Sitting of 16 January 2003

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

    Energy White Paper
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: If the White Paper on energy will take account of energy sources for transport. [90932]
    The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): The energy White Paper will be published shortly and will take account of energy sources for transport.
    Dr. Ladyman: The Government's figures suggest that 12,000 to 24,000 people a year are killed as a result of burning hydrocarbons, at least half of them by motor cars. Although shifting to liquid petroleum gas will help in the short term, that is still derived from scarce fossil fuels and will not eliminate greenhouse gases. Will the White Paper plot a clear course towards a hydrogen economy, and will it be brave about where that hydrogen will be made?
    Mr. Wilson: I very much agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says. He is right about LPG, which is useful in the short term. I am very anxious to encourage its use. It is better environmentally, and can be a cheaper fuel, especially for people in peripheral areas. For that reason I support LPG. There is no doubt that hydrogen has much more to offer, if not in the immediate term then perhaps by 2020, when vehicles using hydrogen fuel cells might be in commercial production. In the meantime, we can do a lot to encourage the technology. For instance, some buses using hydrogen fuel cells will be introduced in London next year through the green fuel challenge. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that hydrogen will be exempt from fuel duty for a limited period. We are doing a lot already, and although I do not want to pre-empt the White Paper, I assure my hon. Friend that what we are doing is very much in the spirit of what will be proposed.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The White Paper has been subject to the most inordinate delay. First it was going to be published last year, then at the turn of the
    800
    year, then in the new year. Last week, Lord Sainsbury, the Under-Secretary of State in the other place, said that it would be published in the spring, and now the Minister has told the House that it will be published shortly. Are we to take it that both those statements are correct and that they represent the current position? Is the Department's definition of "spring" the same as its definition of "shortly"? If Lord Sainsbury represents the official position, will the Minister say on exactly what date the Department thinks that spring begins? Is not it the case that all the procrastination that I have set out means that the White Paper will not be comprehensive, and that the Government's energy policy will continue to be marked by muddle, confusion and short-termism?
    Mr. Wilson: Where I was educated, spring is normally defined as February, March and April. I do not know whether that helps the hon. Gentleman. The Tories might work to a different calendar, as well as belong to a different planet. The White Paper will be with us shortly. There has been no inordinate delay. It deals with very important issues, as we are looking at the future of energy supply in this country up to 2050, not just for the next few years. It is better to get that right than to worry too much about in which month of spring the White Paper will be published.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Will my hon. Friend say whether the White Paper will set out a sustainable future for the indigenous deep coal-mining industry? Will that sustainable future be based on an aid package that will focus on investment? There is a rumour that the package may be based on regional selective assistance. If so, that would not be appropriate for the coal industry.
    Mr. Wilson: We are committed to an investment aid scheme in principle. We went to Europe to get permission for such a scheme, which would benefit the indigenous coal industry. We would not have done that if we did not intend to introduce the scheme. The future of what remains of the indigenous coal industry is not entirely in our hands, for geological reasons as much as any other. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I am acutely aware of the importance of the deep-mine coal industry, and indeed of the surface coal industry, to those communities where the industries still exist. I have no doubt that that importance will be reflected in the White Paper.

    Magazine Covers
    Andrew Selous: What recent representations she has received about the regulations governing covers of magazines displayed in shops. [90933]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): None.
    Andrew Selous: Many of my constituents with young children are very concerned about the increasingly lurid covers of magazines such as FHM, GQ and Maxim. As those magazines are not deemed to be pornographic, they are often displayed at children's head height. Will the Minister assure the House that she will ask all

    801
    magazine retailers to put such magazines well out of the eyesight of young children, as it is difficult for families to avoid those displays, especially when calling at petrol stations?
    Miss Melanie Johnson: The teenage magazine arbitration panel monitors the sexual content of teenage magazines, 25 per cent. or more of whose readership is made up of girls under 15 years of age. I think that that is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's point. The guidelines that it produced are the publishing industry's own standards, but they were produced in co-operation with magazine publishers, editors and retailers, and approved by the Home Office. I hear the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall refer his concerns to the relevant parties and ask them to address them.
    Mr. Andy Reed: My hon. Friend will also be aware that it is not just children who are offended by these things, but many hon. Members and constituents, who ask why on earth magazines such as Stuff and T3, which are about technology, have to have women on their front covers. I dare not buy them in shops for those very reasons. Perhaps those concerned would sell more magazines if they took women off the front covers and concentrated on the issues inside the magazines.
    Miss Johnson: I share my hon. Friend's concerns. We are particularly concerned that the young and more vulnerable members of society should be protected from potentially harmful material. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is responsible for the legislation and voluntary agreements in that area. I hesitate to be slightly cynical, but I am sure that it has something to do with the fact that it still sells magazines, unfortunately.

    Wind Energy
    Mr. David Borrow: What actions her Department is taking to support the expansion of wind energy in the UK. [90934]
    The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): Last April, we introduced the renewables obligation, which provides an assured market for renewable energy, including wind power, for 25 years. In October, I announced capital grants of £10 million each to the first two offshore wind farms to be given consent. In November, the Department launched a consultation document, which set out options for a major expansion of the UK's offshore wind potential both within territorial waters and beyond.
    Mr. Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I wish to raise a particular problem that will arise if we seek to increase massively the amount of energy derived from wind power. Most of the parts of the UK that are most suitable for wind power are those furthest from centres of population, requiring major investment in the national grid to ensure that the electricity generated in that way can be used. Will my hon. Friend examine ways to ensure that that investment takes place, whether by fiscal means or by direct subsidy?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no point in generating electricity if it cannot be taken
    802
    to the markets where it is required. We have a very strong infrastructure, but it is based largely on the old coal and steel economy. If we are to have a much more distributed range of generation, we must have an infrastructure to match. It is an essential part of the overall package that that infrastructure is put in place.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Does the Minister accept that not all of us are enthusiasts for wind farms? Many of us think that they are pure vandalism, ruining beautiful parts of our country, and that there should be very strict planning controls on them.
    Mr. Wilson: I accept that such a point of view exists, although I regard it as extreme and unreasonable.
    Paddy Tipping: Is it not the case that two thirds of planning applications for wind farms are withdrawn because of planning difficulties? When the White Paper is published—soon, shortly or in the spring—is this an issue that my hon. Friend intends to tackle?
    Mr. Wilson: A balance must be struck between the legitimate rights of people to object and the country's legitimate needs for renewable energy. The White Paper and the ongoing work by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have to look at whether we have that balance right. People in all parties and none who pay lip service to renewable energy as a good thing should implement that view by supporting renewable energy projects, rather than joining the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) in his somewhat one-dimensional opposition.
    Mr. Michael Weir: Following on the point raised by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), given that the Government have been prepared to invest massive amounts of money to bail out British Energy, are they prepared to put similar direct public investment into the national grid to ensure that we obtain the full benefit of wind and wave power in the future?
    Mr. Wilson: I am puzzled by the first part of the question. The Scottish nationalist candidate in my constituency, where there is a nuclear power station, wrote to the local press last week to say that the nationalists are fully behind what the Government have done for British Energy, but whereas there are two nationalists and two opportunities, there are at least four different points of view.
    There is no such comparison. I personally think that someone would have to be particularly foolish to draw that analogy. The one thing that people cannot do with nuclear power stations is turn the key and walk away. The Government have not poured money into British Energy; we have loaned money to British Energy to ensure security of supply and the safe operation of nuclear power stations. We are pouring money into renewable energy sources for excellent reasons, which is why there is such an upsurge to meet our targets for 2010.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement on the development of wind power,

    803
    but does he accept that 10 per cent. is only a part of the need for the generation of energy? Will he consider giving the same support to the coal industry as he has given to British Energy and wind power? We need to have a balance, and the coal industry is part of that balance.
    Mr. Wilson: I agree entirely that coal is part of the balance. That is why we have had the operating aid scheme during the past few years, since the Government came to office. It is also why we have now put in place the potential for an investment aid scheme—we have won that argument in Europe—and, as I said earlier, I do not think that anyone believes other than that there is a place for coal in this country's energy mix. There is also full recognition of the continuing importance of coal in those places where it continues to be mined.

    Rural Post Offices
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations she has received on the rural postal network. [90935]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): DTI Ministers and officials regularly receive representations from a wide range of people and organisations about postal services and the network, including rural post offices.
    Miss McIntosh: I understand that a rural post office is defined as one that serves a community of fewer than 10,000 people. As the right hon. Lady will be aware, the Vale of York has a number of post offices serving such communities. Royal Mail has written to me this week and assured me that there is a downward trend in post office closures, from 125 in the same six-month period last year to 65 this year, but that is still a very high figure. Will she take a personal interest in reopening post offices in villages, such as Sessay, where a young couple operates a farm shop—appropriate premises and people—and take a favourable view? Will she also give the House an assurance that the red post box in rural communities will continue for ever?
    Ms Hewitt: I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that post office closures in Yorkshire have fallen from 50 a year to just 21. The £450 million of new funding for rural post offices recently announced to the House will ensure that we can continue to reduce the number of rural post office closures—something that the Conservative Government never did—so I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome that. She referred to a village post office in particular, and of course I will ensure that Post Office management take a very close look at that because the fund that they are already making available, along with more of the £450 million that we are putting into rural post offices, is precisely designed to help to keep open and, in some cases, reopen rural sub-post offices by combining them with village shops, pubs or other community facilities. We have had a great deal of success already, and I will look specifically at the village that she mentions.
    David Taylor: As successive generations of my family ran our village post
    804
    office for most of the 20th century, I am particularly disappointed by what I view as a breach of faith, which has led to the closure of about 1,000 village offices in just three short years. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that, when the —450 million lifeline ends in 2006, we shall not just return to a haemorrhaging of village offices, with all the consequent social and economic disadvantages for the elderly, the disabled and people without transport in those communities?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the vital importance of post offices in rural communities—something that he knows better than many people. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that we have already put an obligation on the Post Office, which is no longer allowed to close a rural post office unless it is completely unavoidable—in other words, nobody can be found to run it. As a result, we have already halved the number of rural post office closures across the country. As I have just said, we are putting in an additional £450 million to support that, on top of the Countryside Agency grants that already help to keep rural post offices open. Of course, we shall look at the situation again in 2006; we need to see how effective we are with the £450 million that we are allocating over the next three years and we can then consider how to continue to keep that vital local service open.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: May I take the Secretary of State to task for serious discourtesy this morning in releasing, an hour ago, a written statement that has far-reaching financial implications for the rural post office network and the network in general, without giving us an opportunity to question her in an oral statement and without even referring to it in answer to a supplementary question? Can she confirm that, in addition to the £450 million for rural post offices, she proposed this morning an extra £1 billion in the form of emergency assistance to the post office network to save it from immediate financial collapse? As £420 million of that money is in the form of short-term loans, can she explain how those loans are to be repaid, since the post office network has been deprived of its main source of income generation?
    Ms Hewitt: I announced in June the total funding package for the Mail's business—the use of the £1.8 billion of accumulated gilts and interests—and of course that was done by way of a written statement. This morning, my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness made a written statement to Parliament, which was tabled in the Library at 9.30. That statement sets out the details of that very welcome financing package for the whole business. About £2 billion of accumulated profits and interest, which in the past was creamed off and returned to the Treasury, is now being made available to the business as part of the entire restructuring plan that will return the Royal Mail to sound health. That includes debt financing on commercial terms of just over £1 billion, which will allow the Royal Mail to implement its renewal plans, and of course those loans will be repaid as the Royal

    805
    Mail, through its restructuring, sorts out its finances. The rest of the money will be used to support the post office network.
    Ms Meg Munn: Does not the future of rural post offices depend entirely on the funding stability of Post Office Ltd? Does not the statement that my right hon. Friend has just made mean that the financing position of Post Office Ltd. will be much more stable? Will that not benefit urban post offices in areas such as mine, which struggle to continue to provide a service to elderly and disabled people who cannot get to other post offices to collect their benefits and pensions?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. What we have done—starting with the appointment of Allan Leighton as chairman—is to ensure that the Royal Mail and the Post Office as a whole have the leadership, management and financial stability that they need in order to return the business to financial health. All Members of the House understand that rural sub-post offices are, in many cases, not commercially viable. That is why, over the next three years, as part of the overall financing package, we are putting in £450 million specifically to support the rural network.
    As regards the urban network, the urban reinvention programme means that by reducing the number of post offices in areas where there are too many sub-post offices for the number of customers, we can ensure that sub-postmasters make a better living and that customers continue to be served. The package is very good for the Royal Mail, sub-post offices and, especially, for our constituents—their customers. I am sure that the House, which welcomed the statement that I made in June, will welcome the details today.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: The Secretary of State has exploited the new system to make a written statement when she should have made an oral statement, and has now amplified that without allowing hon. Members on both sides of the House the opportunity to question her properly. What she has announced is the spending of profits made by the Post Office in the years of the Conservative Government. That is not new money in any realistic sense.
    To return to the subject of the question, rural post offices, does she understand not only that the Government's decision to abandon the Horizon project undermined rural post offices but that the preparations for the card account are now in chaos? Will she confirm that the personal invitation document, which should have been circulated to post office customers by the start of this year, has been delayed until 25 March, only six days before the new system is due to start operating? How will vulnerable people in rural areas, who depend on collecting cash benefits from their local post office, be protected?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. People who want a post office card account simply ring the helpline, and if they decide that they want the card account, the application is sent to them. The post office card account and the broader universal banking services—and the migration to automated credit transfer—are on track, as we said that they would be.
    806
    Not only will they deliver a more efficient benefit payments system with much less risk of fraud but, above all, they will enable all our constituents who want to continue getting benefits in cash at the post office to do so, whether through a card account, a basic bank account or the increasing number of other bank accounts that can also be used at the post office.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: The opening of a post office card account is not as simple as the Secretary of State has just described. People must ring a helpline and answer a set of gruelling questions; they are then told to use their current account if they happen to have one, which is incorrect, and to write in in connection with that. If people want to join a bank through that system, all they have to do is tick a box. Why cannot they just tick a box in connection with the post office card account?
    Ms Hewitt: The helpline exists to ensure that all claimants understand the options available to them and make an informed choice. It is up to the customer, however, to decide whether they want to use an existing bank account or open a new account, and if so, whether they want to open a bank account or post office card account. I have gone through the script, as has my hon. Friend. It is a simple and helpful service. The bottom line is that customers decide for themselves what kind of account they want to use to get their benefits and, if they want, to get them in cash at the post office.

    Universal Parcel Postal Service
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If she will make a statement on the future of the universal parcel postal service. [90936]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): The primary duty of the regulator set out in legislation is to ensure maintenance of the universal postal service at an affordable, uniform tariff. The Royal Mail operating division of the Royal Mail group now carries out the universal service obligation for parcels.
    Mr. Carmichael: I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome his basic assurance. It will, however, have a hollow ring in my constituency, where people have found that, since the effective demise of Parcelforce last year, they are now excluded from the same standards of service as people in the rest of the country. Many mail order companies will deliver to island communities only at a significant surcharge, and many will not deliver to them at all. Will the Minister meet me and other MPs from the highlands and islands to discuss the matter and find some way of protecting those who rely most on services from mail order companies from the worst effects of the demise of Parcelforce?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am keen to get through the Order Paper, which means that we must have more precise questions and precise replies. It is only fair to those Members who have put down questions that I try to reach them.
    Mr. Timms: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

    807
    I should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the position. Parcelforce was losing £15 million a month, and is now a competitor with others in the express parcels business, but the universal service obligation is operated by Royal Mail. Sending a standard parcel to anywhere in the United Kingdom—three to five days' delivery, up to 1 kg—costs £3.15. That is the case whether one is sending a parcel to another part of London or to the Orkneys, but, of course, I will be happy to discuss the position with him.
    Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ideas that we might like to progress relates to how we could create much better links with the sub-post offices? One of the problems these days is that parcels are delivered to people who are not at home; the parcels are then returned to the local sorting office, which may be some distance away from the home. Surely we could have a better co-ordinated approach whereby parcels are delivered to the local sub-post office. If we did that, both sides would gain.
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting suggestion, which I am happy to take up with Post Office Ltd. There will be increasing possibilities for the Post Office to provide other services, including delivering the goods that people buy not to their homes but to a point from which they can collect them. He is absolutely right.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Hugo Swire: If she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the construction industry. [90937]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The construction industry makes a significant contribution to our economy, comprising 8 per cent. of gross domestic product worth £83 billion, and it employs more than 2 million people. It secures some of the most prestigious contracts worldwide. We are working closely with the industry through the strategic forum for construction to improve industry productivity. I know that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating Mid-Devon, which is the only district council listed for beacon status in the rethinking construction category.
    Mr. Swire: I most certainly wish to join the Minister in congratulating Mid-Devon council on anything that it does. However, it does not fall within my constituency.
    When it comes to formulating construction policy, will the Minister bear in mind the very real problems faced by many smaller companies in the construction industry as they seek to obtain employee and public liability insurance? When those companies can obtain insurance, they are often faced with premiums that have risen by anything between 100 and 400 per cent. To date, the Government have promised an inquiry, but the construction industry requires action. When can it expect it?
    Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is slightly out of date. I have had discussions with the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI's council for small and
    808
    medium-sized enterprises and others. We at the Department of Trade and Industry are working with our Treasury colleagues and are being led by the Department for Work and Pensions to help companies to resolve the problem. The Office of Fair Trading will also report on part of this matter in the spring.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend will know that a subset of the construction industry is the chemical engineering construction industry, which brings in several million pounds to the Exchequer from the work that it does overseas. Does he share the concern of the employers and the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association that there is a substantial skills shortage in the industry? The fact that the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board has been abolished means that there will be a further problem. What efforts will be made to put in place a system to encourage employers in the construction industry to train people for the future of the industry?
    Nigel Griffiths: I want to make it clear—I know that my hon. Friend will accept this—that there is not a proposal to abolish that board. The Construction Industry Training Board is a separate body and, according to its latest figures, 40,000 people are now starting construction courses. That is an increase of 14 per cent. over the decade. The board received more than £30 million last year to fund modern apprenticeships. We accept that this is a serious issue and serious measures are being taken to address it.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: A crisis is obviously facing smaller firms. What does the Minister say to a small specialist construction firm on the south coast that requires cover of £5 million to secure contracts from its regular customers? This year, that business was able to secure cover of only £1 million at a cost of £8,000 whereas, last year, £12,000 bought cover of £10 million. Such firms do not want reports in the spring; they want action now. Can he guarantee that the reports will be acted upon?
    Nigel Griffiths: The House will note that there is not one suggestion from the Conservative party on how to resolve the problem. That is why the industry, representatives of small business and others in business have welcomed the fact that the Government are addressing the issue, both through the Office of Fair Trading and in working with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers Association to find a solution to a problem that is caused not by the Government but by long-term structural changes in the insurance industry and the propensity of lawyers to litigate more readily than in the past. All those factors are causing problems and forcing up premiums. We recognise that this is a serious issue and are addressing it in the most serious manner.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend accept that the British construction industry would benefit enormously from the Olympic games

    809
    being staged in Britain? If he does, may I encourage him to lobby the Secretary of State vigorously to support a London Olympic bid?
    Nigel Griffiths: Of course we welcome anything that helps the construction industry and is affordable. I know that discussions are taking place with the London mayor who has a scheme that he believes is low-cost—my Treasury colleagues will be interested to have the details. We know that the construction industry played a tremendous part in revitalising and showcasing Manchester. That is a great lesson, and I hope that the Olympic bid committee will learn from it.
    Bob Spink: Since the Minister quite rightly accepts the importance of the construction industry to our economy, will he have discussions with his Treasury colleagues about removing some of the taxes that are holding some of the industry back, such as the construction industry tax, IR35, the aggregates levy and the landfill tax?
    Nigel Griffiths: That is not what I heard from representatives of the construction industry in Nottingham yesterday when I presented an Investors in People award to TBL Construction. Obviously the construction industry has benefited from one of the best tax regimes in the world, with corporation tax at lower rates. It also benefits from the fastest growing economy in the world, which is perhaps why last year's output in construction marked the biggest annual increase in 12 years and why there are strong order figures this year too. We have addressed the industry's concerns—that is why it is thriving.

    Strikes
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: What steps her Department is taking to reduce the number of days lost to strikes. [90939]
    The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): Although days lost through industrial action have increased over the past year, the number of disputes remains near the lowest ever recorded. The Government fully support the expert work of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in helping parties improve their employment relations and have increased its funding by more than 80 per cent. since coming to power.
    Mr. Wiggin: I cannot accept that the Minister's answer was particularly helpful when the number of days lost to strikes has increased from 235,000 in 1997 to more than 1 million in the past 12 months. How can the Government do more to cut the number of days lost and make Britain a better place in which to do business?
    Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman was asking about levels of industrial action. The figures for days lost through industrial action are notoriously lumpy, for example, a one-day dispute by local government workers contributes 500,000 days lost to the figures.
    810
    However, when we get the final month's figures, the actual number of disputes this year will be shown to be the lowest ever recorded.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What about the Post Office?
    Alan Johnson: As for the Post Office, the level is the lowest for 25 years. If we define good government by days lost through industrial action, the figure under this Government is 36 per cent. lower than under the Major Government. Using that definition, we are a very good Government.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Will the Minister confirm that industry is not only plagued with strikes—in fact it has had its worst year since 1990, with more days lost than at any time over the past 12 years—but that manufacturing productivity is rising at only half the rate that it was when the Government were elected; business investment has just recorded its worst fall since 1996; the trade balance is worse than at any time since—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is too wide and relates to a question that was not called because the Member was absent.

    GATS Negotiations
    Ann McKechin: If she will make a statement on her Department's recent consultation on the World Trade Organisation general agreement on trade in services negotiations. [90940]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The consultation ended on 3 January with some 700 replies, including one from my hon. Friend, for which I thank her. I will publish a summary and a response from the Government as soon as possible.
    Ann McKechin: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. She will be aware that in the current GATS agreement the European Union placed a horizontal limitation on its service commitments to strengthen the protection against the use of public utilities and the manner in which they provide public services. Can she assure the House that she will resist calls in the negotiations to remove that limitation? How will she protect the way in which public bodies in the UK can provide arid control public services in sectors such as health and education, even if they are delivered either wholly or partially by the private sector?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right about the existing horizontal limitation. A number of the consultation replies stressed the need for Europe to maintain that limitation. I strongly see the force of that argument, although we have not seen the Commission's draft proposals on the limitation. However, as I have stressed before and would stress again today, we have no

    811
    intention of making any GATS commitments that would call into question our ability to maintain public services.
    Adam Price: Why did the Government refuse to publish in full all the requests made by other WTO members to liberalise UK public services? Can the right hon. Lady confirm that those requests included the elimination of the subsidy to the BBC and the reprivatisation of Network Rail?
    Ms Hewitt: We did not publish the requests for the simple reason that our partners in the WTO, including a number of developing countries, wanted to keep the requests confidential. As a process of negotiation is under way, it makes sense to do that. What we have done is to publish a summary of all the requests made to us. We have also published an 88-page detailed consultation document on the website, and will shortly publish a summary of the responses and our response in turn to them. We have been more open and transparent in the process than any other WTO member. We continue to press our European Union colleagues for the maximum possible transparency in the EU, consistent with ensuring that we have effective negotiations.

    British Aircraft Industry
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What discussions her Department has had with the Ministry of Defence on the British aircraft industry. [90942]
    The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): The Department maintains a close and regular dialogue with the Ministry of Defence on industrial matters relating to major defence procurements and defence industrial policy. Inevitably, those discussions have, where appropriate, touched on the British aircraft industry.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is not the Minister's Department concerned at the inordinate delays in introducing into service in the Royal Air Force the Eurofighter, the A400M and the new tanker aircraft? Or perhaps the Secretary of State for Defence just does not care because British Aerospace, the main participant, is not British in his eyes.
    Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman asks about three specific projects, which we are extremely concerned to bring to fruition. From his great experience of the issues, he will know that they are not entirely under the control of the British Government. Indeed, we are waiting for the German Government to come into line on the A400M. We very much care about the aerospace industry, in particular about BAE Systems, which is why I am due to receive the interim report of the innovation and growth team report on aerospace next week from Sir Richard Evans. I think that that will map the future for aerospace in this country.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just the big players in the aerospace industry, such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, that are dependent on Ministry of Defence work? Many
    812
    highly skilled aerospace businesses in constituencies such as mine also depend on the contracts being given to the British aerospace industry.
    Alan Johnson: Of course I accept that point. My hon. Friend knows full well that we have the biggest defence order book for the past 50 years, which provides a tremendous opportunity for British companies—including small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain generally, some of which are in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    David Burnside: BAE Systems is the biggest producer of aircraft parts and aircraft in the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry agree with the Secretary of State for Defence that, through its ownership, BAE Systems can no longer be classified as a British company? For example, in the decision between Thales and BAE Systems on the contract for the two aircraft carriers, would not awarding the contract to Thales, which has a major contributor in Harland and Wolff in Belfast, be a more patriotic choice for the British defence industry?
    Alan Johnson: We have just agreed a defence industrial policy between the Ministry of Defence and Department for Trade and Industry that has been widely welcomed and which makes it absolutely clear that we are looking for value for money for the British taxpayer. BAE Systems is a British-controlled company in terms of the competition for two 55,000—tonnes carriers. Whichever contract is successful, it will mean jobs and prosperity for British workers—but that contract must be awarded on a proper competitive basis.

    Postal Services
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: When she last met the chairman and chief executive of Royal Mail to discuss postal services and prices; and if she will make a statement. [90943]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): Ministers and officials have a regular dialogue with directors of Royal Mail on a range of issues relevant to the role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has as a special shareholder of the company.
    Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister say when he or the Secretary of State last met the chairman and chief executive of Royal Mail? Was the price control regime proposed by Postcomm discussed? In particular, if Postcomm withdraws from the extension of the scope of price control over Royal Mail—which seems to me and others who believe in competition to be somewhat excessive—will the Post Office not seek to delay matters by going to the Competition Commission? Incidentally, did the Minister express reservations about the Post Office's proposals in relation to format-based pricing?
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced observer of arrangements for competition regulation and will know that there have been animated discussions between Royal Mail and Postcomm over Royal Mail's recent application for a price rise. Postcomm is an

    813
    independent regulator and it is important that it and Royal Mail agree a way forward that is acceptable to all parties. I am optimistic that will be the outcome. In terms of the discussions, Postcomm is a fully independent regulator. In looking at the current price rise application, the Government have of course submitted information of which Postcomm will take account but the decision is entirely for Postcomm.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Returning to the vital role that rural post offices play and bearing in mind that most village post offices are also shops, is not the best way to ensure their survival for the people who live in villages to use those post offices regularly? Is it not the case that if all the people who regularly drive to a supermarket and spend £40 or £50 to fill their car boots spent just 10 per cent. in their village shops/post offices, that would ensure the survival of the rural network?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Post Office has an important role to play in taking advantage of the big investment that has been made in new technology and offering new services that will attract people back to the post office network, to ensure that it has a thriving future.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What recent assessment she has made of the state of manufacturing industry. [90944]
    The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): We are continuously monitoring and tracking the progress of manufacturing in partnership with our key industry stakeholders.
    Mrs. Gillan: I am sure that the Minister is constantly tracking the manufacturing industry. The Engineering Employers Federation estimates that 500,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing since the Government took power in 1997. Yesterday the Office for National Statistics announced that in the three months to November 2002, manufacturing jobs fell by 155,000 on the same period last year. Does the Minister think that the Government are living up to the Secretary of State's promise to think of manufacturing as an integral part of the future of our economy?
    Alan Johnson: Yes, I do. Manufacturing is an integral part of our economy. It is crucial to the future of the country, as it represents 60 per cent. of our exports and a fifth of our gross domestic product. Manufacturing is indeed facing problems in this country, as it is in Japan and in the USA. There is a global downturn—the first synchronised global downturn in those three parts of the world since 1974. Manufacturers know that it is a tough world out there. This is not the ritual dance in which we sometimes engage, but perhaps I could have a quick little pirouette: 2.75 million jobs in manufacturing were lost under the previous Government. We are seeking to draw up the first manufacturing strategy in this country for 30 years, and to address the practical problems facing manufacturers. The Engineering Employers Federation, which is entirely engaged in that process, understands that full well.

  The Minister for Women was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Andrew Turner: What evidence she has collated of changes in the incidence of domestic violence in the last three years. [91057]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): According to the British crime survey, the number of domestic violence incidents per year has fallen by 19 per cent. over the past three years. Further research is being undertaken that will give us more detailed information about domestic violence, as well as sexual assault and stalking.
    Mr. Turner: The Women's Aid website reports that 23 per cent. of separated women suffer post-separation violence and 76 per cent. suffer verbal abuse and threats. Does the right hon. Lady recognise that one reason—although in no way a justification—is the difficulty that some separated men feel they have in maintaining access to their children, even when access has been ordered by the courts? What steps is she taking to ensure that the paramount needs of the child and the safety of all, as determined by the courts, are met?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is right about the shocking extent of verbal and physical abuse, not only in cases following a separation—one quarter of all violent crimes relate to domestic violence, and two women a week are murdered by their partners. That is utterly unacceptable. With regard to fathers' access to their children, my view is simple: children benefit from having, wherever it is possible, the love and support of their father as well as of their mother. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and his Department are ensuring that in access cases, proper attention is paid to the needs of the child. That is the overriding consideration. I would warn the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he was not seeking to do this—against in any sense excusing verbal or physical abuse. In some recent murder and manslaughter trials where the woman has been killed by her husband or partner, there has been an attempt to defend that crime by blaming the woman. That is unacceptable as well.
    Fiona Mactaggart: In the circumstance where one third of all homicides in the country occur following domestic violence, and where there is no other crime with a higher level of repeat victimization, is there not a crisis that requires more urgent action than we have been able to deliver, not just to protect women, but very often to protect children? How can we make sure that women's lives are protected from violent men?
    Ms Hewitt: My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has already put in place new guidelines for the Crown Prosecution Service, and is working with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the police and the prosecution service work far more effectively together to make sure that the warning signs of early evidence of violent incidents are

    815
    properly taken into account, and that women are protected against the very real risk that domestic violence will end in the death of the woman. I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has recently taken the step of referring outrageously lenient sentences in such cases to the Court of Appeal for further review.
    Sandra Gidley: In a written reply from the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, on 10 December, he stated:
    "Domestic violence is not separately identified in recorded crime statistics collected by the Home Office."—[Official Report, 10 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 233W.]
    Given the acknowledged high number of such incidents and the fact that one in five incidents result in a woman having to visit a doctor, would it not be useful for all agencies concerned to collect those figures separately in future?
    Ms Hewitt: I think that it might well be, and I shall certainly draw that issue to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As I said in my first reply, we are also doing further research on this, because domestic violence is notoriously under-reported. The British crime survey can help us to get a better fix on the actual scale of the problem.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: In 1975, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended that there should be one refuge place per 10,000 people, for the protection of victims of domestic violence. Today, we have only one third of that number. Will the Minister tell the House whether the forthcoming Green Paper will contain revised proposals for meeting the shortfall in refuge provision?
    Ms Hewitt: I agree that, over several decades, not enough attention has been paid to this issue, nor has enough investment been put into refuges for women suffering domestic violence. I welcome the fact that we will be spending an additional £7 million on developing new refuges in partnership with local authorities around the country. I also welcome the fact that the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women launched a new national 24-hour helpline in December to ensure that women who are fleeing violent partners can get the advice and information that they need.
    Lady Hermon: Given that responsibility for criminal justice was not devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly—whether suspended or not—and that that responsibility remains here at Westminster, and that the incidence of domestic violence remains at a very high level in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Lady tell the House what discussions she has had with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about measures to combat domestic violence there?
    Ms Hewitt: I have not had discussions with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I know that the Northern Ireland Administration, as well as those in Scotland and Wales, are closely involved in the work that is being undertaken right across government on the issue of domestic violence. We have to engage the police, the prosecuting authorities, the local authorities,
    816
    housing authorities and so on. All the different agencies are being involved in this, and that includes those in Northern Ireland.

    Equal Pay
    Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on the incidence in the last three years of cases successfully brought against employers for paying women lower wages than those paid to men for doing similar work. [91058]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): In the three financial years up to 2002 for which we have figures, 163 equal pay claims were successful at tribunal. Many more, of course, were settled and withdrawn before they came to a tribunal hearing.
    Mr. Bercow: It is disgraceful that such claims should need to be made at all. Does the Minister for Women agree that economic efficiency and social justice alike demand that there should always be equal pay for work of equal value? Given that there are continuing and unjustified disparities, does she agree that it is urgently necessary that the message should go out from representatives of all major political parties that skinflint employers who seek to break the law with impunity in 2003 will be subject to zero tolerance?
    Ms Hewitt: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman reciting the central mantra of new Labour that economic efficiency and social justice go together. Of course he is right to say that unequal pay for work of equal value is absolutely unacceptable. That is why we have strengthened the law with the new equal pay questionnaire. We do not want cases going to tribunals if we can possibly avoid it; we would rather settle them inside the workplace. That is also why we have established equal pay audits in the public sector, all of which will be completed by April, and why we are putting in place proper plans to re-organise the pay structure and job classifications, as we have done at ACAS and as we are doing in the national health service, to ensure that there is indeed equal pay for work of equal value.

