with notions of better welfare, producers in this country have the added expense of the climate change levy, whereas as there is no tax on aviation fuel cheaper meat can be flown in from abroad. I reiterate our support for the regulations.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I speak, on the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Laying Hens. I speak not only for myself, as always, but also for the Green Party and with the help of a briefing from Compassion in World Farming which campaigns for the welfare of farm animals.
We welcome any improvement in the welfare of farmed animals, but we are doubtful about "enriched" cages. I am not sure who they are meant to enrich. They certainly do not enrich the farmers; they certainly do not enrich by much the lives of the hens; I can only imagine that they enrich the makers of enriched cages.
We are delighted that from 2012 the EU directive prohibits conventional battery cages. However, disappointingly, the directive allows enriched cages to be used. As has been said, Germany has banned enriched cages from 2012, and we urge the Government to follow Germany's lead and prohibit enriched cages as they offer no significant or worthwhile welfare benefits to hens as compared with conventional battery cages. Sadly, the draft regulations fail to ban enriched cages, although we welcome the various promises of consultation made by the Government, and hope that they will not be in any way put off by the criticisms we heard today.
The space and height as well as the nest, perch and litter facilities provided in enriched cages are so minimalist that they fail to allow hens to perform their natural behaviours in any way that is meaningful to the birds. The EU hens directive requires enriched cages to give each bird 750cm2 of space, of which just 600 cm2 has to be "usable" space. However, a study by Dawkins and Hardie shows that hens require on average 1,272 cm2 for turning, 893 cm2 for wing-stretching, 1,876 cm2 for wing-flapping and 856 cm2 for ground-scratching. Clearly, enriched cages fail to give hens sufficient space to perform important basic natural behaviours.
The directive requires enriched cages to have a height of at least 45 cm. Research by Dawkins indicates that hens should have a cage height of at least

1045
46 cm and that, if given the opportunity, hens will use up to 56 cm of height. Moreover, perches in cages are normally set at least 7 cm above floor level to allow eggs to roll underneath them. As hens may spend a considerable proportion of their time on perches, cage height should be measured not from the floor but from the perch. This means that enriched cages should be at least 53 cm high and preferably 63 cm high. In conclusion, the directive's height specification of 45 cm is too low to ensure good welfare.
The facilities in enriched cages are too meagre to allow hens properly to perform certain essential natural behaviours. Only 8 to 26 per cent of dust-bathing bouts in enriched cages occur in the dust bath, indicating that it fails to satisfy the hens' strong motivation to dust bathe. Research shows that dust-bathing in cages tends to be abnormally short and incomplete.
Perches in cages are too low to fulfil the hens' need for a raised perch for roosting. Likewise, competition for the nest box in enriched cages, together with disturbances within the cramped confines of the cage, mean that nest boxes in cages are unlikely to satisfy the birds' behavioural need to lay her eggs in a nest.
In conclusion, enriched cages provide too little floor space and insufficient height to allow hens to perform many basic behaviours such as turning, ground-scratching, wing-stretching and wing-flapping. Moreover they do not allow hens properly to satisfy their needs to dust-bathe, lay their eggs in a nest, perch, and peck and scratch at the ground. In the light of those deficiencies we urge Parliament to prohibit enriched cages when implementing the EU directive into English law.
We warmly welcome the implementing regulation's phase-out by 2011 of the painful mutilation of de-beaking. Battery cage producers have for a long time stated that they do not need to de-beak. Some people misleadingly argue that de-beaking is necessary in percheries and free-range systems to prevent feather-pecking and cannibalism. However, both scientific research and practical experience show that those behaviours can he addressed without resorting to the painful mutilation of de-beaking. We believe that feather-pecking and cannibalism should be avoided by the use of perchery and free-range systems which are well designed and well managed and by using strains of birds which are less prone to feather-pecking and cannibalism.
Finally, I very much welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, and the fact that we have had such a strong statement from the Back Benches of the Conservative Party. In commenting on some of the remarks from the Liberal and Conservative Benches, I can say that my party believes and no doubt a large proportion of the British population believe, that the efficiency of an industry and the welfare of the people who farm in this industry cannot ever justify the kind of cruelty which the noble
1046
Lord, Lord Elliott, described, which I have seen for myself, and which all of us know happens—regardless of the stand we take on this matter. I hope that the Government will consult; that they will move more rapidly than the European Union; and that they will try to persuade as many other people to do so as possible.
2.55 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this has been a more detailed and substantially wider-ranging debate than I anticipated. That indicates the strength of feeling on the topic.
In relation to the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Elliott of Morpeth and Lord Beaumont, clearly there is significant concern in this country about whether any form of caged or battery farming of poultry should ultimately be acceptable. There are not the equivalent regulations relating to meat and poultry as there are for laying hens, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, knows, although that matter is being considered. The regulations provide for some increase in the space per hen, but even with the enriched cages we approach only the 750 square centimetres. I think that it was a slip of the tongue by the noble Lord who said that it was 750 square metres. We have not contemplated that size of chicken. It only reaches that size for the enriched cages and not for others.
There are doubts about whether the enriched cages provide a benefit. That is the reason why my honourable friend Elliot Morley announced that we should have a consultation in this country on enriched cages. It is the reason why the Germans have indicated that they will be taking early steps to ban the current cages.
There is a dilemma. On the one hand, there is big concern in this country. On the other, there is no point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, in exporting cruelty if by maintaining a higher standard, all that happens is that we then import, from the European Union or elsewhere, chickens and eggs which have been produced to worse standards. That is why, in general, the Government have taken the view that we will not gold-plate regulations relating to the European production methods and why what is before the House today directly transposes the European regulations.
However, we recognise that there is concern. That is why the consultation is there. That is why we need to talk to the industry about whether we can move faster without additional serious disadvantage and without exporting cruelty to the EU or beyond.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked a number of questions about that subject. In particular, she asked whether other EU countries enforce their regulations as effectively as we do. I recognise that in the farming sector there is always a doubt with regard to that. The FVO has done some fairly intensive monitoring, one exercise of which is continuing. Although there are some deficiencies in practice in some EU countries, in general the indication is that the existing regulations are largely being met. There is no particular reason to assume that these would not be.