    Domestic Violence
    Margaret Moran: When her report on the cost of domestic violence will be published. [91060]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The full research report is scheduled for publication in the early summer—not the spring; the summer.
    Margaret Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend and her colleagues for their wisdom in taking up the suggestion that we undertake an analysis of the cost of domestic violence. As I am sure she is aware, recent research in the United States showed that $1.6 billion is spent in the health service alone on picking up the cost of domestic violence. Given that a woman is assaulted 35 times, on average, before she flees to safety, I am sure that the cost to the NHS will be as much as that or more. Does she therefore agree that it is essential that, once the report is published, we seek to shift resources away from

    817
    picking up the pieces and into prevention? Will she vigorously advance that argument to the Treasury and ensure that we have sufficient funds for preventive measures in domestic violence cases?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women recently announced the early results of the research, which we will be publishing in more detail later. The initial
    818
    estimates are that the annual costs both to the public purse and in lost economic output amount to about £40 million in terms of the murder and manslaughter of women in their homes. If the appalling emotional and human impact costs are added, the figures increase to about £112 million a year.
    This is an appallingly extensive crime. Of course, I shall do as my hon. Friend asks in pressing the case for even greater investment than we are already making in prevention and support for those women.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): It would be a pleasure, Mr. Speaker:
MONDAY 20 JANUARY—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Government's Failure to Tackle the Crisis in Winding up Arrangements for Occupational Pensions", followed by a debate on European directives on traditional herbal remedies and food supplements on an Opposition motion.
TUESDAY 21 JANUARY—Debate on House of Lords Reform on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will wish to know that there will be a further debate on Tuesday 4 February in which Members will have an opportunity to vote on the seven options recommended by the Joint Committee.
WEDNESDAY 22 JANUARY—Debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 23 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill.
FRIDAY 24 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week after will include:
MONDAY 27 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
TUESDAY 28 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, followed by motions relating to the establishment of a Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for that support from Opposition Members.
WEDNESDAY 29 JANUARY—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government has replied.
THURSDAY 30 JANUARY—Opposition Day [4th allotted day]. There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 31 JANUARY—The first debate on Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 29 January, the third meeting of the Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe will take place to consider the fifth and sixth reports of the United Kingdom representatives to the Convention.
Mr. Forth: As ever, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) identified a case of premature expostulation by the Secretary of State for Defence. In column 699 of Hansard, with regard to yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend pointed out that by 5.30 pm the previous day, the Press Association was reporting that there would be a
820
statement on the following day in which it said that the Secretary of State would be
"'minded to accept the American request to use Fylingdales.'"—[Official Report, 15 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 699.]
You, Mr. Speaker, have deprecated such practices time and time again. What is the Leader of the House going to do to get Ministers to follow your instructions to stop demeaning the House and giving their information to the Press Association or anyone else before that happens here in the House of Commons? Time and again, Ministers have been giving crucial information to the media 24 hours ahead and then coming to the Chamber and boasting that they are bringing the matter to the House. This is just the latest example and the right hon. Gentleman must tell us what he is going to do to deal with the practice effectively and not allow it to continue.
The Leader of the House has often boasted that the series of ghastly measures—so-called modernisation—has resulted in no reduction in the time available for the House to hold the Government to account. Let us consider Thursdays. In the good old days, the House sat from 2.30 pm to 10 pm—seven and a half hours of quality parliamentary time to the hold the Government to account. Matters took a turn for the worse when the ghastly modernisers said, "We'll sit from 11.30 am until 7 pm", and the Leader of the House said, "Don't worry, we'll still have the same amount of time to do our parliamentary business." That was just about bearable, but the modernisation process edged further forward, and the Leader of the House suggested that we should sit from 11.30 am till 6 pm on Thursdays. That is a reduction in parliamentary time by any reckoning.
What business is sufficiently trivial to require less time on a Thursday? Today, the vital fisheries debate has been squeezed into a mere three hours. That is an insult to the subject. Next week, the crucial Regional Assemblies Bill will be considered on a Thursday. Given that business questions are held on Thursdays and that statements occasionally follow, it is obvious that modernisation has reduced the time that is available for the House properly to hold the Government to account. What does the Leader of the House have to say about that?
Next Tuesday, we shall debate the vital matter of Lords reform. On 4 February, as the Leader of the House announced, we will have an opportunity to vote on seven different options for Lords reform. Where do we go from there? When we began the process, we believed that the Government had a policy on Lords reform. We believed that phase I was the virtual elimination of the hereditaries and that phase 2 would be the completion of the project.
That appeared to be the case until the Lord Chancellor said on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 on 7 January:
"All bets are off in the sense that the White Paper…didn't command acceptance."
At least we now know that the Government no longer believe that what was originally meant to happen will take place. The Lord Chancellor helpfully said that
"many voices are speaking out against what they call the nonsense of a hybrid House"—

821
I believed that that was the preferred option of the Leader of the House. The Lord Chancellor continued even more revealingly:
"The Government has arrived at no views as yet … some genius is going to have make sense of the votes."
He went on, uncharacteristically modestly:
"I am pleased to say that that genius is the Joint Committee."
The Leader of the House should tell us now what will happen after next Tuesday's debate and the votes in February, especially in the likely event of the House and the other place reaching different views on reform of the House of Lords. What remit will the Government give the Joint Committee? What sort of timetable can we expect for the crucial completion of the reform of the upper House? The Joint Committee has identified at least eight pieces of further work that it must do, never mind the remit that the Government will give it after our votes. We need to know; otherwise, we shall conduct our debates on a crucial parliamentary and constitutional matter in a vacuum created by the Government.
Mr. Cook: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back and wish him a happy new year.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government stand firmly against premature expostulation. It was widely known that the Secretary of State for Defence was going to make a statement to the House. From the moment such information is known, all sorts of people begin to speculate about the content—[Interruption.] The phrase that the right hon. Gentleman quoted was not in the statement. It is not only the press who speculate. The shadow Secretary of State for Defence touted himself around television and radio stations, speculating about the statement.
Mr. Forth: He is not the Government.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) may not be the Government, but neither is the right hon. Gentleman. What is sauce for him is sauce for the shadow Defence Secretary. The Opposition cannot complain about media speculation when they want the broadcasting media to interview them about the possible contents of the Defence Secretary's announcement.
On the question of the modernisation measures, we debated these matters very fully on 29 October. It was an excellent debate, which is fully recorded in Hansard. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to re-live it, I invite him to read that edition of Hansard, or to view the videotapes. All of these questions were put to the House on that occasion, and there was a very compelling majority for the conclusion that we should stop at 6 pm on Thursdays.
Before the right hon. Gentleman waxes any more indignant about the outrageousness of stopping at 6 pm, I should point out that last Thursday, the House actually finished before 4 pm because there were no speakers left to continue the business before it. I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but I refuse to feel particularly guilty. Perhaps some of the Opposition Members who are so keen that we continue until 6 pm
822
on a Thursday will turn up to make a speech next time, which they did not last Thursday. I understand why the right hon. Gentleman was unable to be with us for last Thursday's business statement. We did deal with the Lord Chancellor then, thanks to the intervention of his deputy, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). It is impossible to speak at too great length about the Lord Chancellor, and I am happy to do it all over again.
The fact is that five of the seven options that will be before the House when we vote on 4 February will provide for some form of mixed membership. The right hon. Gentleman complains that there is no Government view, but frankly, the strength of the debate for the House is that it will have a free vote and the decision. We set out that strategy clearly last summer, when I made it plain that we believe that reform of the second Chamber is a matter for Parliament and not just for the Government, and that it is therefore right that Parliament take a view. It would be wrong, having set out that strategy, for the Government now to try to lecture Parliament on what that view should be.
As to what happens next, there is no secret about that. A statement was made last summer, and we have discussed the matter on a number of occasions. What happens next is that the votes in both places will go back to the Joint Committee. There is no need for a new remit for the Committee. The remit that we agreed with the Committee last summer—when the Committee was established—sets out clearly that it will first come to us with an interim report on the options, which it has done, and then translate the outcome of those votes into a detailed proposal. That remains the strategy and the timetable, and I hope that we can take it forward in time to legislate during the next Session.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House confirm that it is his expectation that the UN inspectors will report back to the Security Council on their initial findings in Iraq on Monday 27 January, and that the following day, President Bush will make his State of the Union address? Does the Leader of the House not recognise that the House of Commons must be given the opportunity not only to debate what may come out of those two events, but to have a definitive vote on the situation, in terms of the deployment of British troops in the Gulf? Does he accept that the answer given to Baroness Williams of Crosby in the other place on Tuesday—at column 126 of the House of Lords Hansard—by Baroness Symons, in which she said that she was very "sympathetic" to such a request, requires confirmation that he, too, is sympathetic on the Government's behalf to the idea that such a debate and Division might take place?
According to today's Financial Times, it seems that the Government have torn up their expectation of increasing rail ridership by 50 per cent. in a decade. Can the Leader of the House therefore tell us when we will have a debate on the Government's rail strategy, so that we can learn whether they have indeed changed it? Perhaps that would also give the Conservative Opposition the opportunity to apologise, at long last, for the botched rail privatisation that has given rise to this appalling situation on our railways. While having to spend seven hours getting here last week, instead of the usual three and a half, I found myself standing next to a

823
former British Rail manager, who confirmed in absolute terms that it was the previous Conservative Government's failure to invest in the infrastructure, combined with their privatising—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservative Members seem unable to listen even to those who travelled on British Rail, let alone to those who ran it.
Finally, may I draw the Leader of the House's attention to motion 4 on today's Order Paper, which I think I am right in saying refers to dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls. The document mentioned in the motion was before a European Standing Committee just two days ago, but we do not have the Hansard report. We have no idea what is at stake. The motion may be very worthy, but how can we bring a motion to the Floor of the House without having a clue as to what it is all about? Moreover, on looking at the online Hansard for that Committee, I found that it was three years out of date.
Mr. Cook: I am afraid I cannot shed further light on the directive without notice. I think the hon. Gentleman referred to phenyls, but in any event I will ensure that he is positively deluged with correspondence explaining the directive.
Let me repeat what has been said on a number of occasions about the 27 January report. It will of course be the first substantive report from the inspectors to the Security Council, but it will not necessarily be the last. It will probably be a staging post for future reports, and I will not be at all surprised if Hans Blix's main conclusion on 27 January is that he requires further time in which to explore the issue.
The Foreign Secretary has said from this Dispatch Box that the Government have no problem with the idea of a substantive motion on the question of commitment of British troops should we end up there, which is not inevitable; but it must come at the appropriate time, and I would be rather surprised if 27 January provided such an occasion. The Foreign Secretary will go to the United Nations next Monday, and will take part in a ministerial exchange in the Security Council. I am sure that he will want to ensure, as he has repeatedly, that the House is kept fully briefed on the progress of those discussions.
I also noticed that the official Opposition's response to the business statement did not raise the question of rail. I deduce from that that once again it was impossible to find a Conservative Member who is willing to defend the way in which the Conservatives went about the privatisation of the rail industry. I am, however, happy to disabuse the House and the hon. Gentleman in regard to an error in what the hon. Gentleman said. The Government have not abandoned their commitment to a 50 per cent. increase in rail use. We remain committed to that target throughout the 10-year programme of our transport plan, and indeed we are well on target in that we have increased rail use by 25 per cent. since 1997.
David Hamilton: May I return the Leader of the House to next Tuesday's agenda and House of Lords reform? I read the relevant paper with great interest, and noted the seven proposals for a fully appointed House, a fully elected House, and so forth. The one proposal that is not there, of course, is the proposal for abolition. Will the Leader of the House have another look at the proposals? Has he seen early-day motion 529?
824
[That this House expresses its concern that the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform did not include an option for abolition in its first report; further notes that much of the impetus for House of Lords reform stems from concerns about the effectiveness of the House of Commons; and would support proposals for a unicameral solution coupled with reform of the House of Commons legislative procedures.]
In a single day, that motion gathered 63 signatures in favour of abolition. Could such a motion come before the House, so that we could vote on it?
Mr. Cook: I read the early-day motion with interest, and noted that it had attracted signatures from a significant number of Members. We have sought to implement to the letter the recommendations of the Joint Committee. We were keen to establish the Committee, and said that it should present the proposals on which the House should vote; so we will not depart from its recommendations now. It has not recommended abolition as an option, although I note that, of necessity, half its members are from the other place.
While my hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to support his proposition as an individual, as are a number of our colleagues, it is not the policy on which we fought the last election. We have a mandate from our manifesto at that election not for the abolition but for the reform of the second place. I very much hope that after 4 February we shall be able to stop arguing about what is the option for reform, and at long last get on to the reform.
Sir Teddy Taylor: According to my calculations, the Bank of England and therefore the people of Britain have lost more than £700 million as a result of the policy of instructing them to sell their gold and buy three specific currencies. Do the Government not believe that there is a case for an early debate in which they can give their calculation of what money has been lost, and we can have a full review of what has been a disastrous and costly policy that should never have been embarked on?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has produced a question that is an oldie and, I suppose, a goldie. As we said at the time, Governments around the globe are diversifying the way in which they hold reserves. When we made the decision, Britain held an unusually high proportion of reserves in gold. It was therefore an entirely rational and proper decision, and I fully defend it. I suspect that, had a Conservative Government been in power at the time, they would have made precisely the same decision.
Keith Vaz: Will my right hon. Friend make time available for an urgent debate on the textile industry? He may be aware that there were 19,000 textile jobs in Leicester in 1984. That total fell to 9,000 in 1997, and is now down to 3,000. If the trend continues, there will be no more manufacturing in the textile industry in Leicester. In 1950, it was said that one out of every five pairs of socks worn in Europe was manufactured in Leicester. Can we have a debate on this urgent matter?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the impact on his constituency of the decline in jobs that he has described. I am sure that he will readily acknowledge that we should not infer from the reduction in employment over the long period to which he referred that there has necessarily been a parallel reduction in output, as a relevant factor has been the substantial increase in productivity in that sector over the same period. I am pleased to tell the House that the recent employment figures demonstrate that, in the past year alone, there has been an increase in the number of people in work under this Government of 250,000, and that there was a further fall in unemployment of 5,000 in the last month. However, I fully understand that those figures do not remove the anxiety about the decline of traditional industries, especially in local communities such as that represented by my hon. Friend. I cannot offer him any immediate hope of a reversal of that trend in the textile industry, but I can assure him that the sound economy that the Government have created provides other opportunities for people in my hon. Friend's constituency, and elsewhere.
Sir George Young: The Leader of the House has confirmed Tuesday's debate on Lords reform, when a number of hon. Members hope to make the case for a predominantly elected second Chamber. There is known to be a wide range of views in the Cabinet, and Ministers are to be allowed a free vote and apparently to express their views in public. Given that collective ministerial responsibility no longer applies, is there any reason why Ministers should not speak in the House from the Back Benches?
Mr. Cook: We are obviously going to have a very interesting debate on Tuesday. I do not hold out much hope that it will be made even more interesting in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests. However, it is important that we approach the matter in a mature way. We have committed ourselves to a free vote. It would be right and proper for the Opposition to complain if there was any suggestion that the Government were not allowing a free vote. Consistent with our commitment to a free vote, it would be wrong for the Government to advance a collective view.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 410, on avoidable accidents caused by sleep deprivation?
[That this House recognises that a significant proportion of all road accidents resulting in death or serious injury is caused by sleepiness; notes the human misery caused by fatal road accidents, which cost around one million pounds each; further notes that at least I per cent, of the United Kingdom's adult population has a medical cause for sleepiness; acknowledges the Royal College of Physicians' observation that untreated sleep apnoea sufferers may have driving impairments comparable with other drivers well over the legal alcohol limit; acknowledges that sleep apnoea is readily treatable with a machine costing £300 which lasts, for ten years; notes the research undertaken by the Sleep Centre at Edinburgh university; that shows the cost of treating 500 sleep apnoea patients with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure treatment for five years would be a total of
826
£400,000 in comparison to the estimated cost of accidents caused by untreated patients with sleep apnoea over the same five year period being £5,300,000; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to give serious consideration to increasing the provision of treatment for sleep disorders.]
That is a very serious subject. From the answers that I have received from the Department of Health, it is clear that many primary care trusts and hospital trusts do not take the matter seriously. They do not offer a cost-effective treatment that could save many lives on our roads, as the majority of accidents are caused by people who suffer from sleep apnoea. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on what is a very serious matter?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a matter about which she has expressed concern on the Order Paper. She makes some important statistical points about the importance of the disorder. I am sure that Ministers at the Department of Health will want to make sure that the NHS responds to the problem properly. I shall ensure that they write to her setting out the strategy for dealing with this disorder.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Committee stage of the European Parliament (Representation) Bill was successfully completed today, and that that measure gives the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in European elections. Do the Government intend to introduce a similar Bill that will give the people of Gibraltar and all British overseas territories the right to democratic representation in the British Parliament, which has responsibility for them also?
Mr. Cook: No is the short answer to that. The Government deserve credit for introducing, as no previous Government have done, a measure that will make sure that the people will be represented in the European Parliament. However, it is in the nature of the overseas territories that they have their independent form of government. As someone who was Foreign Secretary for a time, I know full well how jealously those territories guard their right to govern themselves and to ensure that their administrations are accountable to their indigenous populations. It would be wholly inconsistent with that to make them part of this Parliament, which would necessarily mean that they were subject to rule from Westminster.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House inquire as to when records relating to links between King Edward VIII and the Nazis will be released? I am told by the Lord Chancellor's Department that an investigation into this matter has been completed, but there seems to be great reluctance to release the findings.
Mr. Cook: I am advised that the papers relating to the abdication of King Edward VIII will be released to the Public Record Office on 30 January. That will enable those who wish to examine the matter to see the discussion that took place at the time and the anxieties that may then have existed. It is right that that should be

827
put in the public domain. Hon. Members and other members of the public can then come to their own conclusions.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is supposed to meet at least four times a year, and that there is a possibility that it will meet six times. Next week, three months will have elapsed since we last met. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Grand Committee will meet within the month and that, in keeping with commitments that have already been made, it will do so in Northern Ireland? That would allow some Northern Ireland Members who find it difficult to attend meetings at Westminster to attend the sitting. If there is a question about where to meet, I understand that the old Senate Chamber is available.
Mr. Cook: I am in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the precise powers and role of the Grand Committee in circumstances when we do not have the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are fully seized of the additional importance of the Grand Committee in those circumstances. The hon. Gentleman can take it that there will be a meeting of the Grand Committee in the foreseeable future. Where it should meet is normally a matter for consultation between all parties, and it has not always been possible in the past to get agreement on what is the most convenient location for everybody. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be willing to undertake those consultations.
Ms Diane Abbott: I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House early-day motion 436, on missile defence.
[That this House notes the request by the United States Government to upgrade facilities at RAF Fylingdales as part of their National Missile Defence programme; recognises that there are huge moral, economic, technological and legal issues raised by NMD; welcomes the Government's commitment to a wide ranging public debate on these issues; and believes that the United States request should not even be considered until the British public has been able to have this debate and decide whether the "Son of Star Wars" proposals offer any real security for Britain or the international community.]
Will my right hon. Friend make time for a full debate, in Government time, on national missile defence? Although the subject can be raised in next week's defence debate, the House needs to examine many issues to do with star wars. They include whether the technology works, what risk local populations face, and the destabilising effect of what many regimes in the world, including China, will regard as missile proliferation. Also, the House needs to discuss whether the Government have been entirely transparent in saying that the decision that they are about to take to update Fylingdales does not mean that Britain is signing up for the star wars project.
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, when he answered questions both here and
828
in the Select Committee yesterday, made it clear that the decision that he was minded to take had to do with the current application, and that any future decision would be a matter for a future debate. On the question of discussing the matter in the House, I fully understand the interest that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members have in it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence came to the House and made a very full statement and took questions for a full hour yesterday. He then went to the Select Committee and answered questions for a further hour. There will be a debate on defence in the world next week. It is one of a number of debates on defence of a general character that are held in the course of the year. It would be entirely relevant for any hon. Member who wishes to ventilate some of these issues to do so in that debate.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Is the Secretary of State for Defence prepared to come to the House this afternoon to put right the statement that he made about the future of BAE Systems? Many hon. Members on all sides who have a workforce involved with BAE were shocked by his comments. This is the second time the Secretary of State has effectively damaged the company. In the next few weeks a decision will be made about the purchase of two carriers for the Royal Navy. Quite rightly, there should be an open competition, but the Secretary of State by his comments has seriously damaged the financial future of a major British company. Would the right hon. Gentleman please make a statement on this?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has in no way damaged the prospects of any company obtaining any contract from the Ministry of Defence. It would be rather odd if anything that he said damaged his ability to award a contract to that company.
Perhaps I may remind the hon. Gentleman of the background. Last year BAE Systems itself asked the Government to remove the requirement that 50 per cent. of the shareholders had to be British. The Government responded to that initiative and request from the company by removing the requirement. As I understand it, at present 54 per cent. of the shareholders are of foreign rather than British origin. But that is not a consideration in the award of any contract by the Ministry of Defence. Certainly the Ministry quite rightly and properly attaches importance to the economic benefit that would come from a contract being awarded. That economic benefit remains constant so long as BAE's installations are in Britain, and is not dependent on where its foreign shareholders may be based.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the article in The Times on 13 January regarding the new post office card accounts initially being available to only 10,000 claimants? Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a Minister to make a statement as to whether the article is correct? Does he agree that if it is correct the existing methods of payments to benefit claimants at post offices should continue until the cards are available to those who want them?
Mr. Cook: I believe that I am on sound ground in telling my hon. Friend that the answer to his last

829
question is "Yes", that those who wish to retain the present post office card may do so, and that we shall try to make sure that the system can ensure that they are paid in the normal way. Only a small number in the initial period will be transferred to any other form of payment. We are very sensitive to the need to make sure that we fully provide choice to the customers of the post office.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the following matter? Five and a half years after the election of a Labour Government it was announced last year that trains would run from Matlock to Birmingham straight through. It has been announced today that, within two months of that service being operated, instead of 10 trains running there will now be two. Does the Leader of the House think that that will encourage people to use public transport?
Mr. Cook: In the way in which he puts his question the hon. Gentleman draws attention to the fact that last October there was a substantial increase in cross-country services. Indeed, the Virgin cross-country services doubled in October. It has not proved possible for Virgin to maintain that service without substantial congestion in the network. Therefore, most of the reductions announced today relate to the Virgin cross-country services. However, I understand that there will still be substantially more cross-country services after the reductions than there were before last October. The hon. Gentleman was on the Conservative Benches when the present structure of privatisation was created. I, and I think his constituents, would take his complaint rather more seriously if he could point to a single instance in the course of those debates where he expressed that reservation.
Mr. Colin Challen: Now that the Department of Trade and Industry's consultation on the World Trade Organisation's current round of General Agreement on Trade in Services negotiations has just been completed, may the House have a full debate on the liberalisation of trade in services? Many people, including the Local Government Association and even this morning hon. Members, have expressed great concern about the future of public services under those arrangements. May we have a full debate so that it will be possible to answer the point that some of the negotiations were carried out in secret to avoid public scrutiny?
Mr. Cook: To be fair to the present Government, I would tell my hon. Friend that we have sought wherever possible to make more open and more transparent the discussions within the World Trade Organisation and will continue to look for new ways in which accountability can be secured in its deliberations.
On the generality of my hon. Friend's point, he raises a profoundly important and serious issue. I sometimes feel that in our political exchanges we do not necessarily reflect the most profound and most strategic changes, but those that are currently the issues of greatest current
830
publicity. I shall consider what appropriate mechanism there may be for this matter to be ventilated. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are fully determined to make sure that we achieve a liberalisation of trade and that we secure an opportunity to export for the growing service sector within the United Kingdom. At the same time, we are sensitive to the need to make sure that it happens in a way that promotes rather than hinders the development of those countries that are yet to develop.
Mr. Michael Jack: Until now members of the public have accepted that there is a genuine need to provide asylum to those who fear for their lives. In the light of the tragic death of the police officer in Manchester and the apprehension of persons from north Africa, some will look at asylum now as the Trojan horse for terrorism. Will the Home Secretary make a statement on the subject of our current asylum procedures, so that the House may have an opportunity to probe the thoroughness, preparedness and resources at our disposal to deal with the mounting terrorism threat?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his sound bite, but I cannot congratulate him on his responsibility. It is a cheap and irresponsible form of politics to try to label all asylum-seekers as if they may be terrorists. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should let the Leader of the House answer in the way that he pleases.
Mr. Cook: I would have more respect for the perspective being argued from the Opposition Benches if it were not the same party that only last year tried to prevent us from having a new rule which would enable us to deport asylum-seekers guilty of a serious offence. The right hon. Gentleman should look at the record of his own party before trying to turn this to political advantage.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I apologise for the brief blast of Beethoven from my phone.
May I reiterate the request to my right hon. Friend for a specific debate on the general principle of British involvement in missile defence, which was requested yesterday by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches? We know from my own early day motion that there is concern amongst over half the Parliamentary Labour party, the vast majority of Labour Back Benchers. The public believes that this is an important decision, which in a democracy should be properly discussed in this Chamber. It is wholly inadequate to reduce it to passing references during a debate on defence in the world, in which inevitably issues such as Iraq will correctly predominate.
Mr. Cook: I understand the strength of feeling on this issue and also fully understand the complexity of the arguments on both sides of the question. But, on the narrow question of process, five days are set aside each Session for defence, and we meet those mandatory requirements in each Session. Moreover, there are many additional days on issues of topicality, such as Iraq, which I am sure we will debate again. What my hon.

831
Friend said about the Opposition having demanded such an opportunity was an interesting observation. I find it strange that instead they have chosen to debate herbal medicines next week.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Leader of the House may or may not be aware that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution on a paper of mine calling for a convention against clandestine migration. In view of the serious security implications of this matter, and notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's intemperate response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), whose comments were entirely apposite, could not the Home Secretary tell the House that the Government will be following the recommendations of the convention, because surely the general public deserve it?
Mr. Cook: The United Kingdom plays a distinguished part in both the Assembly of the Council of Europe and its meetings at ministerial level, and will continue to do so. Of course, we shall take very seriously any recommendation by the Assembly for such a convention. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement to the House yesterday, quite rightly and quite properly, in the immediate aftermath of the appalling murder, and of course he will continue to keep the House fully briefed. But, in fairness to those many people who seek legitimate asylum from illegitimate persecution in the countries from which they flee, we should not now start to tar them all with the terrorist brush.
Llew Smith: Last week, I requested a debate on the sell-off of part of the defence evaluation quango, QinetiQ, to the Carlyle Group. I argued that such a debate was necessary because of the secretive way that the procedures have been adopted by placing minutes in the Library before the recess in July and December last year. The Leader of the House refused to hold the debate as he was of the opinion that the procedure had been open and had been done through a statutory instrument. However, the statutory instrument referred to March 2001, whereas I was referring to minutes being placed in the Library in July and December 2002. I am pleased that the Speaker has informed me that Parliament was notified by item 12 in appendix I of the Votes and Proceedings of 17 December last year. That is hardly essential breakfast reading. Because of money involved—underwriting about £100 million—will the Leader of the House rethink and perhaps agree to hold a debate on such an important matter?
Mr. Cook: It is perfectly correct to say that I did not apprehend at the time that a minute had been deposited in the Library and, as my hon. Friend will see if he consults the report of what he said at the time, that may partly reflect the fact that he did not make it clear in his question either.
On the process on that occasion, the Ministry of Defence has followed the standard procedure where a Government liability is being created in excess of £100,000, which is to place the minutes in the Library. The fact that that was done on the day before the recess
832
has, of course, no bearing on the fact that the period for objection is 14 sitting days, not 14 calendar days, and therefore it is of no procedural significance whether it was done before or after the recess. I can only suggest that, if my hon. Friend wishes to force such a debate, he and his friends need to ensure that there are sufficient objections, and we will consider the issue in the light of that at the end of the 14 sitting days.
Pete Wishart: Does the Leader of the House not find it incredible that the only group of parliamentarians in the United Kingdom who will have the opportunity to consider and vote on a substantive motion in advance of military action in Iraq are Members of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, on the back of a Scottish National party motion? Will he endorse the view of his colleague, the First Minister of Scotland, who says that Labour Members who vote against Government policy do not deserve to be in the Labour party?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on all the points that he makes. First, it is not the case that only Members of the Scottish Parliament will have the opportunity to vote on a substantive motion. For the record, I should say that we had a substantive motion in the House before Christmas. Indeed, there was a vote on that substantive motion and, by a very large majority, the House endorsed the Government's strategy in ensuring that we fully support the United Nations process and UN resolution 1441.
The Foreign Secretary has already made it clear, as I mentioned earlier, that the Government have no difficulty at all with the idea that there should be a further substantive motion and, if hon. Members wish to divide the House, a vote on the commitment of troops at the appropriate time. Of course the Scottish Parliament will have views, and those who have a view to express and have formed intelligent opinions about the policy on Iraq will have an opportunity to debate them. However, I am pleased to reassure the House that Britain's foreign policy will be settled in this Chamber, not in the Scottish Parliament.
Mr. John Smith: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the dispute that has apparently arisen between the World Health Organisation researchers at Leiden university in Amsterdam and the International Air Transport Association about whether airline companies are helping or hindering vital research into deep-vein thrombosis and air travel? Given that the British taxpayer is funding that research, will he bring the issue to the attention of his right hon. Friends, with a view to reporting back to the House?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend takes a deep interest in this matter and has alerted the House to it on several occasions during business questions. As he will know, the Government share his apprehension and concerns, which is why we have been one of the countries willing to fund the international research, and we will continue to give that support. We should not prematurely judge the outcome of that research until it is available to us. I can assure my hon. Friend that nothing said in the meantime will deflect the Government from our

833
commitment to ensuring that we have full, thorough international research, partly funded by the United Kingdom.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Although many hon. Members—at least those on the Conservative Benches—strongly support the Prime Minister's policies on the promotion of international law and order, are they not a terrible contrast with the Government's complete and lamentable failure on domestic law and order policies? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the Government's crime and law and order policies to be held as soon as possible? Will he ensure that, during that debate, we hear from the as yet unnamed but widely quoted senior Labour Minister who described the Lord Chancellor—I think that I quote him exactly—as a muddled and confused old codger?
Mr. Greg Knight: Own up.
Mr. Cook: I am happy to respond by saying, no, it was not me. I am very pleased to tell the House that, among my many responsibilities, I do not number the obligation of disclosing the sources of the press, which is probably as well for the press because, in my experience, quite a lot of what we read in the press is made up in the bar.
On the Government's record on crime, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, according to the British crime survey, crime has declined by 27 per cent. in the
834
past five years. That is a stark contrast to the way in which crime doubled during the years when the Conservatives were in office.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Following the question about asylum asked by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), would my right hon. Friend accept that there are many innocent victims of the culture that he was right to decry? Would not a debate on asylum give us an opportunity not only to consider the obligation that the Government and the country have to maintain civil liberties, but address the needs of people, such as my constituent, Erald Angoni, who is a 10-year-old Kosovan who cannot visit his dying grandfather because of the current clampdowns? Would my right hon. Friend accept that a debate on that matter could have benefits for those who are concerned about that part of the argument?
Mr. Cook: Of course I cannot comment on the individual constituency case to which my hon. Friend refers, but there are other ways in which he can seek to ventilate and remedy that problem. On the wider question, there is probably no other single issue that the House has discussed more in the past Session than asylum, and I would be very surprised if we did not continue that debate during this Session. My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right: it is important that we get the balance right between carrying out our international obligations to provide refuge for those who are fleeing persecution and safeguarding the civil liberties of the people of Britain, who also, of course, have perfectly reasonable grounds to expect that the Government will ensure that people do not abuse the asylum system by entering it for reasons other than to seek protection.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

Points of Order
1.17 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help the Leader of the House and, indeed, the whole House in pointing out that there is a distinction between the obligations on Ministers and what they do and say with regard to the House and the different role played by Opposition Members? The Leader of the House seemed to suggest, quite extraordinarily, that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen had the same responsibilities as Ministers. Mr. Speaker, you must surely help him to make the distinction, which he has failed to make, that there is a real responsibility on Ministers to pay proper regard to their attitude to the House, whereas, frankly, the rest of us, as mere Members of Parliament, can pretty much say whatever we like when we like.
Mr. Speaker: I have said in the past that I have no responsibility for the content or quality of the replies of any Minister, including the Leader of the House. However, certainly in any of my statements about Ministers' responsibilities, I have said that the responsibilities are far different for those who hold Opposition posts. I shall say no more on that matter.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be willing to look into the issue of the delays that now occur in the translation of ministerial written replies into the Official Report? At about 6 o'clock yesterday evening, I received a long-awaited written answer from the Department of Health—it goes back to November—informing me that the Government spend £53 million a year on promoting the consumption of fruit and vegetables. I had hoped that that answer would appear in today's Official Report, but it does not, and it is not on the Internet
836
either. That seems to be part of a new pattern that communications between Departments and Hansard—it may be for another reason—result in Hansard not producing written answers in a timely fashion.
Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that it would be better for the hon. Gentleman to take the matter up with the Editor of Hansard, if that is where the complaint lies, before raising it with the Speaker.
Mr. Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, my complaint is not with the Editor of Hansard. My suspicion is that Departments are not communicating the information to Hansard.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentleman should try the Minister first. When I was a shop steward, I used to say that people should take matters up with the manager before they went to the shop steward.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, we regard you as our shop steward in this matter because it relates to not one but several Ministers and certainly not to the Editor of Hansard. In recent weeks, since the introduction of the new system, there have been several cases of a written statement not being made available in the Library or in the Vote Office. Indeed, I have drawn that to your attention, Mr. Speaker. Could you, in the nicest possible way—in your usual extraordinarily tactful way—as our shop steward, make representations to the Government that if they are not ready to make a written statement available to Members of the House they only have to wait another day and then do so?
Mr. Speaker: The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has written to me on that matter. Perhaps I may be given the opportunity to reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day

  Church of England (Pensions) Measure
  1.21 pm
  Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): I beg to move,
  That the Church of England (Pensions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  This is the first Church of England Measure to be debated in this Parliament, so I welcome hon. Members on this august occasion.
  The Measure makes provision in two main areas. First, it amends the powers of the Church of England pensions board in relation to certain funds that it holds in statutory trusts for the benefit of its pensioners and their dependants. It does so by transferring them to the general purposes fund established by the board in 1975. That fund is then given charitable purposes that embrace all the former purposes of the funds added to it. The result will be to enhance flexibility to make discretionary charitable provision for its pensioners and others and to reduce administrative costs.
  The Measure widens the board's powers in relation to the provision of retirement housing for those who have served in the stipendiary ministry. Previously, where a couple housed by the board divorced after retirement, the board could continue to house only its pensioner and not the former spouse. The Measure gives the board power to house a former spouse as well as the pensioner and thus enables it to treat both even-handedly.
  The Measure clarifies the position as regards the liability for payment of the cost of accruing pension rights where compensation is paid under the Pastoral Measure 1983 and the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measures. The changes relating to the Church of England pensions board are dealt with in clauses 1 to 4 of the Measure.
  Secondly, in clause 5, the Measure extends for a further seven years, from 1 January 2005, the power granted to the Church Commissioners by the Pensions Measure 1997 to resort to capital to pay their pre-1998 clergy pension liabilities. The 1997 Measure significantly altered the arrangements for the funding of clergy pensions. In particular, it limited the commissioners' pension liabilities to those arising from service before the end of 1997.
  Mr. David Drew: I hope that the Measures will not be controversial but, given the previous problems experienced by the Church Commissioners, can my hon. Friend tell us what the fall-out might be if there were no improvement in the Church's overall capital position? We are talking about some of the poorer pensioners; it is a myth to pretend that former vicars do not face an extremely difficult situation.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The commissioners' investment performance over the past three years has been adversely affected by the poor return from global stock markets, but their property holdings have mitigated the impact,
  838
  although full figures are not yet available. When they are, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives the information.
  David Taylor: I understand that we are talking about assets of about £4.5 billion and that actuarial assumptions envisage that about £2 billion of that will be required over the next 60 years. Can we assume that the actuaries have taken a bleak view of the present stock market position and that things could actually be much better as time goes on?
  Mr. Bell: The actuaries estimated that, on the basis of present withdrawals from the funds of the commissioners—the capital to which the Measure refers—which amount to about £30 million a year and possibly more than that, it would take 60 years for half our capital to be divested, or used up. Of course, 60 years is a long time for all of us—we may all be dead by then. However, the pensions liability, according to the actuaries, is long standing and we hope that, with flexibility in relation both to our property investments and our stock market investments, the situation to which my hon. Friend alludes will not arise, but I am grateful to him for putting the question.
  Mr. Frank Field: May I ask my hon. Friend about the other side of that actuarial calculation? The first actuarial calculation to be undertaken for the commissioners relates to how much of the total fund will be required, but the second is for the new scheme that is to be established. Is he satisfied that the actuarial calculations for the new scheme are as soundly based as they should be, given that the situation has changed so quickly over the past couple of years? Might the commissioners want to bring forward the actuarial review of the scheme?
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. As he is aware, the pension schemes to which we are referring are final salary schemes. The essence of the Pensions Measure 1997 was to divest responsibility of the commissioners for future schemes from that date and to pass it to the dioceses. My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point and I shall be glad to take up the question of whether there should be an actuarial review of the schemes and draw it to the attention of the commissioners.
  I shall now return to my speech, with apologies to Hansard if it is not the point where I left off.
  The Pensions Measure 1997 limited the commissioners' pension liabilities to those arising from service before the end of 1997 and created a new and separate funded scheme into which dioceses—through funds raised from parishes—could pay clergy pension contributions in respect of service from the beginning of 1998. In support of those arrangements, it gave the commissioners power, but only until the end of 2004, both to give financial assistance to diocesan boards of finance and others in taking on the cost of paying those pension contributions and to spend capital in meeting their own pre-1998 pension liabilities.
  Mr. John Bercow: I recognise that this a relatively narrowly drawn Church of England pensions Measure, rather than a Bill that seeks to

  839
  address contracts of employment. Given the widespread concern on both sides of the House about the relatively minimal and unsatisfactory employment rights of members of the clergy, does the hon. Gentleman feel able to hold out any prospect that the Measure could be amended so that those whose contracts of employment are terminated might be given additional pension provision?
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman is right that the Measure is narrowly drawn, and not capable of being amended. However, his point about employment rights has been well taken by the Church, which is providing a full document as part of the consultation procedures demanded by the Department of Trade and Industry that will close in July. I will ensure that the question of pension rights in relation to employment rights is linked in our consultation document.
  The Measure will alter the last of the powers to which I referred by extending for a further period of seven years, from 1 January 2005, the commissioners' powers to spend capital to pay their pre-1998 clergy pension liabilities. The reason for seeking that extension is that, because of the need to fund those liabilities, the commissioners' expenditure is likely to exceed their income by at least £30 million per annum, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) made. Without the continuation of the power to resort to capital to meet those liabilities, the commissioners would need to make substantial cuts in their discretionary expenditure or to realign their investment portfolio to generate higher income. Either course of action would be damaging to the Church's long-term interests. It is also worth recalling that while the commissioners' capital is being reduced, the new funded scheme is being increased in size at roughly the same rate because so far it has few pension payments to make, so that, overall, there is no loss of capital at the national level of the Church.
  In summary, the Measure both rationalises the administration of discretionary funds in the hands of the pensions board—
  David Taylor: My hon. Friend has just announced that the Measure includes provisions that will end the seven-year transitional arrangements, which allowed contributions to diocesan boards of finance and others to help them meet their post-1998 liabilities. The cessation of that will essentially pose extra burdens for dioceses, deaneries and parishes such as mine, which are already groaning under financial pressures. Is he convinced that this is the right time to end that seven-year arrangement? Should it not be extended?
  Mr. Bell: The seven-year period is being extended by the Measure. It was introduced in this Parliament in 1997, and Parliament thought that it ought to be brought back after five years. It is now being brought back, and it is being extended. The reason for that is to give the commissioners' flexibility in handling their financial affairs for the benefit of those clergy. My hon. Friend's point about the burdens on dioceses was recognised in 1997, and that continues, but I am happy to say that the powers of giving in relation to Church communities have been enhanced. As far as I am aware, those commitments are being met, although we recognise that they are onerous.
  840
  Extending the commissioners' power to spend capital allows them to manage the resources under their control in the most strategic and effective manner. The Measure is therefore not only important to the pensions board and the Church Commissioners but to those many clergy and their spouses who have faithfully and loyally served the Church over many years. For those reasons, I commend the Measure to the House.
  1.35 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I warmly welcome the Measure, which I hope will pass speedily through the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) for the way in which he presented the issue, which is of great significance to a substantial number of people in my constituency in the diocese of Salisbury. There has been unhappiness in several areas for some time. It is important that the Church realign its resources in this way, streamline its administration, and change the basis of the funding of pensions for the clergy and their spouses.
  I broadly welcome clause 3 on housing and residences, as there had been an anomaly. The Church is not immune from the ways of the world today, and, sadly, when spouses divorced after retirement, the Church Commissioners had no power to assist in housing the divorced spouse. That anomaly is put right by this Measure, which is extremely important. I dare say that there will be further amendments in that line.
  Finally, the Measure illustrates the importance of the relationship between the Church of England and the state, which I welcome. It illustrates not only that the Church of England is undoubtedly in a privileged position, but that that is not just symbolic but, at a practical level, alive and well and working in the interests of the clergy of the Church of England. Having read the whole of the minutes of the deliberations of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which was quite a task and required several gin and tonics in the middle, I can say that it was worth the read. It illustrated how seriously Members of both Houses take their responsibilities on the Ecclesiastical Committee, and how they bring to bear their wisdom and experience, which has been to advantage in this case. The substantial change made by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which was accepted without difficulty by the Synod, illustrates clearly once again how the relationship between the Church of England and the state is flourishing, and I hope that that will continue for many years.
  1.37 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I have a feeling that my declaration of interest may last longer than my remarks. As my wife is an Anglican priest of three years' service before the changes were introduced, we have several pennies at stake on this Measure. We hope, however, that that will not bias my comments unduly.
  My colleagues and I also welcome the Measure. We note that when the General Synod considered its original version, it was approved by 366 votes to one—
  Mr. Key: Name him.
  Mr. Webb: A bishop; I do not know who.

  841
  Parliament is in the absurd position of considering the matter for the third time. Given that Synod and the Ecclesiastical Committee have already considered it, we should be cautious about seeking to amend anything that has the overwhelming support of the Church. Having said that, Parliament has a historic role in overseeing these processes.
  Like other Members who have spoken, we very much welcome clauses 1 to 4, which allow the discretionary funds of the pensions board to be used more flexibly than hitherto, which seems sensible and appropriate. We welcome the fact that divorced spouses of clergy—in post-retirement divorces—will have some possibility of having their housing position protected. Several of my friends are clergy and clergy spouses, and many feel insecure about their housing position, both while in active ministry and after retirement. A provision that recognises that relationships break down and that individuals should not be dependent on a spouse for a roof over their head, possibly at short notice, is entirely to be welcomed. The changes on retirement housing are therefore good.
  On the pension arrangements, we become nervous when we hear that pension payments will be made by running down the capital of a pension fund. However, the simplest analogy would be to think of this as a closed pension fund in which no new liabilities accrue and in which existing ones may run on for many decades. It is appropriate that we plan ahead for a measured and orderly financing of responsibilities.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) mentioned this point, but it is worth touching on the fact that the Ecclesiastical Committee prompted one change to the Measure. The Committee felt that, in a further seven years, the House should have a substantive opportunity to review the processes and reconsider whether the run-down of capital was being handled in the right way. It felt that the Measure should not go through on the nod under the negative resolution procedure for statutory instruments. That was probably a constructive suggestion, and I know that the Synod approved it without demur.
  Overall, we are comfortable with the proposal. In the unlikely event that the House should seek to divide, I will encourage my colleagues to support the Measure.
  1.41 pm
  David Taylor: I am a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) pointed out the overwhelming majority that the Measure enjoyed in the Synod. It was even bigger than the majorities that we encounter in the parliamentary Labour party.
  I have one concern to put to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). The commissioners have a range of discretionary responsibilities for parish ministry support, bishops' working costs, grants to cathedrals and money given to other bodies. When the Ecclesiastical Committee discussed the Measure in April 2002, I made the point that the sums that are currently being used to bridge the gap between funds and pre-1998 liabilities were on a substantial rising curve. Is my hon. Friend confident
  842
  that there will be little, if any squeeze, on the worthy work that the commissioners do on parish ministry support, bishops' working costs and on the others things that I mentioned?
  To clarify my earlier question about the renewal of the seven-year arrangement, I was referring to the seven-year transitional arrangements that allow sums to be paid to the boards of finance in particular dioceses. That arrangement will help them with their liabilities, but it will end, as I understand it, on 31 December 2004. That new burden, which will be unrelieved by any contribution from the Church Commissioners, concerns me in the light of current diocesan financial pressures. I would like reassurance on that point.
  1.43 pm
  Mr. Bell: With the leave of the House, I wish to respond to some of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to hon. Members for the manner in which they have raised them and for their constructive approach to the Measure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) asked about the commissioners' power to spend capital. We have the power to spend capital to help dioceses with new pension schemes. As he is aware, that power ends in 2004 and that is to protect the power of the commissioners' fund so that we can help poorer dioceses in other ways. The timetable for phased transitional relief has been agreed with all the dioceses. I shall return to his other points shortly.
  I shall deal chronologically with the points made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). He made the important point that one of the attractive features of the Measure is that it will help divorced spouses who might lose their homes after a separation. That problem is now being rectified, and we have powers to help a spouse or former spouse in that position. He mentioned the Church-state relationship, but I do not wish to widen the debate.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: Go on.
  Mr. Bell: I certainly do not want to do that when my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) is in the Chamber. I do not want to encourage him to take part in the debate at this stage. We are dealing with one of the interstices in the Church-state relationship, but that relationship is a matter for another debate. I am always willing to listen to contributions on that subject.
  I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). If I may paraphrase the words of a famous former Prime Minister, I assure the hon. Gentleman that his wife's pension is safe in our hands. [Interruption.] This might not be the right place to come to buy a second-hand car, but we are certainly looking after his wife's interests and her pension.
  The hon. Gentleman agreed with clauses 1 to 4 and welcomed the provision on divorced spouses. He made an interesting point that I did not cover in my opening speech because I did not want to bore the House with the intricacies of the relationship between the Ecclesiastical Committee and the General Synod. However, as the matter has been raised, the House might now be aware that one aspect initially concerned the Ecclesiastical

  843
  Committee. In addition to the Measure providing an initial extension of seven years up to 2011, it also provided for an indefinite number of further extensions after 2011. The General Synod would have been able to obtain them via a statutory instrument that would have been subject to annulment in Parliament.
  As the hon. Member for Salisbury said, and the hon. Member for Northavon emphasised, the importance of the Ecclesiastical Committee's role in the Church-state relationship meant that the Committee thought that it would be inappropriate for the power to be extended by statutory instrument. Instead, it decided that that should be done by means of a Measure that could be brought to the House for a debate like today's. The Measure returned to the General Synod and was amended by omitting the power to obtain further extensions through statutory instruments. The Ecclesiastical Committee was happy that the Church was prepared to amend it in that way, and co-operation between the Committee and the Synod has led to the Measure being debated on the Floor of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire rightly referred to the additional powers and responsibilities of the commissioners. They have a range of responsibilities upon which they expend their funds. They include parish ministry support, bishops' working costs, grants to cathedrals and money given to other bodies to support their administrative expenditure. As he said, much of that help is discretionary, and we are aware of the additional role. Non-pension responsibilities, however, stand alongside our statutory responsibilities for pensions arising for service from before 1998.
  The key issue facing the commissioners is the management of their assets and income in the most effective and strategic way, so that they can make the best possible investment returns at the same time as they carry out their spending in a planned and coherent fashion. To take up my hon. Friend's point, providing discretionary funds to the parishes that are in need has led to us making substantial contributions of at least £20 million a year and they have been worked out with the Archbishops Council.
  I trust that I have dealt with the points that have been raised. I again commend the Measure to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure
  1.49 pm
  Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): I beg to move,
  That the Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  I shall be brief. The Church of England has a system of synodical government, which gives representatives of clergy and lay people a role, along with bishops, in the governance of the Church at all levels. Although the principles underlying the system are long standing, a modern form of synodical government came into existence with the passing of the Synodical Government Measure in 1969 and the inauguration of the General Synod the following year.
  The main proposals in the Measure before the House provide for amendments to Church representation rules made under the 1969 Measure and make detailed provision for a range of matters relating to the synodical structures of the Church.
  Several of the changes are intended to confer more flexibility or lighten Church organisational structures; examples include reducing the minimum size of diocesan synods from 150 to 120, new arrangements for calculating the number of lay representatives on a parochial church council, and a power for another cleric to chair a parochial church council in the absence of the minister if the minister and the parochial church council agree and the bishop consents.
  Other changes affecting parochial church councils include a new requirement that lay people aged 18 or over should have had their name on the electoral roll of a parish for at least six months before being eligible for election to its parochial church council or the deanery synod. This requirement is seen as a desirable protection against a sudden influx of new members with little previous involvement in parish life.
  In addition, to make changes to Church representation rules, the Measure also make a number of miscellaneous changes to legislation on Church life at diocesan level.
  Mr. David Drew: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a problem with the Church electoral roll? The problem concerns who is on the roll and how its contents are made known. I raise a tangential but important point: without people's names appearing on the Church's electoral roll, there will be no democracy in the Church, and if their names do not appear on the other electoral roll, or if the Church does not have access to it, the problem will worsen.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who again shows the importance of having these debates on the Floor of the House. Curiously, the Ecclesiastical Committee did not challenge the most contentious proposal in the Measure—the requirement that a lay person should have been on the electoral roll of the parish for at least six months before qualifying for election to the PCC or deanery synod. The purpose of the change, which does not apply to anyone under 18, is to require that commitment be demonstrated to a

  845
  parish before seeking election to its PCC or the deanery synod. One may feel that six months is a long time; before one can stand as a parliamentary candidate for the Labour party, one has to be a member for two years.
  The measure and the changes include the lightening of certain committee structures and an amendment to the functions of diocesan synods to enable them to approve the annual budget and accounts of the diocesan board of finance. This last change reflects an increasing desire to enhance strategic management by bringing the policy making and financial management of a diocese closer together.
  The changes to synodical government effected by the Measure may at first sight seem both amorphous and modest. Taken together, they none the less represent a valuable and uncontentious first step in the process of synodical reform and development to which the Church stands committed. I therefore commend the Measure to the House.
  1.56 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: As the Member of Parliament for Salisbury, better known to some as Barchester, I warmly welcome this very sensible amendment to the small print of the rules of the Church of England. It is of considerable consequence; anyone who is not familiar with the politics of the Church would be surprised at the games of entryism that go on and the carpetbagging that occurs from time to time. These rules, which are designed to get around those problems, are very welcome and relevant.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman refers to carpetbagging. One reason that many people join the electoral roll of a church is so that they can qualify to get married in that church. Does he think that that rule should change?
  Mr. Key: No, I think that that is fair enough, because, entirely appropriately, residence qualifications are still required to get on the church's electoral roll. I also have no objection in this case to the positive discrimination in favour of young people to whom, under schedule 2, this rule will not apply.
  The Measure is entirely sensible and once again illustrates the importance and relevance of the relationship between the established Church of England and Parliament.
  1.57 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I will not delay the House long, but I should like to add to the point that I made when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). Unless people are registered on their church's electoral roll, the basic democracy of the Church becomes sadly weakened. For that to happen, however, they must be registered on the wider electoral role, which is becoming increasingly difficult because of data protection.
  We do not need further barriers in the way of getting people on to the electoral roll, and I hope that the Church Commissioners will deal with the problems that have been brought to my attention in my constituency.
  846
  More than one parochial church council representative has asked me to give them details of who is on the electoral roll as well as the numbers, because of budgetary considerations. The Church must be much more active in ensuring that it includes people on the electoral roll. Those of us who are active in the Church are worried that numbers are ridiculously low, given the importance of the Church in the community.
  1.59 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful for the very clear way in which the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), put the case for the Measure. Indeed, I am delighted to follow the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew). The hon. Member for Salisbury and I go back some time, as he will recall from school days. I recall the very distinguished role that his father and brother both played in the Church of England, as have some members of my family.
  Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I have no pecuniary interest in the Measure, although I am a communicant member of the Church of England, I have been a member of a parochial church council and my brother is a parish priest. My grandfather was a parish priest in Cornwall at the time of the 1928 prayer book, and had been all his life. That was some 75 years ago and he decided then that it was time for disestablishment. He thought it absurd that the House should debate such issues and saw its role as an absurd intrusion into the work of the Church.
  It is an irony that this interesting Measure, which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough introduced so elegantly, is all about democracy in the Church of England, yet out of the 659 people who in theory could vote on it in a few minutes' time it is unlikely that a majority would be members of the Church of England. In talking about democracy, we are negating democracy, which is a curious situation.
  I hope that we will pass the Measure, which has been thoroughly thought through. It is important that we recognise, however, that it is only the first phase of more contentious proposals that are being considered. It is my ambition that when the second Measure is introduced it will not have to come before the House of Commons.
  Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman explain his new doctrine that we can vote only on things in which we are actively involved? The House normally votes on crime, but I am sure that no hon. Members are criminals. Would that debar them from voting on crime measures?
  Mr. Tyler: I am tempted to say, "Speak for yourself."
  In the debate and vote in the Synod, the votes were 24 to nil among the bishops, 160 to four among the clergy, and 175 to 14 among the laity. As has been said, that is a pretty clear majority compared with even the Government's majorities.
  The hon. Member for Stroud made an interesting point about the church electoral roll. I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough responds to that. It is critical to the Measure that the church electoral roll is

  847
  full of integrity and credibility and that it has the respect of parishioners; otherwise, the hierarchy of Church democracy is at risk.
  The notes and minutes provided by the Ecclesiastical Committee, which is a Joint Committee of both Houses, are a model of their kind. I am not a member of the Committee and pay tribute to it for the way in which it has guided us on the issue. The documents explain that there was a sharp division on a number of Measures that form part of the 40 recommendations in the Bridge report. As far as I can establish, it is only those that have not caused controversy that are before us today. That is helpful, but I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough agrees that we should have a full explanation of where opinion is divided if and when the next stage takes place.
  The Committee discussed at length whether someone should be on the PCC electoral roll for 12 or six months and recommended a six-month rule, which is helpful. It will affect not just those who suddenly decide that they want to be involved in church work, but those who have moved from another parish where they were extremely active. In my part of the world. Cornwall, we want the expertise of retired people who have given good service to their parish and church in, for example, London. I have not come across any parochial church council that is worried about entryism. They are much more worried about departure, especially the call to their maker.
  Mr. Bryant: I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman, but there is significant concern in the Church of England about many cases in which groups of people have tried to take over the local church. That is a worry in many parishes and the Measure is important.
  Mr. Tyler: I would not for a moment suggest that the Measure is not important. I accept the six-month requirement. It is perfectly right and proper, although the same entryism could happen in six months and a day. In the end, however, that is democracy, as the hon. Gentleman's party knows only too well. Entryism was a major feature of the Labour party in the 1980s and he is right to be worried.
  It is important that we recognise that the recommendation by the Ecclesiastical Committee is sensible. It is a useful compromise and, as I understand it, accepted by the entire Synod. I accept that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) has particular expertise in the Church and direct personal knowledge of it, but we are more likely to look for more recruits for parochial church councils rather than to worry about too many suddenly arriving. I was nominated to a PCC, but we held the first election to it in recent memory, which ensured that better candidates were selected than me. So I am well aware of the ways in which the electoral system works.
  The proposals are intended to improve the flexibility of democracy in the Church of England. Paragraph 4 of the report recommends a more realistic approach than that set out in the present arrangements, especially for smaller parishes. My parish in Cornwall is relatively small and we want to ensure that democracy is as healthy as it is in more populous parishes.
  Continuity is also important. The way in which elections are held has been dealt with intelligently and sensibly and we have managed to avoid a problem.
  848
  I understand the argument for a minimum size for the diocesan synod, but how many are in the band under consideration? The proposal is that the minimum size should be reduced from 150 to 120. I do not know how many diocesan synods would fall into that category. There was a suggestion to reduce it to 100, which might be more practical and effective in some circumstances.
  The schedule is the critical consideration. The Synod team has been considering it for, I think, nine years, which is a long time.
  Mr. Bell: Since 1997.
  Mr. Tyler: But much work was done before that. The gestation period has been long. There is always a worry with any Measure that the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but the detail should fulfil the aspirations of those who want to make the reforms. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reassure us that the changes have the unanimous support of those in the Synod who proposed them, so that the Measure fulfils their expectations and aspirations.
  I end as I began by saying that I am not only a loyal and supportive member of the Church of England, but a dedicated supporter of disestablishment. I hope that when we reach the second phase of the measures on democracy, we are able to let the Church of England be a democratic institution for the first time in its life since its creation by Henry VIII.
  2.9 pm
  Mr. Bell: With the leave of the House, I will respond to some points. The electoral roll has preoccupied many Members. The Measure makes a change to eligibility. Parishes are experiencing difficulties in being able to inspect the civil electoral civil roll, which they used to do for the purposes of electing church wardens, and we are looking into that matter.
  A lay person is entitled to have his name entered if he is baptised, 16 or over, has signed an application form and declares himself to be either a member of the Church of England or of a church in communion with it and resident in the parish or to be such a member not being resident in the parish habitually having attended public worship in it during a period of six months prior to enrolment. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was absolutely right. The original period was one year but, following debate, was reduced to six months.
  The third condition is to be a member in good standing of a church that subscribes to the doctrine of the holy trinity although it is not a church in communion with the Church of England. The person must also be prepared to declare himself a member of the Church of England, having habitually attended public worship in a parish during the six months prior to enrolment. The hon. Member for North Cornwall was perfectly right to remind me that although the Bridge report on synodical government was produced in 1997, discussion and research took place over several years beforehand. We heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but the mills of God grind slowly and exceeding small. They certainly ground exceeding small in respect of that Measure.
  When the report was published, response to it was divided. There were a number of controversial proposals, chiefly with regard to the size and

  849
  composition of the General Synod. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the reduction in the number of members from 150 to 120 and specifically asked for the context. I will be glad to give him a reply in writing. I said earlier that the Ecclesiastical Committee did not challenge the Measure, but that does not mean that the Committee did not debate it in depth. It was a contentious proposal but it went unchallenged. I refer to the requirement that a lay person should be on the electoral roll of the parish for at least six months before qualifying for election to the parochial church council or deanery synod.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made a pertinent comment about the Measure's relevance and answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), obviating the need for me to intervene. He referred also to the Church-state relationship that brings us to the Floor of the House, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall and, in a sedentary intervention, by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.
  I hear a lot of propositions—I am propositioned all the time—about disestablishment but no one makes any specific proposals. We have had a lot of time since the days of Henry VIII. It has taken 100 years to get around to reforming the House of Lords, so I dread to think how long it will take to get around to disestablishment. However, I shall be happy to hear from anyone with proposals to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) referred to the various problems that have arisen and spoke about a more proactive Church. I think that we would all say amen to that.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier that we should not believe everything that we read in the newspapers and that sometimes stories are invented. However, I was sorry to read that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will be retiring at the next election. The hon. Gentleman also gave his age away. I will not divulge it on the Floor of the House. In one conversation with him, I mentioned that I had been to 25 Labour party conferences and felt proud of that achievement. He replied that he had attended 40 Liberal party conferences. Anyone who can attend 40 Liberal party conferences in his lifetime merits great congratulations from Labour Members.
  The hon. Gentleman described my speech as elegant, and I hope that he also found it eloquent. I shall not go into detail about his speech. However, he referred to the work of the Ecclesiastical Committee and wanted to he advised of the next planning stage. We shall certainly take him up on that. On the issue of 150 or 120 members, he said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and referred to the need for detail. Of course, the devil, who is never far away, is in the detail. He also mentioned total unanimity in the Synod, which, like this Parliament, is never likely to achieve unanimity.
  I am grateful that our short debate on synodical government has received the approval of the House and has been wide ranging in the best traditions of the House. I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): In case it was not entirely clear from the Order Paper, this debate will conclude at 6 pm. I should also tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  2.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 2341/2002 of 20th December 2002, a Council Regulation fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required; European Union Document No. 2369/2002 of 20th December 2002, a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector; European Union Document No. 2370/2002, a Council Regulation establishing an emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels; European Union Document No. 2371/2002, a Council Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy; and European Union Document No. 14886/2002, a Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community Action Plan to reduce discards of fish.
  As I reported to the House in the pre-Fisheries Council debate on 21 November, the December Council was always going to be exceptionally difficult. It involved major decisions on the common fisheries policy and the review; the major issue of the cod recovery programme in the North sea; and effort management. The council was held over a five-day period, and involved a great deal of work and discussion. I pay tribute to my officials, my colleague in the Scottish Executive and the fishermen's leaders, who were actively engaged in discussions throughout the week.
  In our previous debate, I set out the Government's objectives and our intended action against the background of scientific advice that the North sea should be closed to all fishing for cod-related stocks and the serious consequences of that advice for the fishing industry. I made it clear that total closure of the North sea, or an 80 per cent. reduction in fishing effort, which is frankly hardly different from total closure, or, indeed, the seven days a month limit were not acceptable and would simply destroy the infrastructure of the UK fishing industry. There would not be much point in introducing difficult and painful stock recovery programmes if there was no infrastructure left in the UK to benefit in future.
  Those proposals were successfully resisted, but I have no illusions about the severe impact that the recovery proposals that were finally agreed will have on sections of our white fish fleet—I shall say more about that in a moment.
  Shona McIsaac: I apologise for not being able to stay for the whole debate because of commitments in Committee. As my hon. Friend knows, some hon. Members fought to get compensation for distant-water trawlers after the Government's action in the cod wars. What is he doing to ensure that fishing

  851
  communities get compensation quickly if they lose their livelihood so that we do not have another 25-year fight for their rights?
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. Of course, there is a case for a support package for the fishing industry, and I shall say more about that later. I recognise that many fishing communities, including those in Grimsby and Cleethorpes, will be affected to a varying extent by the changes—we are not going to ignore that.
  There are aspects of the three amendments tabled by Opposition parties with which I do not disagree. However, I find the Conservative amendment the most unreasonable. One issue raised by the amendments is the need to recognise the impact on fishing communities. We do recognise it, and take it seriously. I shall come to that in a moment.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: When the Minister returned from the Fisheries Council blinking into the sunlight, he describe the package as "a balanced outcome" and "a turning point", whereas the Scottish Minister who was carrying his bags that week described it as "inequitable, unfair and crude". Which was it?
  Mr. Morley: I understand that the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to make such points, but I can assure him that Ross Finnie was involved in every stage, every aspect and every detail of the negotiations that week. I very much appreciate his support and backing in an extremely difficult negotiation. I do not disagree with anything that Ross Finnie said in the Scottish Parliament about those discussions. If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I say in the debate, he will find that there are echoes of what Ross Finnie said.
  I made it clear in discussions before the Council that I could not and would not ignore the scientific advice, which was serious, and that we had to respond to that advice in a credible and responsible way. Destroying fish stocks will, of course, also destroy the fishing industry. My approach was guided by the views of Members of the House and reports from the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, which considered the common fisheries policy and concluded that
  "the manifest failure of the CFP during its first two decades has been in large measure due to lack of political will in the face of clear scientific advice."
  I had to take that comment seriously. It was echoed by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am pleased to see that its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), is present. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on the CFP stated that
  "the state of some stocks, particularly that of North Sea cod, is so poor there can be no excuse for failing to act rapidly to reverse the declines."
  The report continued:
  "Courageous and decisive action is needed to safeguard both stocks and the fishing livelihoods that depend upon them."
  I took those comments from the two all-party Select Committees very seriously.
  Mr. John Redwood: The EU documentation makes it clear that discards—the
  852
  throwing of dead fish back into the sea—is a massive problem. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish are needlessly wasted every year under that mad policy. Why did the Minister press not just for study and discussion but for immediate action to stop the scandal of killing all those small fish, throwing them back into the water and making no use of them?
  Mr. Morley: We do want action, and we want it to be effective. That means identifying the problems. I am pleased that one of the positive outcomes related to CFP reform, including a discard policy, which addresses part of the right hon. Gentleman's point. I should emphasise that the vast majority of discards in the fishing industry are of undersized and non-commercial fish. We must address the matter as an aspect of fisheries management. I shall speak about that in due course.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: As the Minister knows, we have been going round this track for about 30 years. We could go back 30 years or so—the hon. Gentleman would not have been in government—and find Ministers of both parties saying that there were too many fishermen and too few fish, and that we must do something about it. Nothing has been done about it. Ministers keep saying that the scientific evidence is terribly important and we must do something about it, but nothing happens. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says. I enjoy hearing him say the same thing every time. Are we going to make any progress? Surely the only way to make progress is to recognise that there is only a certain amount of fish and that there must be an auction. The fishermen should decide who will bid for each quota, dividing the amount of fish by the number of fishermen. We cannot go on trying to decide that fishing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is breaking into a speech.
  Mr. Morley: As always, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has some interesting suggestions regarding fisheries. I know that he has extensive experience of and background in the subject. There is some truth in what he says. For many years the problem has been acknowledged and people have been saying that we must do something about it, but action will inevitably be painful. It has always been resisted both by Fisheries Ministers from European countries and by the industry. Even now, there are people who deny the need to take action on the basis of the scientific advice. If we do not address the problem, there will be the constant spiral of decline that the hon. Gentleman correctly identifies.
  Mr. David Curry: On the absence of political will, does the Minister recall that a decade ago the House voted to introduce effort control in the form of days at sea? That was never implemented and, like practically every other conservation measure, it was fiercely opposed by the industry. Does the Minister think that, in retrospect, had it been applied, we would be in quite the mess that we are in now, including over days at sea?
  Mr. Morley: I thought the right hon. Gentleman might mention that, and he has every right to do so.

  853
  There are different forms of effort management. I recall the debate on the proposals to introduce effort control. There were problems with that. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there were great difficulties in terms of bureaucracy, ascertaining people's right to days, and the appeal procedures. It was a difficult and complicated structure, and there were some valid criticisms from the industry, which I acknowledge.
  There is no perfect system of fisheries management. If there were, it would have been introduced long ago. We must therefore examine the range of management tools available and try to adapt them in the most effective way. I have always had an open-minded approach to these matters, including effort control. I listen to what the industry says. I tried to persuade the Commissioner to take a different approach and consider a recovery programme that did not involve effort control of that kind. With reference to Ross Finnie's remarks, I agree that the measure is crude. Of course, it is an interim measure, and I shall discuss the details in a moment.
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: The Minister is right to say that there is no perfect system of management of stocks, but would it not be an awful lot easier to tie the industry in if we had proper, effective regional management of the industry in the North sea? How soon does he believe he can achieve that?
  Mr. Morley: Yes, I do agree with that. One of the successes of the CFP reform is that we have put in place the regional advisory councils. We want to get them up and running as quickly as possible. It is the beginning of a process, and we need to build on those councils. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that an element of regional management and regional involvement, particularly the involvement of the industry, is essential for future fisheries management. That is the direction in which we want to go and for which we were arguing.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will my hon. Friend immediately discount the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) that the market should play some part in divvying up the fish? The birthright of my constituents in Hastings and Rye, who cannot afford to enter the market, would be compromised. Will my hon. Friend discount that Conservative proposal entirely?
  Mr. Morley: I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend, who has been a great advocate for and friend of the Hastings Beach fleet. I made it a priority to exempt the under-10 m fleet from the effort control restrictions, recognising that it is a low-impact fishery. I understand the concerns for such fleets, which are unlikely to become involved in an open-bidding market. Quota is bought and sold: that is a feature of the fishing industry, but the under-10 m fleet is not part of the inshore fleet. The inshore fleet is non-sector, and managed by the Department. We recognise the low impact that it has. It should be exempted from the range of measures that we were successful in achieving.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: May I pass on to my hon. Friend the thanks of the Ramsgate under-
  854
  10 m fishing fleet for his efforts? He gets all too little praise in the House. The fleet is broadly pleased with the outcome of the negotiations and wants to thank the Minister and also his officials, who are unfailingly helpful to it.
  Mr. Morley: I appreciate that. It is worth remembering that the majority of the boats in the United Kingdom fishing fleet are under 10 m. They support many small, isolated communities. They employ low-impact, traditional methods. I have always had a great deal of admiration for the way in which they operate, and always tried to take their needs into account.
  Lawrie Quinn: On the issue of under-10 m boats, will my hon. Friend also confirm my understanding that recreational fishermen who have diversified from the main fishery would fall into that category and therefore not be affected by these proposals?
  Mr. Morley: Yes, I can confirm that both under-10 m boats involved in recreational fishery and larger boats that are not carrying fishing gear but are involved in recreational fishery are exempt from the restrictions.
  Mr. Salmond: Can we just inject a little reality into this? The overwhelming majority of the white fish industry does not depend on boats under 10 m, important though they are in certain communities. The overwhelming majority of the white fish industry depends on reasonably sized boats. That sector is now at risk of total financial and fishing collapse over the next few months. I know that the Minister has been asked a variety of questions, but will he now turn his attention to the question of whether it is his policy to see that vital historical part of the fleet survive or not?
  Mr. Morley: It is absolutely my priority to ensure that that part of the fleet survives. Our fishing fleet is divided into different sectors which have different priorities and operate in different ways. They are all equally important to me as the UK Fisheries Minister. It is worth remembering, however, that the majority of vessels are under 10 m, and that an awful lot of people are involved in that sector. They have needs and rights, which I recognise. I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, particularly in relation to his own constituency, that the white fish fleet on the east coast of Scotland is a very important economic driver in the fishing industry. I absolutely concede that point.
  Andrew George: I thank the Minister for giving way once again. His taking of interventions is one of the valuable aspects of this debate, because a great deal is elucidated by it. In the light of the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) about regional management committees, which we would prefer, does the Minister agree that there has been a change of culture in the industry in recent years? Does he also agree that we need a change from treating fishermen as perpetrators to treating them as partners in the management of their industry? That is the big change

  855
  that has taken place over the last 10 years, and I urge the Minister to take that on board in future deliberations on the development of the policy.
  Mr. Morley: Yes, I absolutely accept that. It is unfortunate that there has been a widening gulf between the fishermen and the scientists, for example. One of the objectives to which I want to turn my attention is how to bring those two sectors together in future. I shall touch upon that again later.
  Mr. Steen: One or two of the Minister's Back Benchers mentioned two or three boats with six or eight people running them round the bay in Bexhill or Ramsgate and tried to distract him from the important point that I made earlier. I should be grateful if he could deal with it now. Would it not be a way forward to have an auction of the quota, once the European Community has fixed the quota? That way, the fish would be allowed to live, and we could then eat them.
  Mr. Morley: I shall give the hon. Gentleman a serious answer to that. I can see some major disadvantages to his suggestion. I know exactly what he is saying, and there is an element of market forces at work in quota trading as it stands. That can be beneficial, particularly in relation to producer organisations ensuring that quota remains within their regions. There are advantages to that. If, however, we follow the full-blown logic of the hon. Gentleman's proposal, it would result in the disadvantage of the Icelandic individual transferable quota system, which, although it has some advantages in management terms, has had the effect of concentrating ownership of the quota in the hands of a very limited number of companies. That is a problem. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's rather disparaging remarks about those who work the in-shore boats in my hon. Friends' constituencies. They are as important to me as anybody else; they support families and communities, and they have every right to be taken into account and to have their needs recognised. I intend to ensure that that happens.
  I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) about interventions. I do hope that my taking interventions will not lead to the length of my opening speech being held against me. I had prepared a speech of a fairly standard length, but I am happy to take interventions because this is an important debate on serious issues and I know that everybody who attends such debates has a genuine and sincere interest in them. I take that very seriously.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: May I return my hon. Friend to remarks that he was making earlier about the importance of scientific advice? The fishing communities that are being hit by the cuts in quota feel that it is equally important that the views of the fishermen are taken into account when determining the level of fish stocks. Nobody disputes that the levels have gone down, but the extent of that reduction can be disputed. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he takes seriously the views of the fishermen who are actually fishing for these stocks?
  Mr. Morley: I do take that seriously, and I shall touch on that matter in a moment. The experiences and views
  856
  of the fishermen—the data from their log books, for example—are taken into account in relation to stock projection. I recognise that there are some problems, however. In that respect, I want to try to bring the two sides together and involve them more to ensure that the fishing industry is involved in the scientific projections and that the scientists listen to what the industry has to say.
  Mr. John Hayes: We welcome that assurance. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) mentioned a spirit of partnership, which is necessary. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) takes a great interest in the Fleetwood fishermen, and she will recall that I reminded the Minister that, in 2000, there was a tie-up east of the Isle of Man based on the sort of scientific advice that he now advocates, because the scientists claimed that it was not a cod spawning area. It turned out to be one, and the tie-up was a disaster. The fishermen were right and the scientists were wrong on that occasion.
  Mr. Morley: I do not know who the hon. Gentleman has been talking to, but that is totally wrong. In fact, the fishermen in Fleetwood have raised a number of technical issues with me about the cod recovery programme, which I took very seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood arranged meetings for me in Fleetwood and I went along and talked to the fishermen. Their concern was about the level of cod in the eastern Irish sea. As a result of their representations, which I took seriously, we arranged trial trawls in the eastern Irish sea—by chartering boats from the fishing industry—which demonstrated that the cod population in the spawning period was extremely low. In fact, the closed area in the western Irish sea was precisely the area in which there was a concentration. That has been the basis of the three-year cod recovery programme, which is supported by the fishermen of the Irish sea.
  It was inevitable, given that the UK had the majority of the quota for the most threatened stocks, that the December Council was never going to provide a good outcome for the fishing industry as regards quotas. But not responding to those threats or to the scientific advice was not an option for us either, not least because the threat of emergency measures being imposed by the Commission was a very real one, and we had to take that into account. We paid a great deal of attention to the details of the common fisheries policy and, in terms of the reforms, this at least provided a better outcome for the UK.
  In relation to the reforms, the UK achieved all its principal objectives. Those objectives have been repeatedly called for by hon. Members in the House and they include a commitment to a multi-annual approach to stock management and to recovery plans for depleted stocks, and the renewal of our six and 12-mile zones. We pressed very hard for that measure to be without limits, but, unfortunately, the Commission's legal services advised that all aspects of Commission and Council decisions have to be reviewed at intervals. The wording