1047
There is a cost to the matter. As the noble Baroness said, the indication is that the cost over the 10-year period will be £400 million. Any reference to grants to meet those costs would not be on a general basis and would not be for simply meeting what would then be the legal standards. Any help in that area would need to be cleared—even if Defra's budget stretched to it—through the state aid provisions of the European Union. The German aid, which in principle has been talked about, and which relates to bringing forward the deadline for getting rid of cages, would require EU state aid agreement. They have not yet got that state aid position.
The noble Baroness also asked about the position of the Dutch and the Belgians. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, referred to the matter first. It is our latest indication from the Dutch certainly, and following the Dutch elections, that the current Dutch Government are not inclined to pull forward the deadline as the previous Minister had indicated they might.
Internally in the UK, some difference of approach is being manifested in Wales, although at this stage only at committee level, and this is a devolved matter. It is therefore conceivable that there may be different regulations in secondary legislation in Wales and in Scotland, but we shall watch those developments. Scotland has already passed regulations that are approximately the same as those proposed for England.
There is clearly a different dimension to the proposals for beak trimming. We shall try to persuade other member states that that is an important issue during the period in which we are reviewing the position on beak trimming. A meeting will shortly be held with all interested parties, with the aim, as my honourable friend Mr Morley said, of banning beak trimming by the end of 2010.
We also want in that review to increase understanding of the interaction between the various factors that trigger feather pecking and other dangerous activities. The new welfare code includes management measures that themselves can help to reduce feather-pecking tendencies. Clearly, in the long run, breeding may also have an effect. The code also stipulates that the practice will be restricted literally to beak tipping—that is to say, blunting of the beak to remove the sharp point only, not the somewhat more radical surgery that has occurred.
The provisions before your Lordships therefore fully fulfil the European requirements, but we are taking various steps to discuss with the industry and welfare groups whether we should be taking other measures in that area. The Government's view is that many attributes of past poultry practice to which the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, referred are undesirable but, as I said, if we are to gold-plate any regulations, we must be certain that we do so in a way that will bring other European countries with us and does not of itself export cruelty.
1048
Most of the increase in imports from the rest of the world probably comes from countries with a more barn-based or close to free-range activity, so in that dimension we are not exporting to crueller regimes. They have other cost advantages of which they take advantage. There are particular problems with China, relating not only to influenza but to the use of antibiotics, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred, which has led to the European Community limiting poultry exports from China. The latest avian 'flu information is worrying.
The reference to carrying chickens is in the welfare code rather than in the regulations, so it is a matter of guidance rather than a statutory requirement, but it reflects the recommendations of the Council of Europe on welfare, rather than EU provisions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to our exchange of correspondence relating to enriched cages and provision for scratching areas and claw shortening. There are several initiatives in that area, and we are looking at outcomes rather than wanting to prescribe, authorise or certificate particular ways of reaching that outcome. However, we are working with the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service to monitor current installation of claw-shortening devices. We already have some results from that monitoring; we need further results. But we shall not prescribe for that by regulation except in relation to outcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, widened the discussion to labelling and farm assurance schemes. I can assure her that farm assurance was a major theme of the Curry report, and one that we need to address, as is labelling more generally. There are problems with labelling and we want a more country-of-source dimension to labelling provisions, but at EU level it was felt that that would be counter to the World Trade Organisation requirements. Indeed, various other members of the World Trade Organisation queried whether we should go down that road at all. Nevertheless, the EU position in the WTO talks is that, in liberalising agricultural trade, we should recognise not only standards of safety and environmental performance but standards of animal welfare. That is part of the EU's mandate, as we go into the Doha round of WTO negotiations.
From the question of chicken cages to the WTO and the future of the CAP, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the regulations have wide ramifications. I can assure the noble Baroness that there has been no delay in the CAP reform process as a result of the American Farm Bill. That Bill might be seen as being anything from irritating to unhelpful—if I were less diplomatic, I might use other terms. However, the commitment of the American Administration to the liberalising process means that the CAP reform must proceed within the timetable to which we are committed for the mid-term review and if we are to get to Doha with firm propositions by next March.

1049
We expect to see the commissioner's proposals for CAP reform in the rnid1erm review at the Council meeting next month. We expect that discussions on that matter will continue for the next few months after that and that the EU will go into the Doha talks on its current mandate. From that broader picture, I return the attention of the House to the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Laying Hens
3.7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move.
1050
Moved, That the draft code of recommendations laid before the House on 1st May be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Meat Chickens and Breeding Chickens
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code of recommendations laid before the House on 1st May be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past three o'clock.

  Biodiesel
  Biodiesel
  Birth Rates in the EU
  Birth Rates in the EU
  People Aged over 60 in the EU
  People Aged over 60 in the EU
  Parliamentary Cost Comparisons
  Parliamentary Cost Comparisons
  Convention on the Future of Europe: Members of the House of Lords
  Convention on the Future of Europe: Members of the House of Lords
  MMR Vaccine
  MMR Vaccine
  Casualty Watch Survey
  Casualty Watch Survey
  National Service Framework for Older People
  National Service Framework for Older People
  EU Transport Council, 17 June
  EU Transport Council, 17 June