  857
  of the final decision contained an assumption that these provisions will continue even though they are up for review. That was important.
  Mr. Salmond: As the Minister knows, the Spanish fleet now has access to the North sea, but not to pressurised stocks. I have read the Commission's account of the Council meeting, and it seems to suggest that inspections of Spanish boats in the North sea can be carried out only with the consent of the Spanish authorities. If that is the case, it will be a disaster. I hope that it is not the case. Will the Minister tell me whether it is the case, and clarify the account that I have seen in the Commission's explanatory notes?
  Mr. Morley: That is most certainly not my understanding. Any EU vessel within a member-state zone is subject to the enforcement and inspection measures agreed by the EU.
  Bob Spink: Will the Minister confirm that this country will use its powers and inspect those vessels?
  Mr. Morley: This country inspects all vessels that are fishing in our waters and we will continue to do so. Indeed, enforcement and inspection is one of the areas that have been strengthened and we strongly argued that that should happen.
  We also obtained the retention of the principle of relative stability, which is very important and is one of the priorities of our fishing industry, as hon. Members have said. We have also retained the Hague preference. That was not easy, because it benefited only the Republic of Ireland and us, but it has nevertheless been retained. As has been pointed out, there was no adjustment of stock allocations in the North sea in favour of Spain or Portugal. Even though they have access under accession, that is meaningless economically without a quota to go with it.
  The Shetland box has been retained pending a review of all restricted areas in 2003. Public aid for fishing vessels is being ended, as is aid for the transfer of EU fishing vessels to third countries from 31 December 2004. That issue was controversial and was an important sticking point in the Commission negotiations. Indeed, there was a threat that Commission powers would be used in relation to that issue because it proved so controversial. We would have preferred the aid to have ended immediately, but its doing so in 2004 is a reasonable outcome in the circumstances. There are also limitations on modernisation aid.
  Countries that use public funds for building will, in addition to the aggregation penalties of 1:1.35 that they will have to apply for vessels of more than 100 tonnes, have to reduce capacity by 3 per cent. over two years as a penalty. That was also agreed at the Fisheries Council. There is also an increase in the maximum rate of scrapping grants in the EU.
  Major improvements in enforcement arrangements are important in relation to what I have been saying about better information and co-operation, and information sharing between member states. Provision
  858
  to establish regional advisory councils has been mentioned. We regard the councils as very important and see them as the beginning of the process. We want to strengthen them over time, but the priority was to establish them, as the proposal was controversial when it was originally made.
  The policy on discards, on which I can now provide some details, includes technical measures dealing with the structure of nets and making them more selective. The policy will take into account the issue of minimum landing sizes, which has been raised before in the House. Hon. Members will be pleased that the landing sizes are going to be reviewed with a view to the possibility of raising them. Catch composition in relation to defined mesh sizes also needs to be considered, as will the application of closed areas and real-time closures when, for example, there are temporary concentrations of juvenile fish or spawning areas are identified.
  The fishing industry has been keen to make progress on all those issues, which hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised on a number of occasions. I am pleased to see that those points have been agreed.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: The Minister suggested that the Government were effectively satisfied that they had got all the CFP reforms that they wanted. Does that mean that they are now satisfied that the CFP will deliver for British and Scottish fisherman in the next 30 years, just as it has failed them for the past 30 years?
  Mr. Morley: These are important improvements, but I do not want to pretend that they are the be-all and end-all. As far as I am concerned, this is the beginning of a process. However, the changes are beneficial and address some of the problems in the CFP. Of course, we want to make further progress, and we will do so over time.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: May I join other hon. Members in welcoming my hon. Friend's achievement in exempting under-10 m vessels from the days-at-sea regime? Will he also confirm that he has secured extra days' fishing for those whose method is long lining? Most of them are covered by the rule, but will he confirm that the figure is 19 days for those who are not covered, bearing in mind that people would want a couple of days off a week or eight days off a month? Does he agree that that is quite an achievement?
  Mr. Morley: Following the representations that my hon. Friend has made and having met long liners from his constituency, I told the Commission that, in relation to recovery plans, we should take into account the sort of gear that is being used and how selective it is. Long lining is very selective and involves minimal discards. Indeed, it is often possible to return the fish to the water alive and that has been recognised in the 19-day allocation. Other forms of gear may be equally selective. I should like to explore that issue and will continue to argue for further exemptions for gear that is selective and minimises discards.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: One of the most selective and conservation-efficient forms of

  859
  fishing is anchor seining, which is practised by Grimsby vessels. Will my hon. Friend work to ensure that that is excluded in the same way as long lining?
  Mr. Morley: Yes, I most certainly will. I know that the Grimsby anchor seiners use a net with very large mesh because they are targeting large, high-quality fish. Of course, I cannot ignore the fact that we have a severe problem with cod. That includes taking into account the total allowable catch and total quotas, and that involves the anchor seiners. However, as we develop the cod recovery programme, we will have to take into account the issue of minimising discards and selectivity. It is perfectly legitimate for whatever system is in place to recognise that fishermen are using selective gear, and the anchor seiners are certainly a case in point.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: In considering very selective forms of fishing and the settlement that has been reached, we see that Danish factory boats can sail off into the sunset with a by-catch that is effectively unlimited and unaffected. That seems a totally inequitable settlement and I would be obliged if the Minister would comment.
  Mr. Morley: I agree that that is unfinished business in relation to the industrial fleet, and yes, the arrangement is inequitable. As I have said before, the problem is a lack of scientific information in relation to the level of by-catches of the industrial fleet, especially of the sand eel. There is no argument in relation to the Norwegian pout fishery, which is included in the discards strategy. One of the assurances that we have in relation to reform of the CFP is that the impact of industrial fishing and its by-catch in particular will be examined in detail, which I very much welcome. In case I have not written this down in my notes, I should also say that we reached agreement on extension of the closed area to industrial fishing off the east coast of Scotland and Northumbria for a fourth year. That is the first time that a closed area has ever been agreed in relation to industrial fishing.
  Mr. Salmond: If I remember rightly, that area was agreed because of the potential effect on sea birds, as the Minister will recall. Given that the area has been agreed, that he has been banging on about industrial fishing for as long as he has been speaking for the Government about fisheries and that he has now been the Fisheries Minister for more than five years, why is no research available on the impact of industrial fishing, which we all know is devastating to a marine environment? He is telling us that there is no research. Why not? Is he not the Minister?
  Mr. Morley: I said that there were no clear scientific findings. Research has been conducted, but to date, it has not identified a very high white fish by-catch. We need to do more work on that issue, but I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that nothing has happened. The problem is that the work that has been done has not identified the sort of problem that is being portrayed.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, fishing for human consumption should always take priority. I believe that the scale of industrial fishing must have an impact on ecology and ecosystems, so we must take the issue seriously and examine it. Progress is slow and I am not exactly pleased about that, but since I have been
  860
  fisheries Minister, a TAC has been applied to industrial fishing for the first time. That TAC has been cut since I have been a Minister, although not by as much as I would like, and closed areas have been introduced. That is a bit of progress compared to what happened in the past. I am not pretending that it is enough, but I do not think that he should allege that nothing has been done.
  Andrew George: The Minister said that there had been insufficient research and therefore implied that there is insufficient information. He will know that, as was reported in Fishing News on 13 December, two Danish industrial vessels were found with landings on board of which between half and three quarters was white fish. Both were landing 500 tonnes of fish. We know that that has a devastating effect. Frankly, we do not need any more research on the matter. Action needs to be taken now, and that is the widespread feeling in the industry.
  Mr. Morley: I know that. I raised the issue with the Commission and referred specifically to the story in Fishing News. However, the Pout industrial fishery has a white fish by-catch. The story covered an illegal landing and the Danish authorities are dealing with the fishermen. Denmark has far more draconian penalties than this country. It can remove people's fishing licences—a penalty that I might like to consider.
  Although the story covers illegal activity, that does not mean that we should not tackle the issue, which demonstrates the impact of industrial fishing. However, we must deal with illegal activity wherever it occurs. It is unfortunately not restricted to one country. Any fisherman who has been involved in black fish landings or misreporting has done equal damage to stocks and the reputation of our industry. When we pressed the Commissioner for alternatives that involved technical measures, we encountered some cynicism in the Commission because of the record of widespread abuse of the rules and black fish landings. Any fishermen who have been involved in that have undermined not only conservation and the future of the fishing stocks for their companions, but the credibility of their countries when they argue for change.
  Angus Robertson: The Under-Secretary said that the Danish authorities had draconian penalties, which he would consider introducing in the United Kingdom. If he had read more than the introductory paragraph in Fishing News, he might have stumbled across the fact that the Danish authorities have withdrawn the licences of the two boats for one month. Is that a draconian measure?
  Mr. Morley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask fishermen about the effect of not being able to go to sea for a month. That is not the only penalty that has been applied.
  Mr. Michael Weir: The Minister mentioned cynicism about black fish and other illegal activity. However, according to the Commission's figures, there have been fewer prosecutions of UK fishermen than those of other EU nations. In that case, why does the burden appear to fall on this country's fishermen?
  Mr. Morley: Because the hon. Gentleman refers to a one-year report. I am glad that our enforcement and

  861
  control measures are so effective. That has been one of our priorities. However, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the infraction proceedings, which proved humiliating for the UK because of our failure to enforce quotas properly for 11 years up to 1997. My comments apply to the past because enforcement and control has improved. Nevertheless, such a reputation dies slowly. I repeat that all those who have been involved in misreporting and black fish landings have done the fishing industry no favours.
  The recovery plan is an interim measure. The arrangements will be established pending further discussions, with the end of March as the target date for agreement and July as that for implementation. A great deal of work remains to be done. I understand the fishing industry's anxieties about the proposals for the North sea and the west of Scotland. During the negotiations, I met industry representatives regularly in Brussels. Leaders of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations made powerful arguments and forcefully presented their members' views. I tried to respond to them and take them into account as much as possible.
  Short-term pain is inevitable given the scientific advice and the relevant stocks. The aim is to secure a long-term future, and I regret the short-term effect on individuals and communities. I understand the implications, and that is why we have worked so hard to provide as much flexibility in the schemes as is consistent with scientific advice. That involved Government activity at all levels, including the intervention of the Prime Minister, to ensure the maximum flexibility that we believed that the science justified.
  The Commission was rightly adamant, given the state of the stocks, that the emergency recovery plan had to be agreed and implemented without delay. It needed to be simple, even crude if necessary. The Commission was also adamant that the plan had to make a genuine impact on fishing effort—another justifiable position given the fair scientific conclusions that the dire state of the stocks is directly attributable to the failure of the TAC-based management policy that has been pursued until now to achieve the necessary reduction in effort.
  The Commission originally proposed that white fish demersal trawlers should be allowed a mere seven days a month out of port. That would have meant unacceptable devastation to the economies of most of the relevant UK vessels. My colleagues and I spent almost the entire five-day Council meeting arguing for an increase that would strike a balance between maximum flexibility and the scientific advice.
  The solution that we eventually secured will allow the UK's demersal trawlers 15 days a month. I shall explain some of the details. Hon. Members will note that the regulations specify a monthly allowance of nine days for such trawlers. However, the EU text allows extra days to be allocated to member states to compensate for steaming time between ports and fishing grounds. There is also provision for the allocation of further days on the basis of the achieved or expected results of the decommissioning proposals. In line with what the industry pressed for, I ensured that the
  862
  decommissioning round last year and the technical measures that the industry had implemented were taken into account in the effort calculations.
  The relevant provisions are in annexe 17 of the regulations, which set TACs and quotas for 2003. They will result in UK white fish demersal trawlers receiving an extra six days a month—a total of 15 days. That days-at-sea scheme applies in the North sea and the west of Scotland from 1 February. As I said earlier, it does not apply to vessels that are under 10 m in length. Different days-at-sea allowances are set for different sorts of gear, as hon. Members pointed out. There is no limit on pelagic trawlers and 25 days a month are allowed for nephrops vessels. That means that they can operate as normal. The days are specified to try to prevent effort from increasing.
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: The nephrops fishery fears that effort will be diverted as a result of the closure. Will the Under-Secretary give some assurances to places such as Eyemouth in my constituency, where such fishing takes place?
  Mr. Morley: Yes, we recognise that there is always a risk of diversion of effort. However, measures exist to counter that, such as the ceiling and way in which the calculations work. Those who fish for nephrops must also have a nephrops net. However, we take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously.
  Mr. Salmond: For clarity, will the Under-Secretary confirm that even the 15 days have been bought at the expense of not only past decommissioning and technical change but an expected further decommissioning round? The industry did not argue for that, and the Under-Secretary knows it.
  Mr. Morley: It is true that the UK has made a commitment to a decommissioning scheme. The inevitable result of the pressures on the industry is that a decommissioning scheme must be part of the package. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. As it was always inevitable that we would have to consider that, there is nothing wrong in obtaining extra days for the fishing fleet as part of the commitment.
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Will the Under-Secretary confirm the percentage reduction that is required for us to buy the extra days? There is currently a dispute in Scotland about the number of white fish boats in the fleet. Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that an unrealistically liberal number of boats will not have to be taken into account?
  Mr. Morley: I can confirm that the decommissioning reduction will take place in the North sea white fish fleet. We will be considering a reduction of between 15 and 20 per cent. That is a reasonable target. I cannot give exact figures immediately for making an impact on the problem and helping the fishing industry, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. As he appreciates, management of the Scottish fleet is a matter for the Scottish Executive.
  Mr. Alan Reid: The Under-Secretary said that the nephrops fleet was exempt and

  863
  was allowed 25 days at sea. Does he realise that some nephrops vessels in the west of Scotland use twin rigs and mesh sizes of more than 100 m—[Interruption.]—I mean 100 mm? There is therefore an anomaly. Those vessels are restricted to 15 days at sea, but if they used a smaller mesh size, they would get 25 days at sea. Will the Under-Secretary sort out the problem so that nephrops fishermen can continue to use larger mesh sizes?
  Mr. Morley: I suspect that that is the kind of catch balance that individual fishermen are going for. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that such points of detail need to be addressed as part of the talks about the regime that will be in place from July. That is inevitable, and no one is pretending that this is not a crude scheme. It is not our preferred option, and in trying to refine it between now and March, we will address some of the hon. Gentleman's points.
  Mr. Salmond: What happens between now and July? Will the prawners have to revert to 80 mm to get the extra days? The Minister will appreciate the cost of re-gearing a boat.
  Mr. Morley: I do, but I do not know the exact catch composition or the fishery concerned, and the best way to deal with that point is to consider the advice of the department in Scotland with responsibility for fisheries.
  Mr. Steen: Most of the interventions have been from the Scots. [Interruption.] I am not holding that against them, I am just stating a fact. The concern in the west country is that Scottish fishermen will move south. The deal that the Minister has managed to pull off for the south-west was better than most Members thought he could pull off, and we are grateful for that, but what happens when the Scots come marauding down into the English channel, eating up the fish that are currently fished by west countrymen. Is he going to erect some sort of barrier to prevent that from happening?
  Mr. Morley: No, their vessels are UK vessels, and they are entitled to fish in UK waters according to the rules and to their quota—as, indeed, is every fishing vessel. Our job is to look at the immediate problems, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the south-west has been exempted from the effort control regime. That happened because it does not have the same kind of problems. The industry also asked me to ensure that measures that have been in place for some years in respect of the Irish sea—and which are showing some welcome, if modest, signs of improvement—are also taken into account, and I have done so.
  The days at sea scheme will be applied to the North sea and the west of Scotland from 1 February. It exempts the "under-10s" and the pelagic trawlers, and there is no real restriction on the nephrops trawlers. My colleagues and I attach great importance to protecting sections of the industry against unwarranted restrictions. The arrangements do not apply in the Irish sea. Last year's cod recovery arrangements have been in place for some time; they are working, and the industry is supporting them. I also recognise the commitment that the industry has made in that regard.
  In addition, the Council adopted TACs, which represent reductions of some 50 per cent. on 2002 levels for key white fish stocks of cod, haddock and whiting.
  864
  Taken as a whole, TACs for pelagic species are largely the same as in 2002. In respect of the three nephrops stocks that are of interest to the UK, we secured a repeat of the 2002 levels, despite the Commission's original proposal for reductions. We considered that proposal to be unjustified, and we successfully argued against it.
  I fully recognise that many members of the UK industry consider days-at-sea restrictions to be anathema. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to argue that things should carry on unchanged, or to ignore the scientific advice, and we must act if the mixed white fish fishery is to have any long-term future. The agreed provisions are much less devastating than the original proposal, but I understand that they are unwelcome and will have an impact. They represent the best balance that could be struck at this time between the industry's long-term and short-term interests, and in terms of the level of support within the council.
  We shall obviously need to take further management decisions in future as we travel the road to recovery—not least when the Commission fulfils its intention to introduce proposals for a more sophisticated and longer-term recovery plan. That is supposed to happen by 15 February, and they could enter into force by 1 July, but a lot of work yet needs to be done. During the discussions, we will need to aim for the same balance that we sought in respect of the emergency recovery plan.
  It is at least encouraging to note that in future discussions on fisheries management, we shall be working under a stronger and sounder common fisheries policy framework than in the past, but unfinished issues remain. We have touched on industrial fishing, minimum mesh size and minimum landing size, which are being addressed. Moreover, the hake recovery plan is also supposed to be finalised by July. We did achieve what the industry asked for, which was a mid-term review of the scientific advice on cod, and if it proves to be different from previous advice, it will of course be linked to TACs. That will also be dealt with by the scientific and technical committee, and it will provide an opportunity to look at the details of effort management.
  During the recovery programme, I want also to look at ways of decoupling haddock and whiting stocks from cod recovery, because I realise that they are not in as poor shape as cod stocks. However, we do not want to over-emphasise the condition of those stocks, because there is cause for concern. I am very interested in work on separator trawls. Certain designs of separator trawls could allow the use of 110 mm mesh in a mixed fishery, with a larger mesh underneath to allow cod to escape. I want to explore such initiatives with the industry, and for it to become more involved in scientific studies.
  Miss Anne Begg: On separator trawls, has my hon. Friend had a chance to read the information—I sent it to him this week—from a retired constituent of mine who used to work in the fishing industry? He did a great deal of work on that initiative a few years' ago, and he hopes that the ideas that he developed then might be of use to the industry.
  Mr. Morley: I should be very interested to read about those ideas. Separator trawls for mixed fisheries have been trialled by the Sea Fish Industry Authority, so

  865
  some work has already been done. Of course, if we are to get acceptance it is likely that we will have to demonstrate to the Commission the effectiveness of that initiative.
  Lawrie Quinn: The Minister is detailing the empathy that he feels for the short-term pain of people at the quayside, and many people in my constituency are fearful of bankruptcy in the short term. Can he tell the House what efforts he has made to hold discussions with banking institutions or regional development agencies in England? Can he also say a little about the real concerns of the safety implications of the measures that he has outlined?
  Mr. Morley: On the safety implications and the daysat-sea regime, we recognise that there are potential problems. They have been addressed via pressure from the UK, in that there is 20 per cent. flexibility in terms of the months during which one can bank and borrow, to reflect bad weather, for example. In an extreme case whereby someone was tied up in port for the whole of February because of bad weather, under the arrangements the total number of February days can be added to the March days over a two-month period. In that way, the days can he accumulated. That gives people the flexibility to cope with weather conditions, and it takes some pressure off them.
  I cannot give details of the financial package today, because it is still being worked on. I spoke to my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry this afternoon, and we are also talking to the regional development agencies. Of course, the Prime Minister is taking a personal interest in this issue, and he will meet industry leaders towards the end of the month. That work is therefore ongoing, and similar work is under way in parallel in the Scottish Parliament, in terms of the support package required by the Scottish industry.
  Mr. Savidge: The fishing industry still has a tragically high level of injury and loss of life. The Minister said that decommissioning will occur, but can the safety of vessels be taken into consideration in choosing which are retained and which are decommissioned?
  Mr. Morley: We do not apply a general criterion in relation to the condition of vessels; it is entirely up to individual owners as to whether they want to submit their vessels for decommissioning. There is a legal standard that must be applied to any fishing vessel that is operating normally. Funds are available for modernisation and improvement through our financial instrument for fisheries guidance programme, which is open to all fishermen. I want information to be available in all fishing ports about the grants and so forth that are available to the industry as part of the recovery package, so that those who feel that they could benefit can take advantage of what is there.
  Mr. Weir: The Minister has mentioned aid. A circular letter that he sent Members this morning states:
  "We will be considering further arrangements for decommissioning vessels for those who wish to leave the industry, and will make a further announcement as soon as possible. In
  866
  addition the regional agencies will be ready to assist fisheries-dependent communities through the range of instruments available to them."
  Will the Treasury give the agencies any extra funds—particularly in Scotland, where the impact on many communities will be devastating?
  Mr. Morley: The work is still under way, but various agencies and other bodies are provided with funds to help communities affected by restructuring, and the fishing industry has as much as a claim to support as, say, a large factory that has had to close. Funds are already available to deal with such eventualities; it is a question of the best support that can be given to the industry.
  Lawrie Quinn: There is a history of such funds' not reaching communities at the quayside. That is regrettable, and offensive to those affected by restructuring. Will the Minister try hard to persuade his colleagues in other Departments that fishing communities must be targeted?
  Mr. Morley: I appreciate that necessity. In the last round of English decommissioning, funds to help fishing communities were made available through what was then the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions. Some of my hon. Friends felt at the time that the funds were spread too thinly and were not aimed at the appropriate targets as effectively as they should have been, but I assure my hon. Friend of my determination that that will not happen this time. I will discuss the application of the funds with the regional development agencies: I have already given them written warning that I shall want to do so.
  Mrs. Humble: When he looks at the economic packages, will the Minister consider giving financial support to keep the industry alive, rather than just providing money enabling fishermen to decommission their vessels and get out of the industry? Fishermen are suffering cuts now so that they will be in a position to fish when—hopefully—stocks recover in the future.
  Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but we cannot ignore such issues as state aid rules. However, we are trying to take all these points into account in putting the package together.
  Mr. Salmond: There is plenty of scope in existing regulation and, for that matter, in the new Commission guidelines. But, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) pointed out, we want an aid package that sustains the industry. If the predominant part of the package is another decommissioning scheme it will be good news for the clearing banks, but few other people will benefit, and communities that depend on the fishing industry will suffer. There must be new money. Will there be new money from the Treasury, or will it be a case of reshuffling money that is already there?
  Mr. Morley: I repeat that money is made available for circumstances such as these. It can be directed to communities and industries that need it. I appreciate the need for ongoing support, but whatever happens

  867
  decommissioning will be an element, because when people simply are not viable and want a way out it is one of the answers. We cannot escape the issue of state aid, which makes provision of the kind of support at which some Members are hinting very difficult.
  Andrew George: The Minister rightly says that decommissioning money can be provided, and that money is already available to help communities adjust to economic problems. What discussions has he had with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who told my hon.—and beknighted—Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Benighted?"]—whom she told at Scottish Question Time that she was having discussions with the Treasury and considering additional packages? Is the Minister involved in those discussions?
  Mr. Morley: I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend. As I have said, a range of issues are being considered. We are thinking about what we can offer, and how we can offer it. I cannot give details now because the work has not been completed, but an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Will the Minister confirm that the purpose of these schemes is to ensure that the industry is viable when stocks recover?
  The Minister mentioned the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think Scotland will have observed that its representative at Westminster is not present today, and that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not present either. Those two absences from such a crucial debate are very significant.
  Mr. Morley: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that a range of important issues affecting a range of people in the industry must be addressed by a very busy Department. I do not think that that was a very fair comment.
  I can only say that, while I appreciate all the points that are being made, it should be recognised that existing funds are being allocated for exactly these circumstances.
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: The Minister's position is clear, and obviously work is being done to try and quantify the package, but there is great uncertainty in the fishing communities. Is it safe to assume that when the Prime Minister meets the industry later this month that work will have been completed, and the money will then be provided?
  Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of Departments are outside my control—not least the Scottish Parliament, which is of course an autonomous body. They are doing their own work. The impact of the cuts does of course fall heavily on Scotland, and we should not pretend otherwise, but other Departments are involved and must be consulted. I can say, however, that I think the Prime Minister would expect the package to be ready by the time he meets the industry.
  Mr. Savidge: I am pleased that we are talking about communities as well as decommissioning. In the past
  868
  some decommissioning schemes have seemed quite properly to consider the concerns of owners, but without considering the problems of employees and ex-employees sufficiently.
  Mr. Morley: That is, unfortunately, in the nature of the structure of the available packages, but we must look at employment prospects and also at the potential opportunities. It might be possible to retrain people and to support those who might like to use their skills in, for instance, the marine sector.
  Mr. Steen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morley: I will, for the last time. I sense that Members want to continue this interchange, but I want to finish my speech.
  Mr. Steen: I merely wanted to say that the Minister has done terribly well for one or two minutes, and I do not propose to intervene further.
  Mr. Morley: I appreciate that.
  I think I have dealt with the main parts of the aid package.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morley: I think I had better conclude.
  Above all, our guide in this problem is the key principle that fisheries management must be sustainable. That principle guided us when we put in place better management tools. Those tools are not everything that we could have wanted in the circumstances, and we will continue to argue for changes in the light of the representations that the industry has made to us. I emphasise that we have not achieved a final shape in the process of putting in place recovery measures, and that the process is not at an end.
  We recognise the impact of the proposals on the white fish sector, but the industry has many successful sectors. I believe that the industry has a good future, to which the Government are committed. This is the start of the process, not the end. We wish all sectors of the industry to be involved in the recovery programmes and to develop better measures for a profitable and sustainable future. I believe that we can achieve such a future, even though there is no doubt that there will be short-term pain in order to achieve the longer-term gain.
  3.19 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: I beg to move, in line 14, at the end, to add the words:
  "notes the failure of European ministers to address adequately the issue of industrial fishing: believes that the measures agreed by the Fisheries Council will be ineffective in restoring white fish stocks; deplores the devastating and disproportionate impact that the policies embodied in these documents will have on the UK fishing industry; and calls on the Government to set out a clear strategy to conserve fish stocks, offer a sustainable future to the United Kingdom's fishing communities and to establish national and local control over the United Kingdom's fisheries."
  Many of our kingdom's fishermen face ruin. Fishing communities face devastation. That is the cruel light in which we must debate these matters in the House today.

  869
  I have acknowledged before, and I do so again today, that there are hon. Members of all parties who are knowledgeable and concerned about fishing. The Minister is among them: he has a certain unlikely and curious charm, and that was evident in his speech. He was generous in dealing with interventions, and I hope that we can have a reasoned and civilised debate.
  We last debated this matter before Christmas. That debate was held in a good spirit, but we did not know the extent to which the EU would punish our fishermen and their families. There can be few in the Chamber who know more about this subject than the Minister, and we sent him to defend our national interest, protect vulnerable communities and contribute to the development of an effective policy to ensure adequate fish stocks into the future.
  Those were the vital tests that we set the Minister, more in hope than expectation. He failed those tests. He says that the outcome of the discussions is not a humiliation for the British Government, that the deal represents the best balance that could be achieved, and that the Government have attained all the objectives that they set. However, he simultaneously tells the House that the deal represents unfinished business, that it is a crude settlement and only the beginning of the process. He implies that there are more cuts to come. He says that the settlement is not the end of conservation, but just the beginning.
  The Minister's failures will not be paid for principally by him, but by the thousands of fishermen and their communities—perhaps up to 50,000 people in total, if one takes the wider communities involved into account—who will suffer and pay with their livelihoods.
  Fishermen and their representatives regard the December deal as so disappointing and damaging for three principal reasons. First, despite their economic consequences, the measures will not deliver stock recovery in the North sea. Secondly, the day-at-sea restrictions that will apply from February will push many vessels beyond economic viability but will not bring effective conservation. Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) pointed out, the diversification of effort into derogated areas and small-mesh fisheries is an inevitable consequence of the scheme. A direct result will be that fishermen will struggle to fish in fewer and fewer areas, putting additional conservation pressures on those areas and on their stocks of fish.
  What will be the effects on the communities involved? They are still waiting to hear the details of the financial support that they will need to avoid ruin. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) was right to say that this deal is not about decommissioning money but about giving those communities some interim payment or ongoing support to enable them to maintain their businesses until such time as fish stocks recover and can be harvested.
  I make no projection about that, and no notional judgment about the figures but simply ask whether that money will be available. Will those communities be supported? If not, and if the Minister is right that the recovery programme will be successful—although I do not buy that argument—those stocks will be harvested
  870
  by vessels of other nations. It is as simple as that. Britain will no longer have a fishing industry able to take advantage of them.
  Mr. Morley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I should like to make two points. First, I really do not need him to tell me the views of the fishing industry, as I can talk to industry members directly. Secondly, as Opposition spokesman, it behoves him to say what his alternative would be. Would he have ignored the science involved? Would not the Opposition have taken action when it was projected that the cod stock could have fallen as low as 30,000 tonnes of spawning biomass? I remind him that that figure fell to 28,000 tonnes when the stock off the Grand Banks collapsed.
  I would also be very interested to know how the hon. Gentleman claims to be a great advocate of financial support, coming from a party committed to cutting public expenditure by 20 per cent.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to me more carefully. I simply asked a question. I am not in Government. I do not have the Chancellor's ear. I do not have the power to give this lifeline to the fishing industry. I asked the Minister what he intended to do about it, as did hon. Members from all parties during his speech. Hon. Members from his side asked about the short-term support and payments he would give.
  What the hon. Gentleman said about conservation was weak, coming from a man who knows so much about the subject. Is he really suggesting that the only way to conserve fish stocks—the only way to put in place a recovery programme—is through days at sea? He knows that that is not true, and it has never been accepted as true by either party or by him as Minister. There are many conservation policies. The Government could have implemented many fish recovery policies as part of the programme.
  As I shall explain, the Minister had the opportunity to pursue those avenues in the European Fisheries Council. He has not chosen to do so. He has ended up with a days-at-sea policy. That is a matter of judgment and choice, a choice that he and other Ministers made, but he knows that it is not the only option. He is not being entirely straightforward in suggesting that it is.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware how delighted both I and the Southend fishing industry have been to read the terms of the Opposition's amendment, and in particular the clear indication that the Conservative party would want to reestablish national control over UK fishing? We are thrilled with this proposal. I hope that he will be able to find time in his speech to explain how Parliament could do that.
  Mr. Hayes: Even my hon. Friend would find it hard to trump me on those matters. I shall be happy to say more about that during my speech.
  Let us first talk about the communities that will be so badly affected. The Minister said that he would speak directly to the fishermen and their organisations. I understand that they have been promised a meeting with the Prime Minister, because it is clear that the Prime

  871
  Minister understands the political, electoral and other effects that these matters may have on his fortunes. Let us hope that they have more success with the Prime Minister than we did when we asked him to raise them at Copenhagen.
  I have a copy of a letter to the Prime Minister written by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The House will know what a strong stand my right hon. Friend has taken on these matters. He has visited the fishermen. He has gone to the communities. He has had many discussions with them, and he invited the Prime Minister to raise these matters in Copenhagen when European leaders came together.
  That would have been an ideal opportunity for the Prime Minister to take a personal lead. When we last debated the issue the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), with me and other hon. Members, asked the Prime Minister to do precisely that. We said that he should take the matter in hand at an early stage and not come in at the last minute, as he had to do, to try to prop up the Minister when he could not do a decent deal for us. He was invited to take that personal lead and raise the matter in Copenhagen. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition wrote:
  "You had an opportunity at Copenhagen this week to make it clear there is no justification for these proposals"
  that will damage our fisherman's interests.
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "I believe to raise the issue at the European Council would be a mistake."
  That was the level of priority that the Prime Minister gave to this matter and the livelihood of these people. We hope that, when he meets the fishermen, he will be able to offer them a little more hope, a rather more positive perspective, a little more generosity and a little more empathy than he showed on that occasion.
  Angus Robertson: I am grateful to the Conservative spokesman for giving way on the subject of leadership. I notice that he says that it is important that the Government should have raised such matters at the Copenhagen summit—the Scottish National party first called for that—but can he tell the House how many times before that summit meeting the leader of the Conservative party raised fishing during Prime Minister's Question Time? Will he confirm that it was none?
  Mr. Hayes: That is a cheap point, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. He also knows that I would be first to acknowledge that even the SNP, firing grapeshot as it does—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that it would be for the convenience of those who are trying to record proceedings and in conformity with normal courtesies if he would address his remarks to the Chair?
  Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that reminder.
  Even the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who speaks on behalf of the SNP, will understand that when his party fires grapeshot, it will
  872
  occasionally hit the target. SNP Members did so when they called for the Prime Minister to take a lead, and he failed to do so.
  Fifteen-day tie-ups mean that many boats will be tied up for ever. Fishermen will be driven out of business, unable to meet their costs or feed their families. If fishing effort is reduced by 15-day tie-ups, there is no reduction in fishermen's mortgage payments or the cost of feeding their families, let alone the overheads faced by their businesses. At least 900 vessels are likely to be affected. Hon. Members are right to emphasise the fact that the effect is particularly profound on the Scottish east coast, where fishing is the principal source of employment in many communities.
  Bob Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree with the estimate that 20,000 jobs will be lost in the Scottish fishing fleet? Will he explain why France, Spain, Belgium, Denmark and Holland did relatively well in the December talks compared with the British fleet, which was sold down the river?
  Mr. Hayes: I will answer—mindful of the need to address the Chair—in two parts. First, those countries did relatively well because their Ministers care more about fishing than ours do. Their Ministers and Prime Ministers place high priority on such matters and our Government simply do not. That is the truth of the matter.
  Mr. Morley: I do not want inaccuracies to be recorded. Denmark was severely affected by the changes because it had the second biggest cod quota after the United Kingdom. Those management methods affect the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, Holland, France and Ireland to varying degrees, depending on their fishing practices. It is ridiculous to suggest that some members have got better deals; things depended on the circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman can find one member state that received quota against the scientific advice, I shall be very interested in hearing about it. The Prime Minister raised fishing at the margins of the Copenhagen summit meeting.
  Mr. Hayes: I am not sure whether the Minister's intervention was intended to relate to me or to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), but I shall come to the point about job losses in responding to my hon. Friend's original intervention. With the typical understatement and moderation for which he is well known in Essex and the House, he underestimated the effect of the changes. Estimates suggest that up to 40,000 people could be affected. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan quoted precisely that figure, although he now looks bewildered, when we debated fishing in November. If he checks the record, he will find out. If account is taken of the other industries and people affected—those who work in harbours, in boat building or repairing businesses or in the wider fishing economy—the number is much greater than 20,000. I suspect that it is more than 40,000, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is about to trump me on that.
  Mr. Salmond: The overall figure for fishing industry dependent employment is 44,000. Obviously, not all

  873
  those people are employed in the white fish sector, but none the less, thousands of jobs will be lost, and the effect will be heavily concentrated in Shetland and a few east coast ports. People in those areas desperately want to hear what will be done to protect their livelihoods.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman's estimate is right: the figure is 44,000. To amplify his point, it is important to emphasise that the job losses will be concentrated. In some communities, the fishing industry accounts for a significant proportion of total employment and there are knock-on effects for families and the wider economy.
  A large number of vessels are affected, yet the Minister and the Government do not appear to be taking the industry seriously enough, despite landings in 2001 to the value of £574.4 million, a figure revealed through a parliamentary question.
  The Government's half-cocked and half-hearted defence has been mounted on conservation. In meetings with me, fishermen's organisations have pointed out a number of flaws. Contrary to the Minister's assertions that we are making gradual progress on minimum landing sizes, they have been reduced for certain species. The opposite should happen: the minimum landing size should be edged upwards, with corresponding escape opening areas. We know why that issue is so contentious for many who debate such matters in Europe: the taste in southern Europe for baby fish. We should not be frightened of acknowledging that fact; it is well known, widely understood and should be stated in this place.
  Furthermore, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, we should not be frightened of raising the issue of the quota system, which has caused the dumping of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of prime fish, dead, back into the sea. The quota system was never designed to aid conservation or fish recovery; it is all about EU integration.
  As other hon. Members have said, the impact of the deal is mainly on vessels that use large-mesh nets of more than 100 mm. It thus encourages vessels to move to smaller-mesh nets—for example, the prawn fishery uses 80 mm—or smaller-mesh areas such as the southern North sea where 80 mm is permitted for white fish, to escape the impact of day-at-sea restrictions.
  The Minister asked me to suggest an alternative and I shall speak more about what could be done, but he has to answer the point that day-at-sea restrictions are the most likely of all the conservation options to deliver precisely that movement of effort from one part of our coast to another—from one fishing area to another.
  Mr. Alan Campbell: For quite some time, there has been concern about diversion of effort in coastal areas that are reliant on prawn fishing, but can the hon. Gentleman give the House an estimate of whether the pressure would have been greater had the Council gone for a cut in white fish of between 80 and 100 per cent?
  Mr. Hayes: I shall deal with that matter in some detail later on. The Government claim that we achieved some sort of victory because we edged up the Commission's original proposal, but it was a pyrrhic victory. The
  874
  arguments are hollow, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I am glad that he at least acknowledges that the displacement factors that I described are true. I am sure that he will also acknowledge that they will be exacerbated by the current arrangements.
  Mr. Steen: We are exploring alternatives to quotas. Earlier, I suggested to the Minister that there should be an auction of quota limits for all fish. The Minister was helpful, as he normally is, but I am sure that my hon. Friend can be even more helpful. Has he considered the concept of such an auction?
  Mr. Hayes: As my hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee studied those matters. Indeed, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) will recall that, when I was a member of the Committee, we enjoyed many an evening discussing Europe and the United Kingdom and looked closely at issues such as the one raised by my hon. Friend. Such matters are worthy of consideration and further study—I put it no stronger than that—and he is right to raise them. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity to deal with them when he sums up.
  The open areas for the saithe fishery mean that larger vessels, in order to remain viable, will direct their effort to those fishing grounds that are not subject to effort control. Part of the saithe designated area appears to overlap with the 2001 cod area and other fishing vessels will undoubtedly take advantage of that north-east zone. Many believe that the sector received special treatment to please the French, as, two years ago, stocks were said to be in a perilous state. Perhaps that is another example of unfinished business. The Minister may speak of unfinished business; I speak of the finish of the businesses of fishermen around our coast in Scotland and England. That is the real story: the finish of our industry, our businesses, our fishermen.
  The proposals that the Minister has now agreed are peppered with anomalies and inconsistencies. He will know of the anomalies in respect of the north channel, which is an important area. As Members who represent Scottish constituencies will know, many boats going out of the Clyde, some Ulster boats and some English boats fish extensively in the north channel. In the north-west Scotland zone, there are restrictions on carrying a 150 mm net on board. Cod stocks will not be replenished, as fishermen will be guilty if they carry their net across that zone. I regard that anomaly as a nonsense; it is certainly impossible to enforce or police.
  Fishermen will not be guilty, however, if they travel without their net, pick it up in Norway, and then fish. The truth is that fishermen will not just be penalised for catching fish but for the potential to catch fish while they cross one of these zones. That is a nightmare, and it is foolish. The Minister must know that that is not practical or enforceable. Vessels operating out of ports on the east coast of England that fish in their traditional grounds in the North sea will be discriminated against because of their longer steaming time. No allowance is made for geography. The UK fleet has been uniquely disadvantaged by the deal, and the social and economic consequences will be severe.

  875
  Perhaps the greatest scandal of all, which has been highlighted in several interventions, is the failure of European Ministers adequately to address the continuing nightmare of industrial fishing, practised principally by Denmark and Norway.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Has my hon. Friend considered the point that I made in an intervention on the Minister about the discrimination against long liners who are given some deal in Europe? There is total ignorance, however, about the scandal of the Danish boats creating soup from the North sea bed, which is totally unsustainable in terms of by-catch?
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable about these matters and defends the interests of his fishermen vigorously, will understand that there are two aspects to this. He is right about the effect on the food chain, which is profound. He is also aware of the considerable by-catch. The Minister suggested today that there is scientific evidence to support the claim that there is very little white fish by-catch from industrial fishing. As has been stated several times, however, two Danish boats were prosecuted—I think that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) mentioned a figure of about 65,000 tonnes out of 100,000 tonnes yearly. In practice, the one-month penalty was served over the Christmas and new year period.
  The substantial by-catch from industrial fishing is incompatible with a cod recovery programme in the North sea. The Minister must know that: the whole House and fishermen and their representative organisations and their communities certainly know it well. I suspect that the Danes and the Norwegians know it, too. The Minister knows about the destruction of the food source by industrial fishing, as he secured a closure around the Isle of May and the firth of Forth for three years, and he knows that when he did so it was extended because of the birdlife. Fish stocks recovered. He knows very well that industrial fishing is a major issue. He has taken an honourable position on that point, but he has failed to do anything about it.
  Mr. Morley: I have pointed out what I have done.
  Mr. Hayes: The Minister says that he has pointed out what he has done, but he describes the prawn restrictions as negligible and as of no consequence, because prawn fishermen are allowed to fish for 25 days a month. However, industrial fishermen will be allowed to fish for 23 days a month, and he leads us to believe that that is a significant step forward and real progress. Presumably, that is what he has done.
  How did this sorry situation come about? I come to the real charge that I make of the Minister. The situation came about because of the hesitation, prevarication and poor negotiating skills of our Government. He will know that the bullying and arm twisting of the EU—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but I have received a report that I hope he will investigate. I will not go into fine detail now, but I have a report that suggests that a senior official abused members of the UK delegation. They were told that they were wasting their time and that a deal had been done before they had even arrived
  876
  at the meeting. I will be prepared to give him full details after the debate, so I hope that he will look into the matter.
  Mr. Morley: I will give the hon. Gentleman the full details now. That is utter nonsense. I do not know where he gets such things from. Some people, including Richard Lochhead from the Scottish Parliament, were hanging round the bars at Brussels, and that may explain how such rumours get running. However, this one is complete and utter rubbish.
  Mr. Hayes: Before the Minister says that things are rubbish, he should consider the full details. I will furnish him with them out of the context of the debate. He will then find that he may want, at the very least, to consider them carefully to see whether there is any truth in them.
  It is certainly not rubbish to say that the Council of Ministers sent signals that there was no prospect of agreement on the Commission's proposals for the cod and hake recovery programme based on limits of time at sea. The Minister will know that that happened twice last year—in June and November. Had the Government worked with the other states who share a common interest in these matters, we could have done a very different deal. He knows very well that a conservation arrangement or a recovery programme could have been arranged around capacity reduction, closed areas and technical measures that excluded or, at least, limited the effort-control measures that we now face with such trepidation.
  Angus Robertson: On the point about ministerial representation at Council of Ministers meetings, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the concern in Scotland at the quality of representation by the Scottish Minister responsible for fisheries. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Ross Finnie has bothered to attend only 26 per cent. of agricultural and fisheries meetings since he took responsibility for these issues in the Scottish Executive? He was not even recorded as being present at seven of the 10 meetings to which he turned up. Is that not perhaps a reflection of the quality of representation that we have in Scotland from a Liberal Democrat Minister for fishing?
  Mr. Hayes: Once again, I suspect that it reflects the priority that the Government attach to fishing, which is not high on their agenda. When these matters are debated in Europe, we give most ground on fishing so as to gain ground on other issues. We all celebrate and are aware of the benefits of the European Union, and we may hear more about them in the debate. The fishing industry, however, has certainly not benefited from the negotiations.
  Had the Minister taken the steps that he could have taken and seized the opportunity to bring together a coalition that would have agreed a very different recovery programme, I suspect that we would not be in this position. As we have already heard, the Commission seized on our failure to follow through the signals that were sent that it might be prepared to opt for something that would have been more agreeable to us and came out with the ludicrous proposals for seven days at sea each month. The Minister now asks us to accept that he did a good job by raising the proposed

  877
  seven days to nine. He got us only two days extra; the Prime Minister, at the eleventh hour, having refused to raise the matter any earlier, stepped in and upped the nine days to 15 days at sea a month. The Minister acknowledged that the Prime Minister helped—I think that he made a passing reference to the assistance that the Prime Minister gave him.
  What else did the Minister fail to secure, despite claiming that this was not a humiliation but a victory, a triumph, a real step forward and real progress? There is no redress over previous upgrades—the Spanish have banked their port and fleet upgrades and bolted the door behind them. They still have the most modern vessels and best facilities.
  There is no urgent revision of the method for scientific monitoring. There is a pledge that they will consider it at some time in the future, but it remains distant from people's communities and experience. As the hon. Member for St. Ives said, there must be a partnership between fishermen and scientists drawing together all available expertise to deliver science that is trusted and enforceable.
  No binding agreement was reached on the reform of scientific method in line with experiences elsewhere, such as landing all catch rather than discards. Good practice proposals seem to be the best that the Minister can come up with.
  Why was industrial fishing not more severely restricted?
  What was achieved by the red tape, regulation and bureaucracy that fishermen regularly face as they go about their business?
  Will there be new guidelines for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials who work at ports?
  Under the agreement, the derogation of the 12-mile limit has only been extended. If the 12-mile limit is so important to the Minister, why has it not been made a permanent arrangement? He said that some EU rule or convention meant that things were not done in that way. However, that is what we need and deserve.
  The common fisheries policy has never delivered a viable fishing industry or the maintenance of fish stocks. Ironically, it has punished fishermen and fish simultaneously. In Britain, the fishing industry has steadily eroded. Places around our coast, once proud to be known as fishing towns and villages, have seen fishing reduced to a cottage industry. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan reminded us, up to 40,000 people owe their employment to the Scottish fishing industry.
  The figures are stark but worthy of examination. In 1980, there were 23,309 fishermen; by 2000, there were 15,121, and the figure is still falling. The CFP can never be made to work in the interests of British fishing, partly because fishing is given too low a priority by our Government, who have been complicit in a Commission-led plan to tie up boats. Other Governments fight for their fishing industry—ours do not.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that Ministers say that scientific back-up is
  878
  important, but year after year it comes down to political barter. Far from being at the heart of Europe, the UK always ends up at the back and Scottish fishermen get it in the neck every time.
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said, we have been round this course many times. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is a stalwart in these matters, knows it, as does the Minister, who has been stuck in this job for a very long time and has been involved in many of these debates.
  We have been round the course too often. The CFP cannot be reformed to work in Britain's interests. All those who look at these matters objectively know that the CFP is intrinsically flawed. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said recently, it is rotten at its core. Those naïve enough to maintain faith in the CFP—mainly those on the Liberal and Labour Benches—must surely realise that this aspect of the European dream has come to an end.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hayes: No, I want to draw my remarks to a close.
  Mr. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hayes: I want to draw my remarks to a close so that other right hon. and hon. Members can speak in the debate.
  There is no better example of the contemptible nature of EU fishing politics than the sorry saga of quota hopping—the DEFRA report came out on 18 December; surprise, surprise, in the Christmas holiday—in respect of which Mr. Blair immediately dropped the Amsterdam negotiating veto of John Major unless the matter was resolved and then merely secured an exchange of letters on landing fish in one place and driving them by truck to another. The truth is that only by returning UK fishing to the control of the British people through their sovereign Parliament will a coherent strategy for the industry emerge. National control, with the local involvement of fishermen at every stage of policy development, is no longer an option; it is an imperative.
  Let me be crystal clear on that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) invited me to be. I pledge that an incoming Conservative Government will restore national control of our fisheries. We fully understand the constitutional and political implications of that, and will take the necessary legislative steps to achieve it.
  Mr. Morley: How?
  Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) knows how EU treaties have force of law in the House and what I mean by that pledge, as does the Minister, so there is no point in him crying out, "How?" The difference between our parties is that we will do that and the Government will not.

  879
  Serious questions remain for the Minister to answer. Did the Commission use the most recent data, or are the suggestions that cod are still around but have moved north for climatic reasons accurate? Will the Government veto the convention proposal that there should be an integrated maritime agency to cover a maritime approach to such matters and to monitor fish? Does he agree with the statistic offered by the Commission that 28,000 fishermen will lose their jobs, and, if so, how many of those will be British? What extra moneys have been set aside for decommissioning, given the proviso that an extra 20 per cent. may be on offer above the usual rate?
  Can the Minister clarify what final decision has been made on how the Commission will judge relative stability in respect of changes in national catches over time? Does Spain gain access in the North sea under the interpretation of historic access, or are its accession rights upheld? Will he assure the House that cuts will be a total percentage of all fleets rather than those fishing in home waters? Most of all, do the Government have any long-term projected plans for rebuilding the fleet after the crisis is over? Instead of decommissioning, they could offer support to allow the fleet to be maintained so that it can harvest the stocks once they have recovered. Does he concede that other Community vessels will move in?
  Fishermen and their representatives have come to fear that the December betrayal is part of a long-term plan within the Commission and other countries to break up the established North sea fishing fleet. A determined island race with a proud maritime history will look to the Government's record on fishing with an unhappy mix of derision and despair. The Minister will be aware of the anger in Scotland and the English. North sea ports at the horrendous injustices inflicted on them and other parts of the United Kingdom. They accuse him of leaving them in total despair after his debriefing meeting with them on 20 December following the Council of Ministers.
  Fishing is about more than cold statistics and dry debating points. It is about more even than jobs. It is about lives, families and communities. Greater still, however, it is about culture, identity and a way of life that reaches across generations, which challenges and inspires. In the words of Eliot:

  "The river is within us, the sea is all about us:

  The sea is the land's edge also,

  The sea has many voices, Many gods and many voices…

  Pray for those who were in ships, and

  Ended the voyage on the sand, in the sea's lips

  Or in the dark throat which will not reject them".

  We are an island maritime race. Just as the CFP epitomises the shoddy, shabby, shady politics of the EU, so fishermen and their families embody the spirit of our nation. We should pray for them, as Eliot implored, but with equal faith we must work for them, argue for them and fight for them. All hon. Members should support the amendment because our battle to save the fishing industry is at the very heart of our battle to save our nation.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member, I ought to say that in a debate that can occupy
  880
  224 minutes, 103 of those minutes have now been taken by two Front-Bench speakers—albeit that they were generous with interventions. At least 10 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye in the time remaining. If they each voluntarily impose a limit of 10 minutes on themselves, we may accommodate every hon. Member who wishes to participate.
  4 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: This is the second time in succession that I have followed the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) in a fisheries debate. His presentation is becoming interesting—quite Churchillian in aspiration, although certainly not in content. Hearing the hon. Gentleman's espousal of Tory party policy towards the common fisheries policy gives new meaning to one of Churchill's famous phrases,
  "we shall fight on the beaches".
  Churchill was a historian. The hon. Gentleman needs to mug up on his history. He made a major point about the priority that the present Government attach to the fishing industry when for the last Conservative Government there was no lower priority than the fishing industry.
  I welcome the reforms outlined by my hon. Friend the Minister and I am pleased that despite the industry's difficulties, those measures were welcomed also by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—particularly the protection of the six and 12-mile limits, success with preserving the Shetland box, relative stability and the Hague preference. In these difficult times, all are extremely important.
  My hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that issues for the Scottish fleet will be the preserve of the Scottish Executive. It is important to emphasise the significance of the Scottish fleet not just to Scotland but to the whole UK fishing industry. The bulk of the white fish caught in the UK is landed in north-east Scotland, which is crucial to the whole industry. If we are forced to rely on imports, that will have serious consequences not just for the industry but for the consumer.
  The industry faces dark times. One of the difficulties of making any assessment—or, indeed, any contribution to the debate—lies in calculating how long the problems will be with us. The industry is familiar with the huge uncertainty that is the direct result of the European Union's decision. It is still a mystery to me that any industry can survive when the availability of its raw product is determined the week before the financial year begins. The sooner a multi-angled approach is taken, the better.
  It is clear why the industry is concerned and fishermen are genuinely afraid for their future. One major problem is the availability of fish. The severe reductions in the total allowable catch seen this year emphasise the severity of the situation. Is my hon. Friend the Minister able to make an assessment of how long the current regime is likely to last? Now that the new arrangements are in place, what incentive is there for the European Commission and other member states to change them? The UK has come out of the negotiations worse than any other country. It would helpful to know how my hon. Friend sees the process moving forward.

  881
  Another major concern is the particular form of the control, which is effectively a tie-up. The industry faces the removal of half its working time and probably half its income. No matter how extensive and effective decommissioning may be, it will not help the boats that are still fishing, because they will be tied up and unable to catch fish. Everyone will be seriously affected. I accept that an egalitarian approach would spread the misery across the industry, but where is the hope for those who want to remain in the industry? I should be grateful if the Minister would address that.
  There is a particular problem with the large white-fish vessels in the North sea. They will be subject to the same regime and a 15-day tie-up, but they are the vessels in which most investment is made, as regards quality, size and, in many cases, the acquisition of additional quota. Many of them need at least 300 days at sea just to break even and to continue to be able to pay the mortgage to the bank. Is any particular emphasis or assistance likely to be targeted on them?
  I accept that the details of the scheme have to be worked out, but the industry faces other costs. From my discussions with the Minister, I know that the Department will look at having scientists on board vessels, although I accept that there are difficulties with that. Vessel operators have to meet other costs such as harbour dues and light dues. Such costs are relatively small, but every little bit of assistance helps. I should be grateful if that could be looked at.
  As anyone who has listened to these debates and my contributions over the past few years will be aware, my major concern is the fish processing industry, where the bulk of jobs in my constituency are. I have heard it said that fish processors should not have too many problems because the bulk of fish that is processed is imported. That is not the case in the north of Scotland—40 per cent. of such fish is imported, but 60 per cent. is dependent on the North sea catch. In my own area, many processors have a particular requirement for small haddock, which cannot easily be imported. I urge the Minister to make sure that that is taken into account.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is talking a great deal of sense. However, I clearly remember that he has been quoted as saying that the processors could depend on imported fish. Was he again misquoted before Christmas?
  Mr. Doran: When the hon. Gentleman asks such questions he usually pulls a newspaper clipping out to prove me wrong, so I had better be careful about what I say. I know that the industry has become much more reliant on imports—I have certainly said that in the past—but I have always acknowledged the importance of locally caught fish. I am simply trying to emphasise that point—and I know that the situation is exactly the same in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  The fish processing industry is extremely important. According to the industry itself, there are some 200 fish processing companies left in Scotland employing about 10,000 people in direct jobs; there are another 2.5 jobs in the wider community for every job in the industry. There has been a considerable contraction since 1995, with the
  882
  loss of about 150 companies. The industry has faced very difficult times recently, mainly in coming to terms with new requirements such as new water charges and the introduction of European hygiene regulations. One of the industry's main fears is that if there is further contraction—most people accept that that is almost inevitable—that that part of it that has invested most heavily in new equipment, and in coming up to scratch and providing the necessary quality of service would be least able to cope with the new pressures. I hope that when plans for support are drawn up, that will be taken into account.
  There are other ways in which the industry could be helped. For example, the industry pays about £3 million by levy to the Sea Fish Industry Authority. That is an extremely important body, but the levy is a considerable drain on resources.
  With reference to processors, will the Minister confirm that they will be invited to the meeting with the Prime Minister and will be part of the discussions on the future of the industry? It is essential that they are taken fully into account in all considerations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who could not stay for the debate, raised an important point in her intervention. In the past, most of the help directed to the industry has been directed to vessel owners through the decommissioning scheme. She rightly recalled the decommissioning that took place in the late 1970s. Substantial sums were paid to the fishing industry to decommission the fleet in the immediate aftermath of the Icelandic cod war. At the same time, many hundreds—probably thousands—of men lost their jobs or were disadvantaged in other respects because of the consequences of the cod war. It is only in the past two or three years that those men have been compensated. They were completely ignored in the 1970s and subsequently when their case was presented.
  Because of the particular nature of employment in the sea fishing industry, fishermen tend to have no contracts of employment. They are share fishermen or, in the case of my constituency, they worked in a pool system, with no direct employer. In 10 years' time, I do not want us to have to cope with the consequences of the fishermen who may be made redundant in the downturn that we all anticipate. I hope that the nature of their employment will be taken into account in compensation packages or schemes to support them.
  A particular concern of mine relates to the fact that in the north-east of Scotland, when times have been difficult in the fishing industry, there have always been opportunities for fishermen in the oil industry. They have been able to get jobs on stand-by vessels or supply vessels and in some other parts of the merchant navy. Those opportunities are receding, not just because of the downturn in the oil industry—the price is high and the North sea industry seems to be suffering a little at present—but for other reasons.
  For some reason that I find it difficult to understand, the work permit system that operates onshore does not apply in the offshore oil and gas industry or in most of our inshore shipping. For example, the new ferry from Rosyth to Zeebrugge operates under a British flag, but with foreign sailors. In the shipping industry that services the oil industry in particular, most of the employment is now going to what we might call cheap

  883
  foreign labour. There are substantial numbers of Filipino and growing numbers of Ukranian and Polish nationals. I ask the Minister to take into account the need for those job opportunities to be made available, which is not the case at present. I will be lobbying the Minister responsible for such matters for the extension of the work permit scheme to the offshore industry and to certain other shipping areas within our territorial waters. If we are to face difficulties in the industry, it is important that the work force—the day-to-day fishermen who may not own a fishing boat but are vital to the industry—are taken fully into consideration.
  4.14 pm
  Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on his considered remarks in this debate, as in other debates on such an important subject. I hope that the Minister will take on board the hon. Gentleman's penultimate point about the parlous state of share fishermen who are joint venturers in fishing ventures. In my constituency, the vast majority of fishermen are engaged in that way and will face particular difficulty if the significant decline that is predicted in many regions occurs. Bearing in mind your very appropriate strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will do my best to contain my remarks from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench to 15 minutes plus any injury time incurred through interventions.
  As I said earlier, I very much value the graciousness of the Minister, in this debate in particular, in taking the number of interventions that he does. Of course, that takes up some time, but, because he answers the questions raised in the interventions, a great deal of extremely useful debate is achieved by that method. I hope that, in future fishing debates, the Minister will not feel that he needs to curtail his speech, because many hon. Members consider this issue very deeply and come here with very sincere interests in the subject, and they value the way in which the Minister responds to the debate.
  The Council dealt with two main issues in December. The first was the annual quota settlement; the second was the very important 20-year review of the common fisheries policy, which was clearly critical. The quota settlement was the issue that drew the publicity at the Council meeting. The problem with the blunderbuss approach of quota settlements and the crude use of days at sea is that they provide a stick without a carrot for the industry—a straitjacket without hope. As I said earlier, the approach treats fishermen as perpetrators rather than partners. We believe that they should be seen as partners in the future management of fishing stocks. There has clearly been a change in culture over the last five to 10 years in the way in which the industry approaches this issue, and it has come forward with proposals to contain and constrain its own activities by a number of measures that are certainly more sophisticated than the blunderbuss approach of quotas and days at sea. I believe that those measures should be very much part of the management regime of future stocks around our coasts.
  My Liberal Democrat colleague, the fisheries Minister in the Scottish Executive, described the outcome as inequitable, unfair and crude, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said earlier. Having looked at it in detail, I think that my
  884
  colleague was pulling his punches. It was a disaster for many areas, and it was a great disappointment that the more sophisticated approach that I have tried to describe could not have been used in a better way.
  I listened carefully to the response from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). It was the customary brass neck ritual rant—
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: Followed by an exit.
  Andrew George: Indeed. We are used to such responses to these debates. The faces change, but the ritual rant never seems to. I noticed that the Minister came to the last debate with a large pile of Christmas cards. I was judging the interest and importance of the speeches by the number of cards that he signed during them. I think that he signed most of them during the speech from the Conservative Front Bench. On this occasion, he and his staff probably had ample time to revise for and complete the psychometric tests that they are undertaking at the moment.
  I referred to the Conservatives' brass neck because, if it were so apparent that the common fisheries policy needed to be revised in the way that they describe—they wish to repatriate it, as they say—why did they not do that during the 18 years of Conservative rule? Why was it never put on the agenda during that time? Why did it suddenly became apparent to them that they should have pursued that policy only on the day after the 1997 general election? We are invited to believe that they would have done more and done better, and that the leader of the Conservative Opposition would apparently have done more and intervened a great deal more than the Prime Minister has done. I have to say that the Conservatives appear to be suffering from the "benefit of hindsight" disease when looking at this matter.
  When the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) pointed out in an intervention that the Leader of the Opposition had not raised fishing in Prime Minister's questions, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that that was a cheap remark. However, if fishing were the priority that those on the Conservative Front Bench claim it is, he would have raised it. The Conservatives still need to explain why, according to records made available under their 30-day rule—[HON. MEMBERS: "30-year rule."] Perhaps we should have 30-day rules. According to information released under the 30-year rule, it is clear that the Conservative Cabinet felt that fishermen's livelihoods were expendable when we were negotiating a future role in the common fisheries policy.
  On the common fisheries policy, some significant agreements were made in respect of six and 12-mile limits and, as I understand it, increased unilateral powers to introduce conservation and management measures. I am looking forward to seeing such measures and I hope that the Minister will expand on that matter. Agreement was also reached on the continuation of relative stabilities, the Hague preference and multi-annual quotas. Five years ago, when I first suggested the introduction of multi-annual quotas to avoid the eleventh-hour brinkmanship that occurs at the end of each year and often continues two weeks into the next

  885
  one, the proposal met widespread derision. I do not know whether I can claim credit for it—perhaps others were making the same suggestion—but I am pleased to see that it has been agreed to, as it ensures that fishermen and their financial backers can plan for the future, certainly in the medium term. The regional advisory councils are another especially important development, but I shall return to them in a moment.
  The Minister is right that the removal of subsidies for construction and modernisation, while limited grants for modernisation will continue, is a step forward. As he said, those subsidies should have been stopped immediately, but it is important for them to be phased out as quickly as possible.
  I want to focus on two further issues. The Minister believes that there is a need for further research on industrial fishing. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, I and other hon. Members have made it clear that we believe that sufficient information is already available. The illegal catches found on board two Danish vessels shortly before Christmas demonstrate the problem that we face. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence from fisherman to suggest that it would be impossible for such industrial fishing vessels to operate in areas where they have been seen to be operating without taking a very significant by-catch of white and other illegal fish.
  It is therefore important that the Minister does not simply wait for further research, which is merely a delaying tactic on an issue that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. The reason why the industry feels particularly cynical about the issue is that, even though mesh sizes as small as 16 mm are used by those in the industrial sector, they are given 23 days at sea, while those with much larger mesh sizes have the fewest days at sea available to them. Surely, that is a contradiction.
  Those in the industry will need a lot of persuasion that the regional advisory councils will provide an opportunity for them to work in partnership in its future management. I hope that the Minister and his Department will concentrate a great deal of attention, time and resources on ensuring that the councils work. The industry is on the verge of becoming cynical. It doubts whether the advisory councils will have teeth and fears that they will be expensive, large and pointless talking shops. The Government must encourage the industry to make policy, not advisory proposals, for fast implementation.
  There are many fertile spawning grounds around the coast that need protection. The Trevose ground, which is off the coast of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), is one of the most fertile and productive spawning grounds in the UK. Juvenile spawning stock of cod, sole, pollock, whiting and haddock can be found there, especially from this time of year. It is worrying that the area is not protected.
  I recently met Paul Trebilcock, general secretary of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. The organisation has devised responsible proposals for closing two areas around the Trevose grounds between 1 February and the end of April. It is vital that the Under-Secretary accepts such a responsible and
  886
  appropriate proposal for closing down grounds at a time of year when they are often plundered by many countries.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to Trevose. It vividly demonstrates his central point that some people in the industry are doing their utmost to act as partners in conservation. Language is therefore important. The more people treat those in the industry as genuine partners, not potential perpetrators of steps to remove conservation measures, the more likely our chances of success.
  Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for emphasising that. The industry will present the proposal that I mentioned as soon as possible, before the establishment of the advisory councils, which should be set up as quickly as possible. The test for the Under-Secretary is the speed with which the advisory councils can implement the proposal. There is no justifiable argument against it, and it should have been implemented years ago. It should now be effected as quickly as possible.
  If the advisory councils were regional management committees with genuine power to make decisions and implement them, they would be able to effect the proposal quickly. However, they are advisory councils and we need a mechanism to ensure that good and sensible proposals have a fast track to the Council of Ministers so that decisions are not only made but acted upon quickly.
  Let us consider dolphins and the cetacean by-catch. I know that the Under-Secretary is worried and frustrated by the many dolphins that have been washed up as strandlings on the beaches in my part of the world. Bass pair trawlers are likely to be one of the main culprits, and the Department was planning to trial new separator grids this year. That is welcome, but I believe that the Under-Secretary's efforts have been frustrated by an accident. Many people in Cornwall, including those in the industry, are also upset by strandlings. Those in the industry believe that they are being blamed for them, when they are innocent.
  Mr. Morley: I am deeply frustrated by the delay in the trials. The matter is beyond our control because the vessel is damaged. However, on the point about strandlings in Cornwall in the past month, no British pair trawlers have been operating in the vicinity. That shows that there is a European Union problem, and we are therefore pressing the matter. The CFP regulations acknowledged that we must deal with cetacean by-catch and devise a strategy to eliminate it.
  Andrew George: I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's remarks. The majority of pair trawlers are French and he is right to say that we must look to a European Union solution to the problem. However, I shall press him further on that important issue.
  My time is up and I have taken a certain amount of injury time, but I want to raise one final issue—the need for a recovery programme. The Minister said that there is of course money for decommissioning, and that it will be made available to assist the industry. Such money will

  887
  be essential for the North sea. Government money is available to assist those communities facing structural decline, but it is clear that the Secretary of State for Scotland is discussing with her Treasury colleagues other ways of assisting the industry. It is important that we look seriously at a recovery programme and some transitional aid, rather than managed decline.
  Three years ago, the Minister agreed with the Agriculture Committee that what we need is a clear British fishing policy to help direct the industry, and to help provide a clear guideline on the way forward. The Department has still not responded to that, and is still not producing the industry policy that we need. The setting up of the regional advisory councils will provide the framework that the industry requires to direct its future.
  I am sorry that the Liberal Democrat motion, which the Minister might even have been tempted to support, was not selected. It addresses many of the issues arising from the Council meeting in December, and I hope that the Minister takes heed of the issues that have been raised.
  4.31 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on a major success in these negotiations. I do so with a certain amount of grovelling servility, in that I am trying to use a nice cop, nasty cop routine within the confines of a single speech. It is certainly true that he was very effective in resisting what some people, including me, feared would be the consequences of renewing the common fisheries policy. To us, there seemed to be a threat of fishing up to the beaches, a threat to relative stability, a threat to ending The Hague preference, and a threat of a European fleet. All that has been averted, and in that regard I join in the congratulations that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations offered him.
  However, the CFP has been extended, and we have to accept the fact that these cuts are directly attributable to the failures of the CFP. It is not a conservation policy; it has always been essentially political. The programme, which was foolishly accepted by a Conservative Government in 1972, is one of equal access to a common resource. That simply means doling out that common resource to other countries in the form of quotas, even though most of the waters—very fertile waters—to which access has been given are British. Such quotas constitute a very ineffective means of policing. That failure has culminated in the stark reality of the cuts that we now face. So there has to be a "nasty guy" element in my speech.
  I accept that my hon. Friend was put in a difficult position. The main threat was to the cod, haddock and white fish that are in our waters and caught by our vessels, and for that reason he was on the defensive. However, as Fishing News argues, it seems that other nations were bought off. It appears that concessions were made to them in order to impose the main sacrifices on Britain. The list of those nations is long, and it includes Ireland. I should say in passing how appalled I was to see Ireland among that crowd of greedy predators. The Irish describe themselves as the friends of fishing, but that is a major betrayal. Ireland got away
  888
  with no limitation on days at sea in the Irish sea, with another two years of subsidies, and with more herring quota.
  Hake was dropped from the Spanish stock recovery programme, which suited them. They, too, will enjoy two more years of subsidy and support for new investment in fishing, which will result in a lot of building in Spain during that period. France got the 80 mm mesh for saithe in the southern North sea, and 25 days at sea per month for vessels fishing with that mesh. They had already had a better deep-water deal than us.
  Denmark, the home of industrial fishing, was given 25 days a month for the purpose. All who have spoken today have described that as a major cause of the problem, a view echoed by the industry. I have a document prepared by Grimsby fish producers organisation. I think that I sent the Minister a copy; if not, I will send it to his Department hot-foot—or hot-fish. It says that the Danish and Norwegian industrial fishing fleets account for 20 per cent. of fish mortality. It is well documented that, in the winter of 2001–02, industrial fishing by-catch varied from 21 per cent. haddock to as much as 97 per cent. herring, and all that was illegal. As others have said, boats in Denmark have incurred the minimal penalty of not being allowed to put to sea for a month. As it was Christmas, they were not going to put to sea anyway.
  That was presumably a concession to the Danes. As for the Netherlands and Belgium, cuts in plaice and sole were reduced to 5 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively. The result was that all those states could concur that the major cuts in fishing effort should be imposed on this country, which has left us in a messy situation. It has hit the vessels with the bigger mesh, which are the most effective for conservation purposes. Fishing effort will be diversified into smaller meshes when we want to increase mesh sizes. Vessels will rush out of ports and catch the maximum that they can catch as quickly as possible within their limited fishing period, and then belt back with little regard for conservation.
  We all indulge in nostalgia. There is a syndrome in the fishing industry which I call NITDIMW, or "Not If They'd Done It My Way". Those of us who believe that ownership of a nation's waters is the best guarantor of the protection and development of that nation state's fishing industry and of proper conservation think that, if we had not thrown that away in 1972, we would not be in our present position. The Scottish nationalists clearly think that a better deal would have been negotiated by an independent Scotland. I doubt that, because Scotland would have experienced the same pressures that hit the British Government.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is partly right. Of course there are pressures, and of course member states vote in different ways. Outcomes will be influenced by majority voting and blocking minorities. The situation is more complex, however. Some member states that have traditionally supported our view, such as Germany and Sweden, want a complete closure, while others—including Denmark—which have been hit just as hard as us on cod have supported the days-at-sea proposals. In regard to the Irish sea, for instance, we pressed for no effort control because our industry was arguing for that. As for saithe, we have a big interest in that on Humberside.

  889
  What my hon. Friend described as concessions to other countries were actually measures that we wanted as well. The situation is not quite as simple as he suggests—although the way in which member states ally themselves of course has an influence.
  Mr. Mitchell: I accept that, but the fact remains that because of the white fish difficulty, the main problems were incurred by us. It is permissible to ask, as some in the industry have asked. whether France would have gone gentle into that good night if they had been in our position.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is chairman of the all-party fisheries group and knows the answer to his own question. As he goes through the list of countries that have established fishing as a priority, he will realise what can be done. Surely he would never suggest that any Scottish Minister would have signed up to a common fisheries policy that regarded the Scottish fisheries as expendable? That is what the Conservative Government did in 1972.
  Mr. Mitchell: I accept that that is true. I have long regretted that fishing is not given the same priority in this country, as it is not considered economically important. An independent Scotland might not have accepted the 1972 CFP, but I doubt that it would have been able to put up a better and more effective fight than did the British Government of the time, in which English and Scottish Ministers worked together.
  In any case, there is no point wasting time on historical matters, however interesting. My argument is that the Government have accepted this settlement, and therefore must accept the consequences. They are that measures, mainly financial, will have to be taken to ensure that a viable fishing industry survives to inherit the benefits of what I hope will be more effective conservation.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will have seen the report from the Sea Fish Industry Authority on costs and earnings. It says that the average profit of the white fish fleet was 2.6 per cent. That is pathetic. The report states that 35 per cent. of vessels in the fleet were fishing at a loss, and estimates that the new measures would impose a further loss of £135 million on the fleet.
  An interesting table in the report shows the effects of various levels of profit reduction. Even the most minimal reduction would lead to 953 job losses in the whole UK on the catching side, and to 2,186 lost jobs on onshore industries. That is a total loss of 3,500 jobs, and a reduction in output, in financial terms, of £279 million.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts those figures. It is often argued that the fishing industry often poormouths itself, and I agree: it often presents itself with its trouser bottoms hanging out, saying that it is going bankrupt. However, all the conversations that I have had with fishermen show that this time they are facing a disastrous financial situation. They cannot go on without substantial Government intervention to help them financially.
  First, that help must certainly include a substantial decommissioning package. I disagree with other hon. Members in that respect, as it is clear that getting as
  890
  many as 15 days at sea per month has required the acceptance of a 15 per cent. decommissioning package. Secondly, the quotas of the decommissioned vessels should be bought by the local producer organisations, so that they are kept in the locality. I hope that the Government will consider helping them with that, as many cannot afford to buy up quota in that way.
  Thirdly, there has to be compensation for the men who are losing their jobs. They are share fishermen, and so not entitled to redundancy. However, it would be appalling if we were to allow another scandal to happen similar to what happened with the failure to pay compensation to the Icelandic trawlermen. They were later deemed to be employed, but it took 25 years to come through. The fishermen involved are losing their livelihood, and some form of compensation—I accept that it would be an ex gratia scheme—must be made available.
  Two other things are needed as well. The first is operating support. It is a vexed issue, but vessels will not be profitable if they are allowed only 15 days at sea a month. Indeed, the Sea Fish Industry Authority estimates that 90 per cent. of the fleet will not be profitable in that situation. Therefore, there must be some support for the fixed costs that it incurs if it is to be kept going.
  The World Wildlife Fund has proposed what seems to me to be an eminently sensible scheme. It points out that this is an investment in the industry, not a subsidy, to keep it going. If we do not keep it going, other countries investing in their industries, giving support to their industries, will keep theirs going. Therefore, there must be a measure of operator support and there must be aid for communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) argued earlier. Last time it failed, because it went through the regional development agencies and not directly to fishing. It went on lighting schemes, new paving on seafronts, and all sorts of other things, but did not go to fishing. It needs to be directed to fishing.
  My hon. Friend the Minister must apply his very inventive mind and Department to other methods of support for the industry, which I hope would include paying fishing vessels to take scientists to sea, because the industry and the science are far apart.
  Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) made suggestions about how the fishing and sailing skills of people in the industry could be used in other areas if we changed the regulations on the people on vessels in Scottish waters. Particularly for Scotland, that might sustain those skills for a longer period, until the fishing industry can use them again.
  Mr. Mitchell: I agree absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very valid and important point.
  We also have to face the problem of port and dock charges, which are quite substantial in this country, whereas in many of our competitor countries, fishing pays no dock charges. They are paid directly by the Government or the municipal authority. There are ever-escalating charges on the processing side. Our industry bears light dues, whereas European industries do not. It needs help with installing the satellite surveillance system, which was going to be financed by Europe, but now the industry has been asked to pay for it itself.

  891
  Any way in which the industry can be helped in its current difficulties should be used. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is conversant with the problem. I hope that he will apply himself to developing a package for fishing that ensures that we have a viable fishing industry in three or four years, when the catches begin to pick up and we can inherit the future, to ensure that that future does not go to other industries whose countries are providing the support that we should give.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: The Minister behaved extremely well in the debate, and I pay tribute to the intelligence and concern that he brought to all the issues and to the fact that he took so many interventions.
  I wish to make a few brief remarks in the spirit of trying to offer some constructive suggestions about how the position of this badly damaged industry could be bettered.
  I draw the Minister's attention, first, to the question of how much fish is wasted. We see from the European Union documents before us that 50,000 to 75,000 tonnes of whiting are known to be dumped every year. The figures on haddock range from 55,000 to 125,000 tonnes. If we multiply that by all the different species of all the catches and by-catches, we must be in the realm of well over a million tonnes of fish being crudely dumped back into the sea. That is an environmental disaster, a biological disaster and an economic disaster.
  I understand that the Minister wishes to wrestle with the problem, and I see from the good documentation before us that the EU, after these many long years, has at last made some suggestions that might begin to tackle the problem. I would ask the Minister to show a greater sense of urgency. I know that he has to work with 14 other member states and I know that the Commission often grinds very slowly when one wants it to do something—I attended enough meetings to find that out for myself—but there is much common sense on the side of those of us who say that we must stop this disaster in its tracks. We must be able to mobilise public opinion and ministerial opinion in the Community to do a better job.
  The documents are long and copious. The Minister knows better than I do the various proposals that have been made. It would be possible, for example, to land all the fish that are caught and find some economic use for them. People are prepared to buy smaller fish if they are cheaper than bigger fish. Sometimes they are prepared to pay a premium for smaller fish if they are attractive and can be cooked in different ways.
  We should certainly reconsider mesh sizes to ensure that fewer small fish are caught. There must be better guidance and systems of temporary control to deal with shoals of younger fish, which we need to protect to ensure that they can grow into bigger fish and to encourage recovery. We must be able to do something about the consequences of too much industrial fishing being undertaken, which is damaging so much of the seabed and the marine environment.
  I also hope that the Minister will have another go at the overall quotas. Those who said that they are not fair are quite right. That problem has been greatly exacerbated by the final denouement of the open policy, bringing in many vessels from elsewhere. We are cursed
  892
  with a common fisheries policy, but, fortunately, from the point of view of the Spaniards, French and the others, we do not have common policies in areas where we could benefit.
  Why, for example, do we not have a common wine policy, whereby we could supplement the grapes produced by our own wine growers with some of the higher quality grapes from Bordeaux? Perhaps we should have a quota. Why do we not have a common olive policy? We do not seem to grow many olives in Britain. Is it fair that the Spaniards and Italians grow so many but we do not have access to their resources, when they have access to the prime marine resource that we have brought to the Community, as we happen to have most of the important fish stocks and fish breeding grounds?
  I know that it is more difficult to reopen all the quota issues—I do not suggest that the Minister should recommend other common policies, given the failure of this common policy—but it is vital, for the sake of the communities that are facing decimation as a result of the changes, that we have another go. I remember visiting the English ports a few years ago and seeing the consequences of previous quota decisions, which had been extremely damaging.
  There has been a little bit of crude party politics in the debate, which is not particularly helpful. Many Liberal Democrat and Labour Members delight in saying that a Conservative Government first took us into the European Community and therefore that a Conservative Government first signed up to the common fisheries policy, but all those Members should remember that the 1974–79 Labour Government, supported for quite a long period by the Liberal Democrats, renegotiated our relationship with the EU and presented what they said was a much better solution to the British people in a referendum and the British people voted in favour.
  At that point, if not before, all the parties in the House—particularly the Labour party, but also the Liberal Democrats—effectively signed up to the whole deal, including the common fisheries policy. So I am afraid that the blood of the fishing settlements and fishing industry is on the arms and hands of all the legislators of all the parties that have supported that renegotiated package and our continued membership of the Community ever since.
  I have been a long-standing critic of the common fisheries policy. I was an unsuccessful critic of it in a Conservative Government, when colleagues did not agree with some of my views on how far we should go in demanding renegotiation. I was no more successful in trying to get the Conservative Government between 1995 and 1997 to accept my advice on this issue when I decided to return to the Back Benches and when I visited many of the fishing areas to see for myself the tragedy that was unfolding.
  In recent years, I have been much more successful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was very sympathetic and changed Conservative policy on fishing in the light of the tragedy unfolding in the fishing communities and fishing industry. I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is carrying on with the work that was commenced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks.

  893
  I am not expecting the Government immediately to demand the fundamental renegotiation that the Conservative party now currently stands for and demands, but I hope that Minister will think again and see that for a long period, some 30 years, whatever party has been in power, our fishing industry has been in continuous decline, that far too much fish is being taken by vessels from other countries and that far too much damage is being done by the fishing techniques still permitted for a very precious marine environment off our coasts.
  This could be a great industry and fish are a vital natural resource. The common fisheries policy is proven to be an environmental, economic, social and industrial disaster. I hope that the Minister will follow up at least my ideas on making better use of the fish that are currently wasted and changing the rules on what kind of fishing is permitted because the wrong kind of fishing is coming in from outside. I hope that, one day, we will get cross-party support for the idea that fishing could be better regulated and controlled in Britain than by the EU.
  4.54 pm
  Mrs. Joan Humble: Usually when I rise to speak I say what a pleasure it is to engage in the debate, but unfortunately I find precious little pleasure in taking part in our discussions today. There is gloom not only among hon. Members but also in the fishing communities that we represent, with only a very dim light at the end of a very, very long tunnel.
  However, I compliment my hon. Friend the Minister on the efforts that he has made on our behalf, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) outlined, many people were fearful before the discussions at the end of last year and many of those fears have been allayed. Despite that, we should not underestimate the serious impact that the agreement will have on all our constituents. It was not as bad as we feared, but it was still a dreadful result for all too many of the fishermen we represent.
  Tomorrow, I shall meet representatives of the Fleetwood Fish Forum. I want to be able to offer them some hope and reassurance, but I find myself in a difficult position. What reassurances can I give them about this year, next year or the years to come?
  I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister assured us that he would look into an appropriate aid package. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: any economic assistance must bring positive benefits to our fishing communities. Such a package will have to include help with decommissioning, but it must also recognise that our fishing communities want to remain fishing communities.
  In Fleetwood, there is still optimism. On a recent visit to my constituency, my hon. Friend met representatives of the local fishing community who told him about the investment that they were making. He met Chris Neve who was investing in new vessels. That is positive. Many people hold out hope for the future, but they want reassurance that their investments are appropriate for that future.
  894
  When I meet the forum tomorrow, I shall certainly ask its members to give me details of how the negotiated package will affect them in the future. I look on this debate as merely the start of discussions and give notice to my hon. Friend the Minister that I shall undoubtedly be writing to him after my meeting tomorrow to outline the concerns of my constituents.
  However, I can reassure my hon. Friend that Fleetwood fishermen understand the need for conservation. Over the past three years, they have taken an active part in the Irish sea cod recovery programme; they understand that, without conservation, there will be no fish.
  Mr. Weir: I am interested in what the hon. Lady says about her meeting because, tomorrow, I too shall be meeting representatives of fishing-based industries in my constituency. Does she agree that it would be useful if we could tell our constituents that there will be additional money from the Treasury for an aid package? Was she as disappointed as I was with the Minister's earlier answer on that point?
  Mrs. Humble: I was not disappointed with the Minister's answer; I was pleased that my hon. Friend is considering the type of aid package that he outlined. I realise that my hon. Friend is at the start of negotiations and I shall do everything in my power to help him in his negotiations with other Departments and I look forward to an outcome that satisfies my constituents.
  The position of my constituents is rather different from that of people in many of the fishing communities that were referred to in the debate. There is no effort limitation in the Irish sea; Fleetwood fishermen are allowed to go out and fish, but they are not allowed to catch much when they do so. The context for any aid package for them will be different from that for Scottish and North sea fishermen.
  The Minister mentioned the nature of the Irish sea cod recovery programme, and it has been confirmed that the western Irish sea will be closed. I must remind him, however, that Fleetwood fishermen believe that the eastern Irish sea should also be included, as substantial cod stocks are to be found there. I know that his scientific advice disputes that, but I was told that in the first quarter of 1999, the model year used by the Commission, more cod was caught in the eastern Irish sea than in the western Irish sea. The Dutch and Belgian beamers that fish those waters, although they target sole, have a substantial cod by-catch. I am told that, last year, in area 7A, the Belgians had a sole catch of 674 tonnes and a cod catch of 283 tonnes. That is a considerable amount of cod. If cod stocks in the Irish sea are perilously low, we need to examine carefully the closed areas to make sure that we are protecting what cod is there, and other species.
  As I mentioned, Fleetwood fishermen are allowed to go out in the coming year, apart from in the closed areas, but they are deeply shocked at the level of the cuts in quota. The Minister agreed that there had been some recovery in cod stocks, which is what the fishermen tell me. They say that they enjoyed a good year last year in terms of catches, so they are seeing benefits from the cod recovery programme, although they moderate their remarks by saying that it is a slight recovery. They think

  895
  that the 59 per cent. cod reduction, 55 per cent. haddock reduction and 56 per cent. whiting reduction imposed on them is not justified by the evidence that they see as fishermen in the Irish sea, and they are especially concerned about the 65 per cent. cut in plaice, as they tell me that the plaice stock is within safe biological limits. Will my hon. Friend therefore consider whether the scientific evidence justifies those quota cuts, and whether they can be re-examined?
  I also want to raise a technical issue with my hon. Friend. He will recall that I corresponded with him in 2001 about extending the Irish sea cod recovery programme technical measures up to 56° north and 7°30 west. Many Fleetwood men go up into the northern channel, and they were concerned that the nets that they use and the technical measures imposed on them changed once they had crossed over an arbitrary line in their fishing ground. My hon. Friend agreed, and the Commission changed the rules so that there was one set of EU rules all the way up to 56°. There is some confusion now about whether the technical measures applying to the Irish sea cod recovery programme still apply up to 56°, because there is an overlap with area 6A, where the effort control measures now apply. Will he consider that issue, so that I can reassure the fishermen of Fleetwood that, as they take their vessels all the way up into the northern channel, they are sailing under one set of Commission rules, not two?
  Finally, I want to reinforce the point that I made in an earlier intervention: it is vital that the voice of fishermen is heard in these discussions. I was pleased to read in the Minister's letter that we have all received today:
  "In the Irish Sea, the 2002 cod recovery arrangements, including the closure of an area for a period in the spring, will be repeated. The Council envisages consideration of a more sophisticated effort control regime for all member states with vessels fishing the area concerned on the basis of a Commission proposal, which would be brought forward by mid-February, with the possibility of adoption by the second half of 2003."
  That is a chink of light and a glimmer of hope for the fishermen of Fleetwood who want to engage in constructive discussions about the future of any proposals for the Irish sea. Will my hon. Friend assure me that they will be included in the discussions about the future of the cod recovery programme? They feel that they have a lot to offer to the debate. I shall certainly do my best to represent their wishes. I conclude my remarks now to allow other Members to make their important contributions.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I return to the central paradox of the debate. We have heard that the Scottish Fisheries Minister—a similar point is made in the Liberal Democrat and Scottish National party amendments—accurately described the deal coming out of Brussels as unjust, unfair and discriminatory. He was thoroughly depressed. The Minister in this House agreed with that at certain points in his speech, but he also described the deal as the best-balanced process. We have even heard the word "success" used in terms of the outcome of the Brussels negotiations. If we have more successes like this, there will be no one left in the fishing industry to celebrate.
  The Minister, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I have debated these issues on innumerable occasions, and I have a memory for what
  896
  people have said over the past few years. I could direct the Minister's attention to the debates on the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 when he described an eight-day tie-up—not a 16-day one—as a betrayal. If an eight-day tie-up under the Conservative party was a betrayal, what is the 16-day tie-up that the Labour party has agreed to in these negotiations?
  I have other comments from the Minister in the debates of 11 years ago. It is excellent stuff. He said:
  "We have long argued for an end to industrial fishing. The position is now so critical that our fishermen are being forced to tie up their boats in port compulsorily, and there is no longer any role for industrial fishing."
  That is what he said 11 years ago when he was facing the Conservative party.
  I have with me an industrial fishing net. It is like a hair net—absolutely nothing could get through such a net. Industrial fishermen fish in the same waters as other fishermen, but the Minister tells us that there is no real scientific back-up for an end to industrial fishing. Eleven years ago, he thought that there was absolutely no doubt about it. It could not be allowed to continue. It was unacceptable. There had to be an end to it. Eleven years later—for half that time he has been in office—we find that he believes that the science is ambiguous.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman knows me very well, because we have debated these issues for many years. I think that he will recognise that my remarks have always been consistent. If we are arguing for change in the face of deep-rooted opposition from other countries who do not believe a word that we are saying, we must have the evidence for our case. My problem—I shall be quite open about it—is that the evidence is not as definitive as I would like it to be. Nevertheless, the case is still there for tackling industrial fishing and its long-term consequences on the marine environment.
  Mr. Salmond: The only European Union country with a real interest in industrial fishing is the mighty state of Denmark, with its 5 million people. It attaches great priority to its fishing industry and was chair of the Council meeting. The mighty state of Denmark was able to resist all the other countries and sustain its interest in industrial fishing with the type of hair net that destroys the feedstock and the future of the fisheries.
  Even if industrial fishing was directed and did not result in a by-catch—such a suggestion is laughable—it would still destroy the ecosystem. One cannot destroy 600,000 tonnes of feedstock and sand eels from any marine environment without depressing the stocks of other fish. What do the cod, the haddock and the other fish eat? They eat material at the bottom of the food chain. Removing the bottom of the food chain removes the fish at the top. We do not need a degree in fisheries science to know that.
  As the Minister conceded, the pout fishery is not a directed fishery. The thousands of tonnes of small and tiny fish caught in the pout fishery represent millions upon millions of potential large fish. So 1,000 tonnes in the pout fishery is many thousands of tonnes in a human consumption fishery. It is unacceptable that in the human consumption fishery, fishing with 120 mm nets with square mesh panels should be limited to 15 days a month while in the same waters, a fishery used for

  897
  pigfeed, poultryfeed and for drying pellets for animal consumption gets 23 days and virtually no restriction on quota. The Minister knew it 11 years ago and it is to his shame that he is not more forceful about it now, and that in his five and a half years as Fisheries Minister he has not demanded the research that gave him the base to argue for that at European Council meetings.
  The Minister made an excellent speech 11 years ago and I recommend he read it again. He said:
  "There are other, more constructive ways of reducing effort than making boats tie up in port. Has the Minister considered arguing in the European Community for fishermen who use large mesh and receive a special payment?"—[Official Report, 8 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 56.]
  The Scots fishing industry, using the largest mesh in the whole of Europe, does not get a special payment. We get a special deal of only 15 days a month if we are prepared to accept another 15 per cent. decommissioning on top of the 20 per cent. decommissioning that took place last year. That is certainly a special deal for the Scottish white fish industry, but not the right one. I hope that the Minister will read his speech again and find constructive ways in which to assist an industry that has been trying to pursue a conservation fishery.
  Of course there will be difficult negotiations, but the Minister's central failure is clear: it was not to extract the whiting and haddock quotas from underneath the cod quota and the recommendation. He had the evidence to do it in the groundfish survey, DEFRA's major annual survey. Incidentally, Mr. Fischler told me in December that he had never seen it—he thought that it was produced by fishermen. The Commissioner actually thought that the major DEFRA survey on fish stocks in the North sea was produced by fishermen and therefore discounted it.
  The DEFRA survey on spatial distribution shows no cod in many areas of the North sea but very substantial quantities of haddock and whiting. How on earth the grounds could not have been prepared to extract the haddock and whiting allocation and quota from the cod recovery plan or the emergency measures, goodness only knows. I say that it is because of lack of preparation, thought and concern.
  Mr. Morley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the very good year class of haddock is based on the 1999 year class. The surveys since then, including the groundfish survey, show that recoupment has been very poor—in fact, some of the poorest on record. We must look at conserving the current haddock stocks and, in relation to mesh sizes, which the industry has agreed, minimising what has been an unacceptable discard rate, calculated at about 100,000 tonnes a year, of under-sized haddock.
  Mr. Salmond: Yes, and the Minister sat with me when I asked DEFRA scientists whether they had been setting a haddock and whiting quota as a stand-alone measure. They agreed that it would have been about a 20 per cent. reduction in quota. How on earth did we arrive at a situation in which the cod quota was reduced by 45 per cent., with the stock under pressure, haddock by 50 per cent. and whiting by 60 per cent.? The Minister should listen and use the arguments adduced by his own scientists. It should have been possible to extract
  898
  haddock and whiting by geography and by time of year out of the cod emergency measures, and the Minister knows it.
  In addition, scientific voyages have taken place over the past year which, as the fishermen found out in November, had not even been presented as evidence to the European Commission at that stage. That research would have showed that, for whiting, up to 70 per cent. of escapes were of marketable quality. If fishermen are using 120 mm nets with square mesh panels, the haddock and whiting stocks are totally protected in that environment. The Minister is nodding. I hope that when he sums up he will be able to offer encouragement that trying to recover the ground that has been lost in terms of haddock and whiting will be a priority.
  We have heard a fair bit of the history of the common fisheries policy. It is important to consider that. With due respect to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and his selective interpretation of it, the history tells us how we got where we are. It may even tell us how to get out of this situation. National control is an excellent idea. It would be far better than the current arrangements. The problem is how we achieve it. Unfortunately, the series of negotiations that started in 1971 make that difficult. The release of a 30-year-old document has allowed us to see that the fishing industry was considered to be expendable in the context of wider British European interests. In 1983, the great Lady Thatcher, that anti-European, signed up for the quota allocation policy. When the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government, the Maastricht treaty put the fisheries policy into treaty form. In 1994, the Spanish were allowed to rewrite their treaty of accession so that they could have early access to the west coast. The UK agreed to that on the basis of Spanish support for our opt-out from the single currency. On each and every occasion, fishing was traded away in pursuit of wider British European interests. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) did not satisfy us on how things would be different in the Conservative party of 2003.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was kind enough to explain that the evidence shows that if a country makes fishing a priority, it is able to extract concessions for their industry. Every other nation emerged from the Brussels talks with their industry intact although not totally undamaged. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) for her charity in providing me with a glass of water. It is definitely not good Scottish water. Even fish would find it difficult to survive in it. However, it has done the job and cleared my throat.
  Those countries in which fishing is a priority emerged from the negotiations with their industry protected. Only Britain emerged with our industry, or part of it, under mortal threat. The industry has to be offered the hope that something will be done to rebalance the disastrous package over the next few months, including in next month's negotiations on the more formulated cod recovery plan. The deal cannot be allowed to stand for any length of time. If it does, there will be no way around it. It will mean thousands of job losses and that is that. The industry must be given a sign from the Dispatch Box that there will be an attempt to salvage something from what is a total and utter disaster.

  899
  In the meantime, a financial package should be provided to protect and keep intact the integrity of as much of the industry as possible. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) who said that decommissioning, even if it is a necessary tool of policy, does nothing for the economic fabric of the fishing areas. It does a great deal for the clearing banks, however. Most of the decommissioning money goes straight into them because they are the first line of credit. Some of it does not even pull the fishing businesses out of debt and often other creditors get no money at all.
  If the Minister believes that it is a balanced package and there is hope for the future, he should try to keep the industry intact so that it benefits from the recovery in stocks. A mere decommissioning scheme is not the answer. New money from the Treasury must be forthcoming. It will not be enough to rebalance existing budgets. I do not know about Blackpool and Fleetwood, but there is no huge surfeit of money in the enterprise budgets in north-east Scotland to allow the transfer of substantial sums into the fishing industry. The money simply is not there. The Treasury has to provide new money to keep communities intact.
  Fishing has been given low priority. The total number of UK jobs is not huge by comparison with many other industries. At the Scottish level, fishing has about 10 times that level of importance and jobs are concentrated in key areas. In Fraserburgh in my constituency, more than half the employment is dependent on fishing, In Peterhead the figure is pushing towards 30 per cent. The level is about the same in the constituency of at least one other hon. Member. Up the Moray coast, in Arbroath and down to Eyemouth, places that depend on the white fish fleet as a key part of their industry are gravely and totally in peril.
  If the Government did not give the industry the required priority in negotiations, at least it should be given priority in terms of an assistance package to tide it over until a better deal can be done.
  I have asked the Library about the common fisheries policy many times, over several years. I always get the answer that the only way we can get out of the CFP is to achieve unanimous agreement at a meeting of the Council of Ministers to renegotiate the treaty. There might be a strong argument for calling for national control, on the basis that it would put Commissioner Fischler into the position of having to make concessions. One concession might be to zone all management—a policy first advocated by the late Dr. Alan McCartney. No policy can survive when the country contributing the vast majority of its resource base is totally opposed to the policy's nature and direction.
  Although the Minister was not really supported by the Prime Minister in December—
  Mr. Morley: I was.
  Mr. Salmond: The fisheries Minister says that he was supported. There was a last-minute telephone call to Fischler. The matter was on the margins of the summit agenda. If we had hired Rory Bremner to telephone Fischler, we could have achieved more. We should have got Rory Bremner to telephone him and say, "I am the
  900
  Prime Minister. I think that fishing should have the highest priority." Or to say, as the French representative did to Fischler, that Chirac would be there on Friday morning unless the French industry got out from under—which it did.
  I have never doubted the Minister's knowledge of the industry but I wonder whether he was fully backed up and supported. When fisheries account for 70 per cent. of a country's resources, I do not understand how negotiations can be brought to a conclusion when that country totally rejects what is happening.
  Angus Robertson: What optimism does my hon. Friend have that the Government will come up with a substantial aid package when the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot be present at an important fishing debate? He is acting as a tour guide for the Prime Minister at a Labour party meeting in Scotland. Or when a debate—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
  Mr. Salmond: I take my hon. Friend's point. Hopefully the Secretary of State is lobbying the Prime Minister as we speak. At least that is a face-to-face meeting, not a telephone call from the right hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister or vice versa.
  It is absolutely vital that the Minister realises that the package cannot be allowed to stand for any length of time because it aims a dagger at the heart of an aspect of the Scottish and Yorkshire fleets, which have survived flagging out but will not remain intact if the new measures are allowed to stand. And while a better deal is renegotiated, there must be a substantial package of assistance funded by new money from the Treasury, in giving the industry the priority that it deserves but to which it is certainly not accustomed.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Representing as I do the largest beach-launched fleet in the whole of Europe, never mind the United Kingdom, the fishermen of Hastings are thankful that my hon. Friend the Minister has once again shown his commitment to their industry. They are grateful to him for listening and doing his best in the negotiations.
  Almost by definition, the under-10m sector comprises natural conservationists. The overall catch is minimal compared with the number of jobs dependent on the industry. It is not just jobs in fishing that are important to an area such as Hastings but also in tourism and related areas of employment that depend on the industry's survival. The fact that the under-10 m sector will be exempt from days at sea is a welcome concession, and is in marked contrast to the impositions made when the Opposition were in power and faced a similar crisis.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I want to put that right on the record immediately, as I was the hon. Gentleman's predecessor. There was indeed a derogation from days at sea under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 which allowed boats under 10 m not to take part in the scheme.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady knows better than I because she was MP for Hastings and Rye at the time,

  901
  and I apologise to her if what she has just said is the case. Undoubtedly, local fishermen did not think so, otherwise they would not have hung her from the yard-arm before the 1997 election. The present derogation is certainly important and the Minister is to be applauded for achieving it. My constituents are concerned about survival until better times are with us. Recent decisions mean that they will not be too distant, although we have some way to go.
  My local industry has little interest in decommissioning and wishes to preserve its historic birthright—it does not want out, it wants a future. To be parochial, it is important that my local fleet has access to the reduced cod quota. At present, it has access only during the winter period, because that is when the fish are in the eastern end of the channel. Often by November and December, the quota for the whole channel is nearly exhausted. My hon. Friend has certainly made efforts on this, but has he made any progress on achieving a sub-quota for area VIId, which would allow the fleet its full allocation at the end of the year, when it became available naturally?
  We need to look at alternatives during the short period when the fish are returning. My local fishing industry has a side catch of spider crabs, an important delicacy in southern areas such as Spain and parts of France. Is there any opportunity to provide, for example, capital for holding equipment, so that such a catch can be exploited? There may be other opportunities as well.
  As hon. Members have said, financial support is needed while people get through these hard times. The Conservative proposals, some of which are quite outrageous, are not the answer. For example, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) made an outrageous suggestion, with which those on his Front Bench seemed to have some sympathy, when he said that markets should be opened up. He said that there should be opportunities for quotas throughout the market. That is simply not on. To suggest that my constituents should bid for their birthright is as objectionable as it is impracticable. That needs to be stated clearly.
  Most hypocritical of all, perhaps, was the Conservatives' suggestion that withdrawal from the CFP is a practical solution. In recent years, they have said that they would withdraw, then that they would not. Today, it appears that they are withdrawing again. My fishermen constituents are unequivocally in favour of withdrawal from the CFP, but they are unequivocally in favour of withdrawal from the European community anyway—there is no misunderstanding their position. The Conservative spokesperson refused to allow an intervention on the hypocritical proposal to withdraw from the CFP while leaving open the question whether the Opposition would seek to withdraw from the EU. I ask and hope that during the remainder of the debate, there will be some opportunity for the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman to say honestly whether it is their policy to withdraw unequivocally from the EU. That is the only possible way that they could withdraw from the CFP. In any event, fish do not carry passports, so it is within the EU that the answer must be found. We can achieve that and so much more through our membership.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: First, we must all recognise that the Minister is Mr. Fish. If he were on "Brain of Britain", he would be able to answer every question about fish. Nobody knows more about fish. Secondly, he does his best. When he goes to Brussels, he negotiates as much fish as he can for Britain. There can be no doubt about that. However, under a system of quotas, he will always have to argue about how much is coming to Britain. He does his best, but it is never enough. The Scots, the North sea and the west country all want more. What is the Minister to do? All he can do is be a whipping boy. He comes to the Chamber every few months like a masochist. He gets beaten, goes off with his tail between his legs, and comes back for another performance. That is all he can do, as long as we have a common fisheries policy.
  The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), in his customary way, misunderstood everything that I proposed. I have a great affection for him and expect him always to misunderstand me. I suggested that we need a different system. As long as we have the old one, under which we come to the Chamber and argue about how much should go to Scotland, whether we should have more cod, whether the scientists are wrong, and whether we can have more crab, please, we will just go on arguing about it. The Minister will be benign and good-natured, and do his best. I have been going round the course for 20 years.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Although we cannot expect Labour Members to come round in the immediate future to our way of thinking on the subject of withdrawal from the CFP, surely even they must be made to admit that that cannot be worse than the situation currently facing British fishing communities.
  Mr. Steen: I am always puzzled by the fact that the Government go on arguing. They must know that that is the scenario. I shall explore a different idea, if the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye will bear with me. I shall go slowly, so that he can understand the argument.
  The system already operates in New Zealand, Iceland and the Philippines. It sets a limit on the total available catch of any fish. Within that total catch, quotas are established, either by auction or by gift to incumbent fishermen, so incumbent fishermen get a share of the quota. The quotas are tradeable among individual fishermen. That offers an escape clause for some fishermen who are no longer able to operate economically. It encourages more successful fishermen to buy fishing rights and exercise their property rights responsibly by fishing within that quota and monitoring others to make sure that they do so, as well. It also encourages brokers to speed up transactions to allow environmentalists to enter the market and buy and retire quotas if they believe stocks are being overfished.
  I do not know whether such a scheme is the answer. All I know is that the present system does not work, so we must find some alternative. The anguish of the Scottish fishermen is understandable. I agree with them and with my west country fishermen. The situation will not get any better.
  Society wants to eat more fish. There is a recognition that fish is better for our health. There is also a recognition that there are 6 billion people in the world,

  903
  and that that figure will rise to 12 billion by 2060, according to the scientists, although they may be wrong. Where will the fish come from to feed them and maintain their health? Perhaps one should take a Machiavellian view and say that we should all eat meat so that we do not live so long.
  I want to explore the topic of fish farms. I am concerned about the piece in the Daily Mail that hon. Members may have seen a few weeks ago, which said that salmon fisheries were poisoned and that the fish were being fed pellets which were not good for them and which were coming into the food chain. I am concerned about fish farms. If they are to be the future of the fishing industry, are we going to get rid of our boats and have fish farms for all types of fish? Are we then going to feed those fish with chemicals and colouring which will come into the food chain and which is bad for us? The Minister needs to look at that issue.
  If we are not going to change the common fisheries policy, are we going to have arguments like this every few months? Are we going to keep on coming back to the House and arguing that the Minister is not doing well enough? Or is he going to follow a new thought process about how we are going to produce more fish? Are we going to reduce the amount of fish by over-fishing and then develop fish farms, with all their consequent problems? I also wonder whether he is going to pursue the idea of an alternative approach to the quota system. Is there a proposal on the cards to change the other EU countries' approach to fish quota?
  I am always ready to give way to anyone who would like to intervene on me, but I do not want to let the Lib Dems in; they have had a good run already.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: My hon. Friend invites my intervention, which I am happy to supply him with. Does he share my concern that one of the important issues that we have to address in this debate has not been addressed by the Government? That is the targeting and direction of the aid package that is to be provided for fishermen in Scotland. Does he support the motion that is being proposed by Struan Stevenson, the Member of the European Parliament—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is rather long for an intervention.
  Mr. Steen: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He has made an important point and I am sure that the Minister will wish to say something about it. I shall wind down now; I have made my points and I want to give other parties an opportunity to make a contribution.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I am immensely grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for giving me three minutes in which to say something about an industry that, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has pointed out, is responsible for one third of the economic product of Shetland, which is half of my constituency.
  I could say a great deal about the conduct of this debate and of last month's Fisheries Council. I shall restrict my comments on the latter to saying that it showed the old common fisheries policy at its very
  904
  worst. It involved protracted negotiations at all hours of the day and night and the worst sort of horse-trading at the very end of the year. Would any other industry tolerate having its future determined in that way? Manifestly, the answer is no, and there is a good reason for that. It is because to do so is frankly crazy.
  The Minister has already referred to the new, improved common fisheries policy, and I sincerely hope that it is improved. It is very much on probation as far as I and my constituents are concerned. I was particularly pleased to see the retention of the six to 12-mile limit, the Shetland box, relative stability and The Hague preference. I was also pleased by the establishment of regional advisory councils. I am not suggesting for a second that they are a proper substitute for what we really need, which is regional or zonal management, but I accept that they represent a foot in the door. The fact that the councils will be answerable directly to the Council, rather than the Commission, is important.
  I hope that the Government will take a leading role in establishing the first of the regional advisory councils and ensure that they work, and that the industry is involved right at their heart. That is the basis on which the common fisheries policy will have to be built if it is to have any credibility. The councils must be able to ease the Commission out of its micro-management of fisheries, because that has been at the root of the failure. If ever there were a good example of that failure, it was last month's Council in Brussels, and the lead-up to it.
  I want to say a few brief words about the financial situation from here on in. It was not lost on me or other hon. Members that the Minister was asked directly whether there would be more new money from the Treasury but did not answer. There has got to be more money, it has got to be new money and it has got to come from the Treasury. We are in a dire situation and that is of the UK's making, so the money has got to come from the UK Treasury.
  How is the decommissioning going to be determined? In Shetland, there is a critical mass below which the community is no longer viable if we keep decommissioning. In a situation such as ours, once the fishing is lost, the people will be lost. Once they are lost, that is it—the whole economic fabric of the community will disintegrate. There has to be recognition that island communities have a particularly high dependency on fishing.
  We have been promised long-term benefits, and I am prepared to accept that we will get them if the Minister will see us through the short-term difficulty. In concluding his speech, he said that what was important was a sustainable fisheries policy. What we have got is simply not sustainable. It will not sustain the communities that I represent and that is what he has must solve.
  5.41 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your office for extending this debate from the three hours that were allowed on the Order Paper until six o'clock? I hope that the Leader of the House will note that even more than four hours would be helpful in future fishing debates because of the sheer number of people who wish to contribute.
  I feel some déjà vu in returning to the issue of fishing. As the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) mentioned, 10 years ago, I made my maiden speech on

  905
  the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and indeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who intervened earlier and was the relevant Minister at the time, have pointed out that, in respect of the difficulties in which the Minister now finds himself, and on which he has been negotiating and responding so effectively to our concerns, he was arguing precisely the opposite 10 years ago.
  I should also like to pray in aid the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for Banff and Buchan and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood). I am sure that the latter has been involved in fishing debates for a very long time, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen). All of us are very familiar with the arguments and hope that we will not have to repeat these debates for much longer, although we suspect that we shall.
  I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I cannot comment on all their speeches. Many heartfelt contributions were made. The hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble)—I have noticed that Fleetwood is in Lancashire, not Yorkshire; some Scots do not understand geography—and the hon. Members for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) and for Hastings and Rye raised their concerns. I hope that the Minister got the message after an hour and two minutes. He is very generous with his time, and as somebody who has been doing the job for 10 years or more, he is certainly an expert and handled all the queries well. None the less, I hope that he got the message from everyone who has spoken about their worries on the crisis that is facing the fishing industry. The situation has been bad before, but after my experience on the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, I never thought that I would say that an eight-day tie-up seemed very reasonable, as it does in comparison with a 15 or 16-day tie-up, which is what the fishing industry now faces.
  Before I entered the Chamber, I read the amendments that the three Opposition parties had tabled and was intrigued by the similarity in tone between the Liberal Democrat and Scottish National party amendments. Both parties picked up on the hapless Ross Finnie's words—"inequitable, crude and unfair"—but there are other similarities. In the Scottish Parliament today, the SNP tabled a motion on Iraq, and I am advised that the Liberal Democrat amendment is no different in substance. Perhaps a new coalition is emerging in Scotland between the Liberal Democrats and the SNP. That means that the Labour party in Scotland could be in trouble, and we all look forward to that.
  Hon. Members: Fish!
  Andrew Mackinlay: Fish—and chips.
  Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman may have had his chips soon.
  There have been many crises in the fishing industry in the past 10 years and many similar debates. The Minister has often responded to our anxieties about, for example, tie-ups and the need for conservation
  906
  measures. He said that a proper package of conservation measures was needed and we have supported some of his proposals. Indeed, we argued for them for a long time.
  The Minister said that there should be full consultation with the fishermen's organisations. After 10 years, the message is precisely the same. The fishermen's organisations continue to claim that whatever they say, the Government do something contrary to their interests.
  Ten years ago, the Minister said that he supported greater co-operation between scientists and fishermen. Why, therefore, do such passionate disputes persist about the scientific facts? Today, he said that he believed that the need for such co-operation continued to exist. However, if one talks to fishermen—I spoke to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation today—they claim that they co-operate much more with scientists, especially in Aberdeen, than any other European fishing fleets. They find that science is quoted back at them and used politically against their best interests. It is sad that, after 10 years, the scientists and the fishermen still do not work together.
  As other Conservative Members pointed out, there is a lack of urgency in the Minister's approach to fishing. There is no drive behind getting the science and fishing properly integrated and presenting a clear message to the Commission.
  The debate has covered all the issues that affect fishing. There is much anxiety in all fishing communities and among almost all participants in respect of the package of help. We hope that a long-term conservation programme will allow the fleets to continue fishing. In the meantime, the Minister needs to make a genuine commitment to providing a package of help that will be in place from 1 February. Again, there was a lack of urgency before the Fisheries Council about preparing such a package.
  Nobody has mentioned that, on 28 February in Brussels, a Scottish Conservative Member of the European Parliament is holding a summit on fishing. He is working with fish scientists throughout the Community, the fishing industry and the processors to devise a resolution to present to the Commission and hence to the Council, demanding £100 million from the EU in compensation. It is interesting that the Prime Minister has invited fishermen to No. 10 on precisely the same day. Is there some coincidence? [Interruption.] It is clearly deliberate sabotage of a helpful measure to get £100 million from the Commission into the fishing communities.
  We have had an interesting debate, and I must agree that the Minister has been more than courteous in answering all our questions, but whether we are satisfied with those answers is another matter altogether. I doubt whether any of the fishing communities in Scotland, Lancashire or Yorkshire will be reassured by his saying that they have a future in the coming months.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Morley: I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) to the Dispatch Box on her first outing on fisheries. I believe that it is the first time that she has been involved in such a debate, and I certainly welcome her contributions and her courtesy.

  907
  As she was involved in the previous days-at-sea scheme, she will know that it took a very different approach; it applied to the whole of the UK and to the entire industry. However, as I have said before, I do not dispute that there are problems, not least with administering such schemes. Indeed, I made that point to the Commission.
  On the alternatives, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made a strong case against quota control, but in doing so he simply played into the Commission's hands. The Commission advocated days-at-sea effort control because, in its view, quotas and traditional management methods have failed to deliver. All that he has done today is to give comfort to the Commission and credibility to its alternative proposals. The days-at-sea scheme is a possible alternative to quotas. It could deal with issues relating to discounts, and I have never been one to close my mind to different approaches.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) made a very good point about the various processes and about crew nationality. The latter point is certainly worth considering in some detail, and I shall do so. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) mentioned industrial fishing, as did several other Members. He made some very positive suggestions, including one relating to the Trevose grounds. We are advocating that suggestion to the Commission, and we want to pursue the issue in respect of closed areas as part of fisheries conservation. I was very pleased to learn of the support offered by his local industry.
  On mesh sizes, the chairman of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation presented me with what I suspect was an off-cut of the piece of mesh to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred. In turn, I presented it to the commissioner, in order to make the point about the impact of industrial fishing. The campaign will be ongoing, and other member states are indeed beginning to take an interest. That is what we need, because for many years mine has been the sole voice on this issue in the Council. Things are beginning to change, but we need the arguments to make the change that we are trying to achieve.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) discussed the impact on fishermen, and, as he knows, I take that issue seriously. He came to see me today to make the case for his fishermen, and we will consider what he said as we put together a package for the industry. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) discussed discards. It is indeed an important issue, and I have made it clear that we want to make progress on it. Of course, there are problems with any approach. For example, there is a case for landing all discards, but enforcement is a real problem. Norway and Iceland have a discard ban, but my colleagues in those countries concede that it presents real difficulties—unless one puts people permanently on board ships to ensure that, for whatever reason, they are landed. There are also dangers associated with targeting. Nevertheless, I rule out no particular approach, and discard bans have been mentioned as a possibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) mentioned the cut in plaice, and the overlap with restricted areas. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  908
  and sea fish inspectors will give her fishermen details on the rules and how they work, but if she has any queries, I am only too pleased to help.
  I recognise that the constituents of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, and of other Members, will be greatly affected, but I disagree with him in one respect. He said that there are problems with the settlement, and I do not disagree with that. I am not claiming that it is a huge victory or a great success; it will have severe consequences for the fishing industry. However, he did not touch on the issue that I cannot ignore: the scientific advice and the need to respond to it, and the effect in terms of mixed fisheries.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister deal with the question of haddock and whiting? He sat with the DEFRA scientists and me, and he knows that what I said was true. Can he get haddock and whiting "out from under" the cod crisis?
  Mr. Morley: We are doing our best to decouple the issues, as I said earlier. We cannot ignore the fact that in a mixed fishery the fish will be caught together, but I would be only too delighted to reduce the impact on those two stocks if it is possible to do so. I am prepared to explore possible methods.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) made some good points about his beach fleet. We are making suggestions to his local industry about differential cod quotas according to season that may address some of its worries. We will try that this year, and if it does not work we shall be willing to look again at decoupling. As for spider crab, there is a possibility of financial support through the financial instrument for fisheries guidance for marketing. I should be happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) is a veteran of these debates, and I always enjoy his speeches. I was interested by what he said about the New Zealand management system. The system has both strengths and weaknesses. As with all the issues we have been discussing, there is no perfect system: there is no system that has no disadvantages.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) welcomed the establishment of regional advisory councils, which I too consider important. I appreciate the potential impact of the settlement on Shetland and other fishing-dependent areas. These are predominantly matters for the Scottish Executive, who I know are addressing them.
  Andrew Mackinlay: Bearing in mind direct rule, will the Minister make some reference to the impact on Northern Ireland's fishing communities? What assurances can he give those people? This is their Parliament now, and some attention should be paid to them.
  Mr. Morley: I have been in touch with my ministerial colleague in Northern Ireland, and have also met Northern Ireland fishing representatives. We are trying to deal with their problems.
  I was interested by the contribution of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. In quite a long speech, yet again there was no suggested solution

  909
  or alternative approach to the very real problems that we face. Not long ago, members of the hon. Gentleman's party were telling us that there was no way we would achieve relative stability after January, that there was no way we would maintain coastal limits, and that we would have an EU fleet with EU permits under EU control. None of that has happened in connection with the agreement on CFP reform.
  The idea that what we are doing in relation to quota management will allow more quota for other countries is complete nonsense. What we are doing is improving UK national quota for the benefit of the UK national fleet. We have heard what has been said today about national control many times. Yet again we have asked the Conservatives what that means, how it will be achieved and how it will be applied. I think it is a cruel deception of the fishing industry to suggest that there is a magic solution when there is not.
  The Conservatives have criticised the priority given to the fishing industry. We now know, as a result of the 30-year rule, what priority Conservative Governments gave the industry in terms of negotiation. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings says that we should have joined others to secure a better deal. I take it he means we should have joined Spain, which wanted access to the North sea. I take it he means we should have joined those who wanted to continue building grants, an entirely unsustainable solution to our problems.
  The truth is that when it comes to trying to negotiate in Europe, the Conservative Government are regarded as even more of an irrelevance than the Conservative party is today. It does not help the fishing industry to take a pompous little Englander approach based on Eurosceptic nonsense that is a betrayal of environmental responsibilities and the genuine needs of this country's fishing industry.
  There are real problems to address, but we believe that the industry has a future. We believe that we must respond to the science, even if it means tough decisions. We recognise that there will be consequences, but we will face up to them. We will work with the industry to give it a sustainable future, rather than making false and empty promises.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 318.

  Division No. 55]

  [6:00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burt, Alistair

  Amess, David

  Cameron, David

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Barker, Gregory

  Chope, Christopher

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Clappison, James

  Bercow, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Collins, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Brady, Graham

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  910

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Paice, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Flight, Howard

  Pickles, Eric

  Flook, Adrian

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Forth, rh Eric

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Redwood, rh John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Goodman, Paul

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Grayling, Chris

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Greenway, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ruffley, David

  Hague, rh William

  Salmond, Alex

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hawkins, Nick

  Selous, Andrew

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heald, Oliver

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hendry, Charles

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Steen, Anthony

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Streeter, Gary

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Syms, Robert

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Leigh, Edward

  Trend, Michael

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Walter, Robert

  Lidington, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Watkinson, Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Weir, Michael

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Whittingdale, John

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Maclean, rh David

  Wilkinson, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Williams, Hvwel (Caernarfon)

  Maples, John

  Wilshire, David

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Young, rh Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Mr. Mark Hoban and

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Mr. Mark Francois

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Ainger, Nick

  Bell, Stuart

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Benn, Hilary

  Allan, Richard

  Bennett, Andrew

  Allen, Graham

  Best, Harold

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Betts, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Borrow, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Austin, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Bailey, Adrian

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Baird, Vera

  Brennan, Kevin

  Banks, Tony

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Barrett, John

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Browne, Desmond

  Battle, John

  Bryant, Chris

  Beard, Nigel

  Buck, Ms Karen

  911

  Burnett, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Grogan, John

  Cairns, David

  Hain, rh Peter

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hancock, Mike

  Caplin, Ivor

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Casale, Roger

  Healey, John

  Caton, Martin

  Heath, David

  Challen, Colin

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Heppell, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heyes, David

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cohen, Harry

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Corston, Jean

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, rh John

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jamieson, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, rh John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Doughty, Sue

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Farrelly, Paul

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Lamb, Norman

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Lammy, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Galloway, George

  Linton, Martin

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Love, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gidley, Sandra

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gilroy, Linda

  McCafferty, Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  MacDonald, Calum

  912

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKechin, Ann

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McWalter, Tony

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Singh, Marsha

  Mallaber, Judy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Soley, Clive

  Mole, Chris

  Southworth, Helen

  Moran, Margaret

  Spellar, rh John

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Rachel

  Mountford, Kali

  Stevenson, George

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thurso, John

  Organ, Diana

  Timms, Stephen

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Owen, Albert

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Picking, Anne

  Trickett, Jon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Truswell, Paul

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pound, Stephen

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Ward, Claire

  Purchase, Ken

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Purnell, James

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

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

  Wills, Michael

  Wilson, Brian

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Rooney, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Salter, Martin

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Sawford, Phil

  Jim Fitzpatrick

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 2341/2002 of 20th December 2002, a Council Regulation fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required; European Union Document No. 2369/2002 of 20th December 2002, a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2792/1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector; European Union Document No. 2370/2002, a Council Regulation establishing an emergency Community measure for scrapping fishing vessels; European Union Document No. 2371/2002, a Council Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy; and European Union Document No. 14886/2002, a Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community Action Plan to reduce discards of fish.—[Mr. Heppel]
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, I was obliged to point out that, yet again, a Minister had given information to the Press Association before bringing it to the House.
  Sadly, I have to bring a similar matter to your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard it on my radio at 5 o'clock and it appears on something called a BBC website—I have a copy before me—and concerns a package "leaked" to a BBC political reporter in which the Secretary of State for Education and Skills appeared to speak about a massive increase in student tuition fees.
  This is the second time that such a matter has occurred in one parliamentary week. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, be prepared to consider suspending the sitting until Mr. Speaker can be made aware that, for the second time, his firm instructions to Ministers have been casually disregarded and that a matter of such importance appeared on the BBC long before the House could have a chance to hear direct from the Minister responsible and to question that Minister? The point is of the utmost parliamentary gravity, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I ask you, therefore, to consider suspending the sitting until we can bring Mr. Speaker to the House to sort out the Government.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I understand the grave concern that the right hon. Gentleman attaches
  914
  to the matter and I give him my commitment that I shall personally make sure that Mr. Speaker is aware of the strength of the right hon. Gentleman's feelings.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you had any intimation from the Government that they might consider the benefits of tabling a substantive motion for the upcoming debate on the international situation, given the close vote in the Scots Parliament on just such a substantive motion this afternoon? Have the Government intimated the benefits of genuine democracy to the Chair?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Ministers concerned will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. It is certainly not a point of order for the Chair and I have not been made aware that any Minister wishes to come to the House.

PETITIONS

  Natural Health Products
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is an honour and a privilege to present a petition collected from 437 of my constituents in the excellent city of Lancaster and the fine town of Garstang who are concerned about a timely issue, given the debate that we shall be holding on Monday.
  The petition of my constituents states:
  The Petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters
  Declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Pilgrim Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Keith Hill.]
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: I would first like to thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me to initiate this Adjournment debate, which is of fundamental importance to me, as the democratically elected representative of the people of Boston and Skegness, to my constituents, and to all those other individuals who use Pilgrim hospital in Boston. I also thank the Minister for being here to respond to my comments this evening.
  Pilgrim hospital is the major provider of secondary health care in my constituency and the immediate surrounding area. As such, it plays a vital role in the community and serves a very large rural catchment population. Indeed, some calculations show that its catchment is greater than that of Lincoln and Peterborough—both of them cities that currently have larger hospitals. The catchment population of the Lincoln hospital is estimated to be 335,000, and that of Peterborough is estimated to be between 280,000 and 300,000. The catchment population of Boston and south Lincolnshire is approximately 400,000.
  Before I proceed further with the specifics, I would like to place on record my thanks and admiration for all the hard work that is done, day in and day out, by all those at Pilgrim hospital. I am aware that staff at all levels work as tirelessly and effectively as they can to provide a first-class service. That is in the context of a work force who are increasingly disheartened and a public who are increasingly disappointed as a result of the unattainable level of expectation to which the Government's announcements have given rise, and owing to a recent merger with Lincoln, which in many people's opinion is having a detrimental impact and effect on service provision.
  Pilgrim hospital first opened in 1972 and has 670 beds and a small, private wing called the Bostonian. The hospital and associated hospitals provide for approximately 35,000 in-patients, 12,000 day cases, and, depending on how the figures are analysed, up to 120,000 out-patients per annum. Pilgrim is by far the greatest contributor to those figures. It has a 24-hour accident and emergency department, and, currently, all the main speciality departments. As the Minister will be aware, a strategic service review is currently under way, which will assess the provision of services across the whole Trent region. Clearly, I recognise that every hospital in the region cannot provide every service. For example, the small hospital in my constituency at Skegness obviously cannot provide cardiovascular surgery.
  There are dangers in relation to encouraging and facilitating centres of specialism, however, particularly in large rural areas such as Lincolnshire. Some low-volume work may have high costs, both in financial terms and in terms of expertise. Some specialist centres will be needed, but it is essential that the specialist centres that are required are provided in Lincolnshire, not outside the county in Leicester or Nottingham. There is pressure from both Government and the royal colleges on consultants to deal with a certain number of
  916
  cases per year, and that each consultant must deal with a sufficient number of cases to be safe and professional and to maintain a degree of expertise.
  That maintenance of professionalism and expertise, however, must be offset against considerations of travel and convenience. A balance must be struck. It is not compassionate or practicable to ask people to travel miles for basic medical care. Many of my constituents are not particularly affluent, and would find it impossible to get to Lincoln or Peterborough, never mind Nottingham or Leicester. The current state of rural transport in Lincolnshire is not conducive to ease of travel.
  The current situation in which Government targets are only being met by reprehensible list manipulation is unacceptable to me and to my constituents. Let me give the Minister a specific example. I understand that, if a Boston resident approaches a 12-month wait for an ear, nose and throat appointment, he or she is offered an appointment elsewhere—for example, in Lincoln—with no consideration of his or her ability to get to Lincoln. If that person refuses or is unable to make the appointment, he or she is struck off the list, thereby receiving no treatment but enabling the hospital and the trust to deal with the 12-month waiting list. I am not blaming the Minister personally for that, as I am certain that the practice takes place elsewhere. However, the Government must take some responsibility for applying such draconian pressure on hospitals and trusts to meet waiting list targets that they feel obliged to distort clinical priorities.
  It is no exaggeration to say that clinical directions have very little to do with clinical priorities. I would welcome the Minister's confirmation of his disapproval of, and distaste for, this practice. I hope that he will pledge to look into the matter, so that my constituents receive the health care that they need in the hospital that they deserve.
  Pilgrim hospital has a 98 per cent. bed-occupancy rate. Indeed, on my frequent visits to the hospital, including having participated on a night shift, I have been amazed by the constant crisis management that exists, shuffling patients around in an attempt to find beds. There are patients who are in accident and emergency who should be in medical wards; patients who should be in medical wards who are in surgical wards; and patients who should be at home who are in surgical wards. Some people should be in care homes, but several care homes have closed, primarily as a direct result of some of the policies that the Government have pursued.
  Those problems are coupled with the fact that Pilgrim hospital has only a day contract with the ambulance service—that is, between 9 am and 5 pm—and that means that the hospital staff can only arrange for patients to travel by day. On the surface, that may appear to be fine and acceptable, but the implication is that patients admitted at night cannot be sent elsewhere or even to their home. In some cases, they are treated because there is no ambulance. They have to stay in the ward overnight because they cannot get home. The nursing and other staff arrange for an ambulance to take them home, but there is a 24-hour booking time so they have to stay another night. That means two potentially unnecessary night stays in Pilgrim hospital, and that blocks beds for others. That is madness. The transport

  917
  bill to transfer some people home by taxi must be horrendous, and an already horrendous bed-blocking problem is exacerbated. The implication is that significant numbers of operations are cancelled. Many are cancelled the day before and some on the day of the operation. That is not acceptable, and the position must be improved.
  It is my view that the Lincolnshire East Coast primary care trust is keen, like me, to retain local services for local people. I hope that the pressure will convince the trust to keep Pilgrim offering a full range of services. Any diminution of service would not be acceptable. Any removal of a specialism would be seen as a downgrading of the hospital. For example, I understand that conversations are going on about gastro-intestinal specialisms.
  I am also intrigued as to who will make the final decision after the strategic review reports. Will it be the regional health authority? Will it be the hospital trust? Will it be the public, whom I understand will be consulted? After all, what is the point of public consultation if the consultative process is ignored? If, as I understand it, the decision will be made at the last port of call—the regional health authority—will it not stand in complete contrast to the Government's supposed devolved decision-making policy and agenda for the health service?
  How does that decision-making process fit comfortably with the Government's plans for foundation hospitals? I very much hope that Pilgrim hospital will ultimately become a foundation hospital, with local decision-making and local accountability. It is ironic that, just as the Government, at least, superficially jump on the devolved power bandwagon, the reverse seems to be happening in Lincolnshire.
  I am ambitious for, and committed to. Pilgrim hospital. I want it to be empowered and enabled to have greater autonomy and decision-making authority. However, my constituents—both patients and those who work in the hospital—have expressed many concerns about the merger with Lincoln. They are worried not just about the immediate impact, but about the medium and longer-term relocation of specialist services. I understand that the merger has not only led to a large overspend but has been an expensive option, eating into resources that could and should have been used to improve front-line health care provision in Pilgrim hospital on behalf of my constituents.
  The merger with Lincoln has brought not just financial problems but actual service provision deterioration on the ground. For example, because of the assistance that was required in the form of staffing resources, waiting times for hearing aids in the audiology department in Boston prior to the merger were four to six weeks. They are now four to six months. A neonatal screening programme to test all children in Lincolnshire was due to begin in Pilgrim in early 2000, but because of the merger it was put on hold and may begin in 2004.
  The possible threat in reduction of service provision is causing anxiety among my constituents. Indeed, only last year there was a risk to the ear, nose and throat department when a distinguished and highly regarded
  918
  consultant, Dr. Graham Westmore, retired. Many patients were unnerved and deeply concerned and there is still concern at the current provision that a seven-day service may be reduced to five. However, I am delighted that tomorrow I will be opening the new ENT department at Pilgrim hospital. I am delighted that this service provision has been cemented in Boston for many years to come.
  I am deeply concerned about security at Pilgrim hospital. To be blunt, I have been horrified by the anecdotal evidence from nursing staff in particular about the behaviour of some of the patients towards the hard-working and excellent staff. That applies particularly, although not uniquely, to those who work in the accident and emergency department. There is a particular problem with patients who have a drug or alcohol problem; they tend to be the most aggressive. The local police force have been extremely helpful and now have a presence in the hospital at particular times of the week. Will the Minister talk to his officials and colleagues in the Department of Health and the Home Office to find out whether any new source of funding could provide additional security—not only in Pilgrim hospital, as I am aware that this is a problem across the country? That could link in with the Government's new drugs policy which was debated in the House earlier this week.
  I am also perturbed and uneasy at the revelation that the West Lincolnshire primary care trust appears to have run out of money. I understand that there has been a significant overspend in primary care surgery and all future surgical operations such as hernias, eyelid cysts and vasectomies have been cancelled for this financial year. The scheme is to provide patients with more convenient and local treatment in a primary care setting, with the expectation of reducing travel and thereby patient transport costs and avoiding hospital visits. The cancellations are opposed by general practitioners who wish to continue with the scheme and also put pressure on an already overstretched Pilgrim hospital staff.
  I have with me an internal NHS document that lists the options regarding the overspend. The only item in the "Advantages" column is that cancelling the operations
  "Avoids any overspend on this budget."
  The disadvantages are numerous. The document says that this will cause problems with the providers and patients at a time when Lincolnshire is promoting the development of primary care specialists. It says that some of the providers may withdraw. The third item in the "Disadvantages" column is fundamental and quite unbelievable. It says that there is no scope for undertaking the operations at the acute hospitals as they are unable to deliver their existing activity, let alone any extras. Another disadvantage, according to the document, is that the cessation of this activity could mean that some providers may become deskilled.
  That says to me that the myth being perpetrated that everything is fine in the national health service, that there is no shortage of money and that everyone is being treated where and when they want is clearly untrue. I do not expect an answer from the Minister this evening, but I would like him to talk to his officials and come up with an answer on how we can improve that aspect of health care, take the pressure off Pilgrim hospital and make sure that the operations that were being done under the remit of the primary care trust continue.

  919
  In conclusion, I want my constituents to be provided with the best possible health care. I also want to continue to facilitate a motivated and enthusiastic work force at Pilgrim. I will not accede to proposals to remove or downgrade services under the auspices of specialisation or any other excuse. I trust that the Minister will assure me that that will not happen.
  6.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) on securing the debate. I am aware that he takes a keen interest in health issues that affect his constituency. Indeed, he initiated a similar debate in November 2001 on the future of Skegness district hospital. Having been schooled in Peterborough, I am familiar with the area, so it is good to play a role in the debate.
  I recognise the concerns of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to retain access to acute hospital services in their local area. All our constituents would be concerned about that. It is wholly understandable that they should demand modern, reliable and efficient services at a location that is convenient to them. I want to assure them from the outset that they need not fear for the future of their hospital or the future of the NHS under this Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the hospital's finances, which I hope to deal with in a moment. However, he is at odds with his Front-Bench spokesmen who said that there would be a 20 per cent. cut in NHS investment.
  Mr. Simmonds: I have raised some serious issues. The Minister knows that it is not Conservative party policy to cut NHS spending by 20 per cent. May I suggest that he adheres his remarks to those serious issues?
  Mr. Lammy: NHS funding is an extremely serious issue. Labour Members voted overwhelmingly for investment in the NHS and I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman's constituents have the best services available. I am pleased that our allocation to Boston primary care trust will rise by 8.6 per cent. over the next three years. I want them to get that investment and the facilities they need. However, given the hon. Gentleman's manner and tone on finances, it is right for me as a Minister to explain that they would be cut.
  Pilgrim district and general hospital has been providing services for the people of Boston and southeast Lincolnshire since the early 1970s. Since April 2000, it has been part of the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS trust, when all acute hospital trusts in the Lincolnshire health authority area were merged. In the mid-1990s, the then Lincolnshire health authority reviewed services in the county. Among the recommendations proposed following the review was the transfer of ear, nose and throat services from Boston to Lincoln. I understand that that was not popular locally and the change did not proceed.
  The restructuring of health services in 2000 prompted a further wide-ranging review of clinical services in Lincolnshire. A formal review has been commissioned by the local health authority. That is due to be completed in March this year. It would be inappropriate for me to prejudge the outcome but I understand that
  920
  the trust wishes to see the Pilgrim continue its role as a vibrant hospital that provides a wide range of services. It may be that the outcome of the review sees some enhancement of facilities.
  That position is borne out by the significant investments that the Government have made at the hospital in recent years. In 1998, a five-year capital programme was agreed to improve the Pilgrim. A total of £12 million has been invested, which facilitated the creation of a new accident and emergency department; the revamping of the outpatients department; two new theatres and two new wards; and essential repairs to the general fabric of the buildings.
  As part of the Government's Action On programme, there is United Lincolnshire Hospital NHS trust's bid for the creation of a new ENT and dermatology department at Pilgrim hospital. The Action On programme was developed in 1998 to target efforts to address areas of high waiting times. Four priority areas have been identified—cataracts, orthopaedics, dermatology and ENT—and specific programmes have been created. They are designed to ensure that local services are shaped around patients' needs, streamlining patient pathways and improving patient access. The programmes aim also at facilitating improvements in the quality of care through the dissemination of best practice—maximising efficiency, balancing capacity with demand and providing support to NHS staff.
  Under this Government, the ENT and dermatology unit became operational last year and will be formally opened by the hon. Gentleman tomorrow. I am pleased because across the country, people are seeing investment, new hospitals and new services in their communities. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are able to open new facilities in their constituencies. I am delighted and want that to continue—which is why I proudly stand here at a Labour Minister against cuts that would see services disappear.
  Those developments are indicative of the large investments that the Government are making in the health service. We are committed to ensuring that everyone, no matter where they live, has access to high-quality, modern and dependable NHS services. The Government recognise that for too long, patients in some parts of the NHS have not had access to the standard of care and treatment they deserve. Last week, we announced a further round of NHS capital allocations for the next three years. They show a growth of 31 per cent. for 2003–04, 14 per cent. for 2004–05 and 20 per cent. for 2005–06—the first time that day-to-day operational capital has been directly allocated to NHS strategic health authorities, trusts and primary care trusts and the first time that capital allocations have been made for three years rather than one. That arrangement will allow local NHS managers to plan for the future and make decisions about the services that they provide.
  Right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House take the view that the NHS cannot be run from Whitehall. We believe in shifting the balance of power, which is why we have localised the NHS, handing it to local communities through their PCTs—performance-managed by our strategic health authorities. I note that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that position.

  921
  He would like greater centralisation and me to intervene in some local decision-making processes in his area.
  Mr. Simmonds: I did not say that and must correct the record. I certainly believe in devolving power to democratically accountable, decision-making bodies. I was trying to address the point that potential decisions about the future level of service at Pilgrim hospital will not be made by the people at Pilgrim hospital but by people in Trent regional health authority. That does not seem to fit comfortably with the Minister's view and mine that power should be further devolved, not taken away.
  Mr. Lammy: The decision will be made by local people, the strategic health authority and the primary care trust working in conjunction, and may well bring enhancements for the local hospital. It is about localisation, which we support, and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman seems to support that. I urge him to let that process take its course. His constituents can take heart in the fact that the Government are committed to a modern, enhanced 21st-century NHS, which is why we are investing in his hospital, and why he will be able to open those ENT facilities tomorrow.
  The total provided for the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS trust is almost £34 million over the next three years, allowing it to continue its programme of modernising and improving its facilities. The hospital trust is predicting a deficit this year on its annual revenue budget, but I have been reassured that a recovery plan is in place and is being monitored by the Trent strategic health authority. That plan does not include the reduction of services—the trust is instead considering alternative and more efficient service delivery methods. That deficit needs to be set against Government investment. We have significantly increased funding. For example, East Lincolnshire PCT is to receive an increase of nearly 9 per cent. on its budget for the year
  922
  2003–04. We are changing the way in which funding is allocated so that trusts can plan for a three-year period and make provision for the future.
  The Government are keen to ensure that that investment is accompanied by reform. The NHS has delivered major improvements in health, but it falls short of the standards patients expect and staff want to provide. The NHS has to be redesigned around the needs of patients. As I have said, local hospitals cannot be run from Whitehall. The purpose and vision of the NHS plan, which was launched in 2000, is to give the people of Britain a health service fit for the 21st century which is designed around the patient. That change will improve the quality of care and affect how and where services are delivered across the NHS.
  High-quality care is not just about good outcomes, but about giving people the kind of services that they want. Local people are being placed at the heart of the debate about their local health services. A new legal framework came into force on 1 January 2003 which places new duties on the NHS to consult the public in the ongoing planning and development of services, not just when a major change is required.
  There are telemedicine links between Pilgrim hospital, Skegness and District hospital and other services that benefit the area. Those are just some of the ideas we have been exploring over the past few months as part of the work of the configuring hospitals project. I have been greatly encouraged by the fact that there seem to be real opportunities for smaller hospitals in particular to have a new lease of life, with service redesign and networked health systems offering the potential to deliver the kind of local health service that local people want.
  We will shortly publish a document for consultation. I repeat that there is definitely a bright future for Pilgrim hospital. Any future developments there will be at the forefront—
  The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eleven minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

E-services
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
2.30 pm
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I welcome this debate on the e-transformation of public services. It offers the House an opportunity to discuss an important aspect of the Government's work in investing in and reforming our public services. It further provides an opportunity to hear the views of hon. Members, several of whom present today have particular expertise and experience in this field. I therefore propose to limit my opening contribution to setting out the context and scale of the Government's work, before responding in my concluding remarks to the contributions made by other hon. Members.
Over recent years in the marketplace we have seen the spectacular rise and fall of the NASDAQ, with an international decline in share values and significant global job losses in the technology and communications sectors. Against that turbulent background, it has been recognised that the laws of supply and demand still matter to the corporate bottom line, and that much of the initial hype surrounding the dotcom boom has obscured the true significance of the telecommunications and computing advances that we are witnessing today.
More than 600 million people globally are now online, and 140,000 more people connect to the net every day. In the past 30 years, the price of a transatlantic telephone call has fallen to a tiny fraction of its original level, and there are already more mobile phones in the world than traditional telephone landlines.
Against that changing backdrop, some commentators have asked whether the Government's enduring focus on the importance of electronic service delivery is misplaced. I believe that the answer is no—indeed, an emphatic no. Electronic service delivery remains an integral and expanding part of our reform and modernisation programme for public services. The e-enablement of public services, with the citizen at its core, is central to our strategy of transforming the interaction between state and individual. It is surely not contentious to recognise that experience of the private sector increasingly shapes the citizen's expectations of public services.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early. I just wanted to draw his attention to a company called Opportunity Links, in which I have a registered, although non-financial, interest. That company helps people to change their lifestyle and to get back into work, and has assisted
310WH
the Department for Education and Skills in spreading the national child care information strategy. It demonstrates what a real difference electronic—
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. This is becoming a speech, and interventions should be brief. I should be happy for the hon. Lady to bring her comments to a quick conclusion.
Mrs. Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware of that organisation? If not, will he ensure that he finds out something about it?
Mr. Alexander: That was an endearingly brusque end to an interesting intervention by my hon. Friend. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to her work in this field, not least in representing the constituency of Cambridge, which shows world leadership on 3G technologies. I also pay tribute to the work that she has undertaken on e-representation. She is a pioneer in the House in advancing online surgeries, which provide an interesting opportunity that we could consider later.
I must confess that I am not over-familiar with the company that my hon. Friend cited, but I am certainly aware of the great deal of work that is being done on child care and the intermediate labour market in making those who have particular needs aware of the opportunities available. I would be more than happy for my hon. Friend to write to me to follow up her point about that company.
It is clear that people already use certain electronic services and that there are real successes that we can learn from, such as the company in Cambridge that has just been described. At national level, NHS Direct Online receives 500,000 hits each month. Last year, Learn Direct reached more than 245,000 people, who enrolled on more than 57,000 educational courses. UK Online is the Government's fastest-growing website, with an average of 119 per cent. growth per month. More than 500,000 people use it each month. If websites are user-friendly, reliable, secure and effective, people will use them. That is the lesson from websites in the commercial sector, such as Amazon or easyJet, to name just two successes in recent years.
Our e-transformation policy aims to meet the needs of the citizen, not just by tacking online capabilities on to old systems, but by developing new, creative, easy to use sites that are designed, end to end, around those needs. We are working to get Government services to the citizenry online by 2005 and we will, as the Prime Minister made clear at the e-summit on 29 November, also focus on driving up access in key areas, such as the NHS, education, transport, benefits, tax and criminal justice. For example, some services will enable drivers to conduct all their dealings with Government online, including those relating to tax discs, vehicle registration and driving licence applications.
Mr. Greg Knight: How often, on average, are the Government's websites updated? Is there a best practice rule on that? If not, should there be one?
Mr. Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I have already made it clear that

311WH
information contained on websites should not just be of interest to the customer, but should he kept up to date. A range of work, which is led by the Office of the e-Envoy, is taking place to ensure that Government sites reflect the developing practice in the private sector, and that they capture essential information for citizens to access. Perhaps the best recent examples of that are the UK online site and the ongoing success of NHS Direct Online. Even the private sector has recognised that that is a genuine, pioneering initiative from the British Government. Such sites are increasingly popular with the citizenry, and could be a model for the services that we will need to develop in the years to come.
We will invest in the NHS to create a national integrated care record system, an electronic prescription service and an electronic appointments booking service. We already know what can be achieved. During recent Cabinet Office questions, I mentioned that the transfer of pathology information in a Stockport general practice has already reduced the average time taken between requesting tests and receiving the results from 12 working days to three. Those results are automatically incorporated into patient records.
There are considerable opportunities for the criminal justice system. We are building a future in which victims of violent crime may participate in a trial through video-conferencing, and witnesses and police officers may be called to give evidence by text message, pager or e-mail, rather than have to wait at court for days at a time until they are called to give evidence. That could free up thousands of police days that are currently wasted in waiting to give evidence, and it could save millions of pounds by reducing the number of trials that need to be reconvened after witnesses have given up and gone home, or back to work, thereby causing original trials to be abandoned.
To achieve such a transformation in service delivery requires work from the Government in three areas. First, on investment, I shall inform hon. Members of the scale of the resources that we are committing to this endeavour. Under the spending review settlement, £6 billion will be invested in information and communications technology throughout the coming years. Some £1 billion will be invested in networking our public services. That applies to every primary and secondary school, and it means broadband connectivity for every GP practice, hospital and primary healthcare trust in the country. That will provide higher bandwidth throughout the entire criminal justice system and across the network of offices that forms the Department for Work and Pensions.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I am buoyed by the Minister's figures, but I seek an assurance that when he talks about linking every school he means the whole United Kingdom, not just England and Wales.
Mr. Alexander: It would be a rare debate indeed if my hon. Friend did not rise to his feet immediately the word "broadband" was uttered to ensure that Scotland was duly represented. He knows that I have a strong family connection with the policy of the Scottish Executive. My sister formerly served as the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and she led on the issue of broadband roll-out in Scotland.
312WH
My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that we face particular challenges in certain localities in the central belt and in rural areas of Scotland. The approach that the British Government have adopted, which has been echoed in the approach adopted in certain initiatives of the Scottish Executive, is correct and will help to maintain platform neutrality on the issue of broadband connectivity.
I shall explain what I mean by that by offering an example. Some areas of the Scottish highlands and islands do not currently have the infrastructure that we would like, and there are a diverse range of primary schools many of which are in remote locations. There may be an argument for using satellite technology to provide broadband connectivity rather than a simple ADSL or cable modem connection.
The virtues of the spending review decisions were that they allowed for decisions to be made within Departments—the constitutional reality is that judgments on educational policy and the networking of educational institutions in Scotland rest with the Scottish Executive—and they ensured that we did not create a broadband fund that is separate from mainstream education or health expenditure, for which some hon. Gentlemen would certainly have argued for. I strongly believed that we needed to maintain an open and competitive marketplace in broadband, and we are currently driving up the number of connections that we are securing from individual subscribers in the UK month by month. I also believed that we needed to ensure that broadband became a central part of the thinking of each of the main Government Departments, and that is undoubtedly true of the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health—and, I am glad to say, the Scottish Executive, as a report by Digital Scotland Task Force makes clear.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend accept that many businesses in rural areas in England, such as those in my constituency, are having to move from their current locations because broadband is unavailable to them, so they are now uncompetitive? Such businesses in my constituency welcome the East of England Development Agency's lottery—they want to see whether they can get some additional profile for their broadband needs—but the idea that they might eventually get a satellite link fills them with horror.
Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend clearly articulates the views of constituents and business organisations in his constituency. I suggest that it might be of interest to those businesses if they were to study the example that is already developing in Northern Ireland. In conjunction with the Northern Ireland Executive, a satellite project has been developed whereby satellite links have been offered to small and medium-sized enterprises. The reports that I have received—partly in my previous incarnation as a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, but also as a result of the ongoing work of the Northern Ireland Executive—suggest that, if an appropriate pricing mechanism can be found, satellite can provide an appropriate and useful technology for remote and small and medium-sized businesses that are spread across a geographic locality.
My hon. Friend made an important point. We must continue not only to drive up the numbers of subscribers to broadband, but to drive outwards the range of

313WH
networks that are available. One of the legacies of my time at the DTI was a broadband development fund that was specifically charged with supporting the work of the regional development agencies, because often RDAs best understand the particular needs of their localities. I was keen to ensure that we were not overly prescriptive on how that money should be spent. The challenges that I set for the regional development agencies at that time were to identify how they could drive up levels of usage and drive outwards the networks in their localities, and to ensure that the solutions that they individually devised were scalable nationally.
We are still on a learning curve with broadband, and there is a genuine and exciting opportunity for the best practice that is developed in places such as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Yorkshire to be learned in the east of England, and vice versa. One of the interesting developments of broadband is that, as we continue to drive up the numbers who use it and widen the extent of the networks, there will be increased opportunities for best practice to be shared between RDAs. If my hon. Friend has particular enduring concerns about the work that is being undertaken in the east of England, it might well be worth him raising them with my hon. Friend and colleague the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness at the DTI.
David Cairns: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answers—in particular to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty)—and I appreciate the Government's neutrality as regards the platform. However, I wish to press him a little on ADSL, which is in the forefront of many of our constituents' minds. Is he entirely happy with the current commercial strategy of BT, which has a trigger mechanism of 400 in both Wemyss Bay—which is a very small village that he knows well—and in Greenock, which is many times larger? Does that not disadvantage people who live in smaller communities?
Mr. Alexander: An interesting point has been raised by my hon. Friend, who represents a neighbouring constituency to mine. As he may imagine, I have a particular interest in broadband roll-out in the west of Scotland. I would first pay due tribute to the work of BT, because for several months, and indeed during most of my tenure at the Department of Trade and Industry, I was one of the sternest critics of the pricing strategy that it was adopting on broadband. In the light of some of the comments I shall make in due course, it would only be fair to acknowledge that progress has undoubtedly been made. As for the pricing strategy to be adopted, I wanted fair but competitive and lower prices, and I think that real progress has been made on that. I was also keen to ensure that broadband featured prominently in the future thinking of what is still a major telecoms provider in the United Kingdom.
I was heartened that the model that BT has adopted was drawn from best practice, which I think was from Germany originally. It may be helpful to remind the
314WH
Chamber that BT's previous position was to identify a certain number of exchanges throughout the country that were to be broadband-enabled. The effect of that was inevitably somewhat arbitrary. Once it had reached the target, but did not feel that it was sufficiently profitable, it did not feel a commercial obligation to continue beyond that.
In intense discussions between officials, BT and myself, we highlighted the situation in Germany, which allowed the market to lead the roll-out of broadband. Although there are particular regulatory differences between the British and German situations, one lesson that was helpfully learned was that, if there is a demand in a particular area, it should be reasonable for BT to service that demand. I understand that the facility on the BT site at the moment allows someone to register an interest in obtaining a BT service, so that ADSL can thereafter be enabled.
The point that was made about digital inclusion remains important. In that regard, I identify the work that has been undertaken by the UK online centres. I recently visited two computer learning centres in Paisley. I had the privilege of opening one of them, which is in close proximity to both Wemyss Bay and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns). What allowed a link to be established was the procurement by the computer learning centre of a broadband connection which, in turn, e-enabled and gave a broadband connection to the surrounding community.
When I visited the computer learning services in the west of Scotland, I was greatly inspired by the accessibility and services that could be provided by a broadband connection. Perhaps I should have emphasised more strongly my point about the level of resources that have been committed. The real prize out of the billions of pounds being spent by the Government in the months to come will be to secure not only large-scale procurement but smart procurement, which unlocks other market potential.
For example, if we can ensure that broadband connectivity in a locality is achieved through the Department of Health, through GPs' surgeries or local trusts, in a manner that is suitable and is in tandem with the work that is being taken forward in education, it is easy to envisage a future whereby the public sector demand could make provision for the private sector. In that sense, the point that my hon. Friend makes is well taken, but it strengthens the case for the digital inclusion work that the Government are undertaking—allied to the fact that broadband procurement is resting strongly within departmental budgets, rather than being seen as a discrete, self-identified fund that is remote from health and education provision.
Given the scale of the investment that I have identified, it is only fair to acknowledge that the second area where I think ongoing work needs to be taken forward is strong project management. Following the direction given by the Prime Minister in his speech to the e-summit in November, I can today announce new measures that will improve the Government's approach

315WH
to IT projects and will build on the work already in place to ensure that, whenever possible, large IT projects will be better managed, procured more smartly and delivered on time and within budget.
The Office of Government Commerce will work closely with Departments on measures such as the setting up of centres of excellence to share best practice, thorough risk-assessment projects, the identification of common causes of failures of past IT projects and greater clarity and responsibility in project management. That will go a long way towards delivering effective and reliable IT projects in the future.
Mr. Richard Allan: The industry has welcomed the establishment by the Government of the Office of Government Commerce's gateway review process, whereby projects are evaluated independently. Will the Minister tell us whether the intention is that the gateway review should be mandatory or only advisory? Should we be concerned if we hear of projects costing several millions that have been red-lighted by the gateway review?
Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies the significance of the gateway review process that is being taken forward within Government by the Office of Government Commerce. One of the greatest successes of the gateway process, which has been running for a limited time, is not just the degree to which it has been recognised as a legitimate function at the centre of the Office of Government Commerce to scrutinise work that is being developed, but the degree to which it assists Departments in their information technology project management. The announcement that I have made on the directions that the Prime Minister gave in the e-summit are viewed as the logical extension of the gateway review process.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I described exactly what the gateway review process involves. It is a technique drawn from best practice in the private sector, and is led by the Office of Government Commerce. In a recent article in The Economist, the gateway review process was referred to as "almost mythical". The gateway review is a series of stages that need to be crossed, and at each stage effective scrutiny of how the project is advancing is offered by a group outside the relevant Department.
A key element of the gateway review is that, when cause for concern is found, a process is put in place to make sure that capacity can be built up to address it. The measures that I have identified today will work in tandem with the gateway review process to improve not just identification of problems but the capacity to address them, both in Departments and in the Office of Government Commerce. Reports of the Public Accounts Committee clearly identified the need for specific leadership in Departments on projects. If I had to identify one issue that has emerged in the more critical gateway reviews, it would be the lack of clarity about leadership in Departments.
The gateway review process helpfully identifies difficulties. The raft of measures that we will introduce to strengthen that process will build on its success and will take our work forward. The hon. Member for
316WH
Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and others scrutinising the work of the Government on major IT procurement will notice that any major IT project of significant scale will have exactly the checks and scrutiny that would be found in corporate sectors. Also, and perfectly reasonably, we have an obligation to uphold on value for money. Incidentally, it is worth while recognising that the Office of Government Commerce comes under the Treasury with regard to securing its primary function of providing value for money.
It is difficult to take forward the work of project management without recognising that there are related issues, such as diversity of suppliers. Value for money is a key matter that the Office of Government Commerce will continue to develop. I hope that I have been able to give some assurance to the hon. Gentleman that there will be the necessary scrutiny of major IT projects. That will supplement, rather than undermine, the gateway process.
Mr. Allan: Will the Minister make it clear that Departments can go ahead with projects even if the gateway process states that those projects have weaknesses? Will the Minister be happy for that knowledge to come into the public domain, so that if a project went ahead against the advice of the gateway review process, we would know about it and could criticise the decision?
Mr. Alexander: Of course, departmental Ministers remain accountable to the House of Commons and have to answer for the actions of officials. There are issues relating to the accounting officer. That officer would have to explain why, in the light of the findings of the gateway review, a decision had been taken to proceed with no catch-up plan to allow the project to get back on track. Certainly, following the gateway review's advice is encouraged, if not mandatory. We look ahead to the scale of investment that will be made, and the allocations of the comprehensive spending review. The discrete gateway review process and the work that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister charged us with in November, which will be started off by some of the announcements made today, show the degree to which a greater, and not a weakening, grip is being exerted on the projects.
Dr. John Pugh: The Minister has just said that the gateway review process recommendations were not mandatory, but he was asked a second question, which was whether a failure in the vetting process would come into the public domain, and he has not answered that. If a decision were not approved, would the public, and not just the accounting officer of the relevant Department, know?
Mr. Alexander: The Public Accounts Committee has trawled over a number of major IT projects. It is the enduring responsibility of every departmental Minister, not only me, to account for their actions before Committees of the House and the House itself. Criticisms may be levelled at the Government, but not being subject to the scrutiny of Parliament is not one of them. There are several PAC reports on the issue and, given the scale of Government investment, it will be an area of continuing interest to many Committees in the future.

317WH
I am conscious that I am in danger of contradicting my earlier undertaking not to speak for too long in my opening remarks. Perhaps that is a fault shared by many hon. Members. It is therefore appropriate for me to try to make progress towards a conclusion.
To supplement the point that I made about the efficiency of IT procurement, I should say that the Government have a responsibility to provide efficiency, but we must also address the issue of equity mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde. For citizens to use services online they must, of course, have access to the internet. That is why I am pleased that we have exceeded our target of 6,000 UK online centres by the end of 2002. Those centres provide low or no-cost internet access and training, and a crucial entry point for those unable to afford personal computers or broadband connections.
Mr. David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way. He has been commendably generous and I shall try not to delay him and the rest of my colleagues for long. I am grateful that we have been able to draw down money from the invest-to-save budget to make local government services more accessible in Gloucestershire. However, is there not a conflict between making local government accessible to the general public and the work that the Post Office is conducting? Would it not be sensible to ensure that local government and sub-post offices work more closely together, otherwise a real opportunity will be lost?
Mr. Alexander: In the context of the debate, it would only be fair to mention the work undertaken by local government on e-government and the provision of services online. I recently attended a major international conference in Berlin and spoke to Thomas M. Siebel of Siebel Systems—a major provider of services to the IT community and to Governments throughout the world. When I was identified as a member of the British Government, he first wanted to make me aware of the pioneering work being done by local government, not in a single locality but throughout Britain. He was keen to say that, on the basis of the international experience that he had garnered, we had some pioneers in Britain. His point about providing services online through local government is an important one.
When I was at the Department of Trade and Industry, I was responsible for postal matters. I was keen to ensure that there was close liaison between Whitehall and the Post Office to discuss some of the thinking that was evolving in the Post Office about the provision of services. I facilitated conversations between the Office of the e-Envoy, which took a broad remit throughout Whitehall, and the Post Office.
I have to confess that, given my changed departmental responsibilities, I am not fully appraised of the stage that such conversations have reached. If it would help, I will make my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who may have a particular constituency angle that he is keen to pursue.
Mr. Connarty: I thought that the Minister was going to answer the question about the role of post offices. In my meeting with the National Federation of Sub-
318WH
Postmasters, concern was expressed that the pilot scheme using sub-post offices as points of access to Government information seems to have been terminated without explanation. Is it no longer the Government's intention to allow people to use sub-post offices to get information about Government services online?
Mr. Alexander: Again, I am wary of treading on the terrain of my colleague in the Department of Trade and Industry. I understand that the scheme on the provision of online services was piloted under the Government's general practitioner programme in the Rutland area of Leicestershire, and has come to a conclusion. The original intention was that the pilot was to run for a limited time.
I previously held departmental responsibility for that pilot, and issues were raised, such as how to ensure that the service was attractive to sub-postmasters and provided value for money for other Whitehall Departments. If there was a vulnerability in the development of the service, it was not that individual sub-postmasters in the Rutland area did not identify that the service was popular. The problem was how to translate that into either increased footfall or greater use of services—identifying value for money for sub-postmasters and how they would profit from the services. Identifying how value-for-money propositions could be offered to individual Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions was the substance of discussions between the Post Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and other Government Departments.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. The Chair is not able to participate in the debate, but I might be more involved if the Minister addressed more of his remarks to the front rather than to the rear of Westminster Hall. I am fascinated not only by his accent but by what he is saying.
Mr. Alexander: I hope that you will forgive me for the discourtesy, Sir Nicholas. It is a great honour for you to suggest that what I have to say may be of interest. I am not sure that such an opinion would be shared on both sides of the Chamber. Perhaps with that all-too-trite remark, I should more gracefully conclude my remarks.
I hope that I have managed to communicate not only the scale of investment but the commitment of the Government to driving forward with work on the e-enablement of public services right across the piece—from local government to key Departments such as the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. I will be interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friends and of other colleagues. We still have work to do on information technology project management and on making further progress on the equity issue. I look forward to the rest of the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Clearly, many hon. Members wish to participate, whether by speaking or by intervening. With good sense and discipline, all hon. Members will be able to participate. With permission, the Minister will want to make a few remarks at the end of the debate.
3.1 pm
Sir George Young: This is not the first time that I have heard the Minister speak on this subject. As on earlier occasions, I have been enormously impressed by his enthusiasm for it and by his grip on the technology. His appointment certainly put a round peg in a round hole.
I endorse the view that the Minister set out at the beginning of his remarks. The United Kingdom should be a leader in this technology, in government and the public services as well as in commerce and entertainment. However, my experience and investigations suggest that, as well as the achievements and triumphs that the Minister mentioned, there are one or two defects in the present e-government strategy and a large question mark over the Government's plans for the development and use of the necessary infrastructure—a point that was touched on during interventions in his speech.
We certainly need reform and transformation in the machinery of government and the delivery of our public services. Many services are inaccessible, unresponsive and inefficient. The internet can play an important part. However, I am suspicious of the current fashion for adding an "e" at the front of words. It can be misleading and unhelpful. It is all to easy to be caught up in the latest fashion and waste both time and money following it, delivering little benefit to the end user while overlooking some basic and elementary steps that can bring immediate gains.
Members of Parliament may be guilty of some mistakes. A number of colleagues have invested in websites but then lost interest and not updated them for months or, in some cases, years. At the other end of the spectrum, a number of colleagues still do not offer their constituents an e-mail address. We are rightly cautious about passing judgment on how colleagues interface with their constituents, but I would say to colleagues whose constituents cannot reach them by e-mail that their constituents are now sending e-mail messages to MPs who have an e-mail address and asking them to print them out and pass them on. I received such a request yesterday. I do not expect my colleagues to take my telephone messages, so I do not expect to have to take their e-mails.
For most people, e-transformation suggests the use of the internet as a delivery and access mechanism. I think that that is the main thrust of Government policy. Departments, public services and local government are all being urged, and in many cases instructed, to
"make all services available electronically by 2005."
That is a great soundbite, but I wonder whether the strategy is right.
Too high a proportion of the services concerned are of poor quality and are badly managed and organised; they fail to deliver good results on either cost or quality. In my view, a service must be inherently efficient before it makes sense to add internet access to the existing access methods. If one puts a badly run service on the internet, it simply enables everyone to find out more quickly how bad it is.
Mr. Chris Mole: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although they might not provide the impetus for change themselves, electronic solutions
320WH
provide the opportunity for an agency or body to grapple with fundamental management issues and to review thoroughly its modus operandi and change the way in which it does its business?
Sir George Young: There is some force behind the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is still better for a body to put its house in order before adding internet access rather than to use internet access as a catalyst for change. There might be a case for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but I would prefer things to happen in the tidier way that I outlined.
The Prime Minister is committed to providing
"broadband connectivity for every GP surgery, every hospital, and every Primary Care Trust in the country."
I welcome that objective, but people in the health service say that the use of computers and telecommunications in the health service is pretty primitive. That might be a reason why so much new spending goes on administration rather than treatment. What would be the effect of investing scarce resources and funds to allow patients to find out from the internet how long they must wait for an operation?
The soundbite that I mentioned ignores the need to be selective about the online services that will be most useful to the public and that will save the most for the public purse. There should also be selection based on the services that make sense in terms of available technology and the extent to which citizens are able and willing to use services. There is a need to prioritise. For example, I was delighted recently to find that rather than making the long, arduous journey to any post office or using the phone, I can now buy a fishing rod licence over the internet. I suspect that the average citizen would be more interested in being able to renew a tax disc over the internet. The Minister touched on that, and I hope that the scheme will move forward. I am not sure whether the Home Secretary's announcement yesterday about voluntary entitlement to an identity card could take that a stage further by giving each citizen a unique number to use in his or her transactions with the Government.
Mr. Robert Walter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I tried to file my tax return on the internet two weeks ago but I was told that Members of Parliament were not entitled to do that?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is psychic because along with millions of fellow citizens, I received my PAYE coding notice a few days ago. It made heroic assumptions about next year's income, which I wish I shared. The name and address of my inspector of taxes—probably the same inspector of taxes as that of other hon. Members—was at the top of the letter. Lower down the letter was his telephone number, which looks expensive to call because he is based in Cardiff. However, no e-mail address was given. At a time when many of us carry out routine business such as querying a tax code by e-mail, that option is not available.
I received a leaflet last year urging me to file my self-assessment tax return via the internet. I was given five compelling reasons why I should do that, including the fact that the form would be returned faster, which is an advantage, I suppose, and the fact that any money

321WH
would be repaid sooner. That was followed by a letter from my inspector of taxes, which is probably the document to which my hon. Friend refers, saying that because MPs have special dedicated pages covering their income, allowances and expenses:
"it is not possible to file Returns electronically."
I gather that the same exclusion applies to several other groups of taxpayers.
People with more than one employer have to correspond every year with the Inland Revenue at Longbenton to determine which employer will deduct national insurance contributions. That could be done perfectly well by e-mail in order to save a tedious exchange of letters, but it is not possible.
The Pension Service offers our constituents the facility of forecasting their retirement pensions. Why can people not tap in their national insurance number and relevant details online to find out what their pension will be instead of getting a form, filling it in and waiting?
The driving test is now in two parts: theory and practical. One test can be booked over the internet but the other cannot. I cannot find out on the internet which NHS medical practices are accepting patients. It seems that local general practitioners are even shyer than many MPs when it comes to providing an e-mail address.
I was pleased to discover from the Department of Health website that form E111—which would be useful if I were knocked off my bicycle in any part of the European economic area, is available—but I still have to go to a main post office to fill in another form as well as the E111.
There are, however, some good results. Top marks to the TV licensing authority; I can buy a TV licence over the internet. One of the Departments has enabled me to get a form to register a vote on the internet. There are, therefore, some achievements.
I looked at the Department of Trade and Industry site this morning and clicked on a seductive page offering the full text of ministerial speeches for one day, including a speech to the Insolvency Lawyers' Association. However, either the page has not been updated for over a month, or Ministers have been mute since 11 December, when Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean addressed an audience in Cleveland in the United States. A coherent approach would be to ask the public what transactions they would like to be available, and examine whether those could be delivered. That would be better than the less structured approach of stipulating a deadline by which all transactions must be available.
My final point—I am responding to your injunction to be brief, Sir Nicholas—is the most important one. To what extent do we believe that some citizens can and will access and use public services online? The Minister referred to that towards the end of his speech. Last year's report by the National Audit Office expressed considerable concern about it, and the more recent note by the House of Commons Library staff reinforces that concern.
322WH
Local authorities have been busy in the past two years responding to the Government's requirement that they, too, put all their services online by 2005. Looking through some of those local government plans, one is struck by the consistency with which it is reported that broadband internet rather than ordinary dial-up will be needed to make sense of such a strategy.
The Government have spoken a lot about broadband, but there are no effective plans to ensure that it will be made available to citizens across the country by 2005, or indeed according to any other timetable. It is obvious that online access to services is most important and attractive to those who have to travel furthest to obtain those services by any other means—those who live in rural areas. My rural constituents are already up in arms because they cannot get the broadband services that are being promoted so enthusiastically by the Government and others. Broadband is available in Andover and Tadley in my constituency, but more than half of my constituents do not live in those two towns, and therefore cannot get broadband. In many areas, there is no expectation that we will be able to get broadband on an equivalent basis to people in the cities.
I heard what the Minister said about satellite, but I am not sure that that is an acceptable alternative, as it tends to be a fast link one way and a telephone link the other way. It strikes me that the best approach, if one can overcome the regulatory hurdles and deal with the problems about neutrality of platform, is to get BT to enable the exchanges and to bring broadband to them in the way in which most people have it in the cities.
Mr. McWalter: Has the right hon. Gentleman managed to obtain any assessment of how expensive it is to update an exchange? Once that becomes a fairly standard operation, it ought to be possible to upgrade most exchanges in villages. The Government, the regional development agencies and others ought to be able to give assistance on that, to ensure that it can take place universally. That is the only way of achieving universality in these services.
Sir George Young: The answer, as I expect that BT would tell the hon. Gentleman, is that the cost depends on which exchange, its proximity, and how far BT needs to back up the service. My view is that broadband should be considered a universal service, such as telephone, water and other utilities. I believe that the approach adopted should be based on an entitlement to broadband rather than the alternative approach, which is that we should let the market speak, and that somehow it will all sort itself out. However, that may not be a policy which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) finds himself able to endorse.
Mr. Drew: I should like to clarify the picture with regard to a set threshold. One of the problems in rural areas is that the smaller the area is, the higher the threshold that needs to be achieved to break through the magic number. Following my discussions with BT, I understand that an additional problem is beginning to occur—low take-up once ADSL has been put in place. I am concerned that, if there is not a good level of take-

323WH
up, partly because people are obsessed with the threshold, there will be a double whammy against the benefit.
Sir George Young: When we have this dialogue with BT, it tells us that take-up is pitifully low in areas where it has provided broadband, and asks why it should expand the service in rural areas before it can increase it in the towns. We may have a role to play in encouraging take-up through our chambers of commerce and our businesses to knock out the alibi that BT tends to use.
The Government have made optimistic statements on broadband, but no commitment. A senior BT executive says that he
"believes that by mid-2005 broadband services could be available to about 90 per cent. of households in the country."
It so happens that 90 per cent. of the population live in urban areas, and 10 per cent. in rural areas, which will not overcome the problem.
In November, the Prime Minister told the e-summit, to which the Minister referred, that
"too many of Britain's public services live in the technological dark ages".
I endorse that comment.
To conclude, we need a prioritised approach to putting services online rather than a deadline for all them. That should be linked to a more coherent strategy for ensuring that services are as available to people who live in rural areas as they are to those who live in towns. I will be the first to champion the Government's strategy if we can reach both those targets.
3.15 pm
David Cairns: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on an outstanding opening speech. He need have no worries about leaving the Chamber for half an hour.
I want to expand on some of the excellent points made by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). He is on to something with his warning not to adopt a tick-box attitude to which services are put online. We should start by finding out what services people want, need and will use, and not set about automating the past simply by sticking things on to the internet and calling that e-transformation. I hope that my first remarks of the afternoon will be understood in the context that e-transformation involves a radical change of mindset, not simply a series of technical exercises.
I was delighted to hear the Minister put the needs of the customer of public services at the heart of his statement. He said, rightly, that people expect and demand the highest quality of interaction with the private sector, which includes banks, building societies, Amazon.com, and in all the other ways in which we interact. Second-rate services from the public sector will no longer be tolerated. The needs of the customer, not the needs, desires or time scales of the producers, should be at the heart of the debate.
As the Minister said, the Government have a clear agenda of investment in and reform of public services. I was pleased to hear him re-emphasise the £6 billion
324WH
investment in ICT which is part of the latest investment round, but he is right to point out that e-transformation is not simply a question of money, important though that is. The Prime Minister made it clear that we must combine that investment with reform if we are to achieve our goal. As the Minister said, we need money and reform.
E-transformation is not a technical exercise, and I am delighted to note that not a single anorak is draped over a chair in the Chamber this afternoon. It must be at the heart of the Government's agenda for reform in the services that we offer to our customers and our voters. The opportunities presented by IT and the internet are enormous, and we have only begun to understand them fully. Britain has some of the world's best IT companies and British consumers are among the fastest in Europe to adapt to using new technology. People have become used to dealing with the technology. Twenty years ago, people in my constituency were likely to be working with their hands in the shipyards. Today, those same people are working with PCs, and people who never knew heavy industry are using IT skills from a young age.
The fundamental questions of the debate are: what can we achieve by applying new technology more creatively to the way in which we deliver public services, and why is it necessary? Owing to time constraints, I am not sure that we have quite made the case for why e-transformation is necessary and what benefits might accrue from it. I shall choose one solitary example of why a radical e-transformation of Government services is long overdue.
About 80 per cent. of Government services are delivered by local councils—housing benefit, for example, is administered locally, but under national rules. However, as this month's Audit Scotland report shows, the variation of performance among Scottish councils alone is breathtaking. The time taken to process a housing benefit claim in Scotland ranges from 17 to 106 days. Processing a change of circumstance form ranges from three to 49 days, and the proportion of renewal claims processed on time ranges from 99 per cent. to 25 per cent. That is just one example of one benefit delivered by one sector of government in a part of the United Kingdom that is relatively small in population terms. We could multiply that 100,000 times across the full range of services.
That performance is simply not good enough. A taxpayer who has paid for a service has the right to expect the same quality of service from the producer—in this case, the Government—whether he lives in Greenock, Renfrewshire or anywhere else in the UK. Every local authority with its own IT procurement and human resources department and its own legion of administrators is doing exactly the same thing, but clearly some are doing it very well, whereas others are not.
Many authorities are putting more of their services on their own websites. They would argue that they are making a greater effort to e-enable, but it is a classic example of automating the past and believing that once a technological face has been grafted on a service, the job of e-transforming has been done. That is not e-transformation.
A better example of the use of technology to transform the delivery of a service is telecare, through which doctors can monitor patients over the internet. I

325WH
read about a GP surgery that used digital cameras to photograph a patient's skin, stored the photos on a laptop and sent them off to a dermatologist to decide what treatment, if any, was needed. The North Manchester primary care group has, through teleconsultations, reduced its waiting time to see a dermatologist from an average of 18 months to 17 days. That—not filling in a form online to wait in a queue to gain access to a consultant's surgery—is e-transforming services. It is all about using the technology radically to alter the way in which the service is provided.
I understand the Minister's difficulty. Sadly, he does not run every local council and every NHS trust. [Interruption.] I would be delighted if my hon. Friend took control over several local authorities and NHS trusts that I can think of, but I will pass on from that.
We have, rightly, given local bodies greater control over their own budgets and more freedom to direct their own affairs, but I must tell the Minister that at some point, such fragmentation will stand in the way of e-transformation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged that in what I take to be a change in Government strategy towards IT in the NHS, at least in England and Wales, where it will not be pushed down to local level but kept at the centre. If we want the e-transformation of public services, we will have to follow that example.
Organisations should be able to adapt to continuous change as a way of life. Far more important than large-scale, expensive and vulnerable single-change projects for the future—putting bits and pieces online—is a mentality that adapts to continuous change and to the challenges of continuous scientific and technological breakthroughs. We need make that step change only once.
Internal reform is vital, but the project will not be complete until the individual customer of Government services can access and interact with them in a fast, secure and convenient way. Almost every hon. Member who has intervened so far has made that point. In the past three years, access to the internet via home computers has more than doubled. Some 11.4 million households—46 per cent.—are now online, and nearly 1 million have been added to that total in the past year alone.
My constituency is top of Scotland's league for home internet use. More than half of households go online for half an hour or more every day, which puts us sixth top in the entire United Kingdom. That is in part because Inverclyde is heavily associated with electronics and the IT sector, but, like many places, it is not without its share of social problems. It is surely no coincidence that the highest take-up of the internet is in London and the south-east, where more than half the population have internet access, and the lowest is in Northern Ireland and Wales, where less than one third do. Furthermore, home internet access is available in four out of five of the richest 10 per cent. of households, but only one in five of the poorest and second and third poorest 10 per cent. of households.
How do we improve those numbers? Some 30 per cent. of people have never used a computer, and it is fair bet that those people come from the most disadvantaged social groups. One important question is whether there is a future in accessing the internet through digital
326WH
television, and I hope that the Minister has time to address that in his winding-up speech. I appreciate that the take-up of digital television is another debate for another occasion, but there may be an important lesson to be learned. Although 30 per cent. of people have never used a PC, the percentage of people who have never used a television must be zero, so a medium may be readily available that requires no learning of specialist skills. That point was made by the e-envoy last year, when he urged:
"Government at all levels…should evaluate Digital TV as a key channel for e-government using the strengths of this medium to deliver richer services and inclusivity."
One of the biggest problems of access is that we are trying to deliver the e-agenda to an audience that is using the same technology that was used decades ago. Dial-up modems have been in use since the 1960s, and we have all experienced the frustration that they entail. As we have heard said, broadband is becoming more widespread, and I will not repeat other Members' remarks other than to say that I was intrigued to see a survey of trendsetters in last weekend's The Sunday Times. I am not sure how it measured trendsetters—no one asked me, so I assume that I am not one—but the survey showed that the must-have buy for trendsetters in 2003 is a broadband internet connection.
Too many hurdles are still in the way. Despite the fact that my constituency is the top in Scotland for internet access, we do not have ADSL, and looking at the most recent figures on the BT website, we are miles away from it. However, I commend the Minister's commitment and the Prime Minister's announcement of a new UK broadband taskforce at last year's e-summit.
The challenges that we face are great, but at least we have the opportunity to examine businesses that have gone through the e-transformation already and see whether we can learn any lessons. Many private sector businesses have undergone such a transformation, and I should like to offer a brief example of one business in my constituency that has undergone a global e-transformation. As the Minister knows, IBM has a large presence in Greenock, and I was happy to meet company representatives to discuss their global e-transformation to see what lessons we could learn as a Government. They said that 10 years ago IBM was
"inward focussed, slow to react to environment changes or customer demands, and wasteful because of all the inherent duplication within its separate fiefdoms."
I do not know whether that rings any bells in the Minister's head. IBM then set about transforming its business. I was told that e-transformation is virtually complete and that the gains and efficiency; to use IBM's term, have created an unstoppable momentum.
I will not dwell too long on that example, as I appreciate that time is of the essence, but I was told that when, to use IBM's term, an organisation is heavily "siloed"—when it has pushed down its budgets as far as possible and has given individual fiefdoms as much autonomy as IBM had by the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, that is a huge barrier to e-transformation. I offer the Minister my thought that pushing powers down the line is good in itself, but it may be counter-productive in the long term.
IBM has 350,000 employees. It is not the size of our civil service, but it is not far off it. There are parallels to be drawn, and if we can extract the best processes of

327WH
companies such as IBM and combine them with the political will to implement e-transformation, our public services will be more customer-focused and accessible. However, that must come with a warning: the Government need to implement equivalent organisational improvement rapidly if they are not to become a drag on companies working and investing in the United Kingdom.
I conclude by reflecting on one of the most extraordinary comments that I have read. Speaking at last year's e-summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that e-transformation was
"the key long-term economic and social challenge for our country."
When considered alongside the mountain of other challenges that the country faces, that is an extraordinary statement. To those of us who believe that massive improvements to our constituents' quality of life can be achieved through the better use of modern technology and a radical new mindset, the Prime Minister's words are extraordinarily encouraging. The challenge now is to make that vision a reality.
3.30 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: I welcome the debate and the comments of the Minister who opened it. I have listened to him speak on several occasions, both at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Cabinet Office. Indeed, I have followed him along that route. My shadow responsibility makes me feel like a cyber-stalker. I am missing discussions on digital television roll-out in the Communications Bill Committee, but I thought that it was important to be here and talk about the e-transformation of the Government, which is not something that we often debate in Parliament. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) is in Committee, but he has to deal with amendments.
This is a cross-party issue. Several hon. Members tend to come together on such subjects, as critical friends of the Government. The failure of the Government's large IT projects means poor services for citizens. That gives me no pleasure, other than the obvious opportunities for partisan debate, which do not take us too far forward.
The Minister rightly cited the background of a period of the dotcom boom, after which we moved to what is called the dotcon bust. In many cases, it was a con. The court cases on the stock exchange in New York demonstrate that issues were deliberately talked up. As for the public sector and e-government, we must welcome the opportunity to move away from the rhetoric about utopian visions, where "e" would deliver everything, to a sense of realism about what we are trying to achieve.
I want to speak about challenges and to focus on three matters. The term "putting services on line" covers a multitude of sins—from a telephone call centre to transactions on the internet. It is probably helpful to talk about such matters in the sense of services being available via the internet, which can mean many things: from web services to e-mail access and a range of transactional protocols.
328WH
I share many concerns that have been expressed about the crude nature of the Government's targets. Their target of all services being online by 2005 has perhaps led to e-decoration, not e-transformation, when a thin veneer of "e" is laid on top of the service, rather than fundamental changes being made to it. I congratulate the efforts of the e-Envoy and his office. They have been a step forward in raising the profile of such matters. The e-Envoy has been equipped with a crude and blunt instrument and has been told, "Go out there and get everything online by 2005. If you can tick the boxes, we have all met our targets and everything is okay." Well, if all the boxes are ticked, everything will not necessarily be okay.
A key issue is the user base by which to use internet services. We talk about the internet being available in the household as though that is equivalent to the number of people who will use the internet for the Government's services. Such figures run at anywhere between 45 and 55 per cent. and half the population certainly has internet access within the home. However, that makes them only potential users of the Government's services, not actual users. Let us consider the surveys that have been carried out.
In October 2002, an article in The Guardian showed that last year the number of Britons who claim to use e-government increased from 11 to 14 per cent. The analogue that I look at closely is the figure for people using online banking, which I think is quite accurate and which reflects well the social divide. At the end of December 2001, the figure for online-enabled bank accounts was some 8 per cent. of the total, which was probably analogous to the numbers who felt comfortable using online services from the Government at that point.
Let us consider the figures for online voting in the pilots that took place in May. In my constituency, which is quite affluent, the figure was about 15 per cent. In constituencies nearby in Sheffield that are significantly less affluent, the figure was about 2 per cent. That gives me the overall sense that on average 10 to 15 per cent. of people feel comfortable carrying out transactions online. The figures will be far lower in deprived areas and a little higher in more affluent areas. That leaves a market of some 85 per cent. of people interacting with the Government using other media.
That is not an argument for slowing down, because there are significant advantages to increasing that 10 to 15 per cent. and working with them. However, we need to bear those points in mind and not assume that, if a Government service is put online, half the people will use it. That was the mistaken attitude of the dotcom boom.
The Inland Revenue figures are helpful. I understand that the figures from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants in September last year were that only 113,000 people out of the 3.5 million people who had sent their returns to the Revenue by that stage had used the online self-assessment service. We can also consider international comparators. In Canada, for example, which has a smaller population than ours, some 2 million people a year file online, so we still have significant difficulties in getting people to use online services.

329WH
I understand that the Government are consulting on the future of the UK online site. There are design and structural questions to be answered about it. My figures show that there are 3,000 Government websites. The UK online concept is a first stab at trying to pull them together, but once someone goes beyond UK online, they start heading off towards lots of weird and wonderful other creations. Again, if we compare that with the Canadian Government online site, we find a far more coherent approach to life. It is far more centralised, but it makes sense to people.
I understand why people do not want to use the UK Government online services. I find using them difficult, so I have every sympathy with others who find that. Someone can reach UK online, search and find what they are looking for, but then they are in the hands of God knows who as they try to get the service done. It is a messy process.
Some of the advances that are necessary to increase the percentage that I mentioned are in the area of training. This is now not about having the kit, but about having the necessary skills. The British Computer Society has played a particularly important role in promoting the European computer driving licence, which I understand has been completed, or is being done, by more than 500,000 people in the UK. Such figures are important.
The other significant player was mentioned by the Minister. We in Sheffield know it as the university for industry, because it is based there, but it is known throughout the rest of the UK by the brand name of Learndirect. I visited people there recently, and it is now the biggest provider of online learning in the world. There was an international conference in Sheffield recently and it turned out that no one else had done what the university for industry has. There is huge potential for growth in this respect. That sort of initiative, which reaches hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of people, leads people to feel comfortable using online services.
I also want to mention the other nine tenths of the iceberg. If the bit that we see is the online bit, the other nine tenths are the back-office systems. Again, that reflects previous comments. The back-office systems are the most important; the website is the icing on the cake. Sadly, we have reversed that order of priorities in many cases. We have put the icing on the cake, but we have done nothing about the back-office systems.
We have been very successful in putting informational systems online, but it is widely recognised that transactional systems, which are the very tough ones, have not been dealt with. I think that it was the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) who highlighted that well with the list of services that he described. There is a common theme to all of those, which is the lack of a method for secure transactions between the public and the Government. I understand that work is ongoing on that, but it poses major questions. To tie it up with the ID card debate would worry me greatly.
There are reactions to ID cards and all sorts of questions relating to ID and the use of Government databases, which the Prime Minister has mentioned. That may act as a barrier to those transactions if people feel that the only way that they can get an ID is to sign
330WH
up to other things that they feel much less comfortable about. We must to be careful about a neutral secure ID for transactions between citizens and the Government that is not tied up with ID cards and Government databases that link everything together. If that is achievable, it may be more acceptable to the public than going ahead with an all-encompassing solution. I certainly have some nervousness about that.
The comparison with the banks is important. It is a good analogy to return to for many reasons. The banks have developed much more efficient back-office systems; they have a single back-office system and then multi-channel access. The primary channel is the bank branch, but when one goes into a branch one is served by an individual who accesses pretty much the same system one would if one went online or the call centre receptionist would if one phoned up. That kind of architecture is proving successful. I am worried that we may not have engineered these new highly efficient back-office systems in the public sector. We have created a webface to an old fashioned system. That back-office engineering is critical.
The challenges are in three key areas. The first is the capacity of suppliers to deliver. We have seen problems in the Child Support Agency system. The Government expressed a will to change the system for making CSA payments. The suppliers of the IT have been unable to deliver in the required time scale. We may increasingly find that to be a problem. I am particularly keen to see information technology impact assessment brought into our legislative process so that we think about this at an early stage. It is easy for us to come along and alter a system that will require a major IT system change that simply cannot be delivered. That causes all sorts of problems.
The housing benefit systems that were cited by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) are a good example of that. Local authorities such as Sheffield have contracted out the housing benefit systems, supposedly for greater efficiency. They brought in new mechanical systems to deal with that but they also introduced the housing benefit integrity project, which requires the collection annually of far more paperwork, causing huge delays. I can understand the reason for the housing benefit integrity project, but when constituents complain about waiting three, four, five or six months for a housing benefit payment, it is clear that the knock-on effect for people on the ground was not considered.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one innovation we could introduce is a statement of each Bill's e-implications, just as each Bill now has a statement under the Human Rights Act? We could analyse the e-implications of each Bill.
Mr. Allan: That is precisely along the lines I was suggesting. There needs to be some form of impact assessment. We look at the money implications. Every Bill has an attachment saying what it will cost. The proposal would not apply to every piece of legislation. It might not apply to criminal justice law, but where we are making major changes to social security, for example, we should not simply vote it through without being told what the systems impact will be.

331WH
The other example is the child passport question. We changed the law, for good reasons, to bring in child passports while implementing a new system in the Passport Agency. The results were obvious and everything screwed up. There are numerous other examples. Some things have moved forward. Digital signatures are now available. However, the secure-transaction questions need to be answered.
The third element that I want to touch on is the public service difference. We have not exploited that. The public sector can command extra effort because of the good will involved in it. We have not extracted that public sector benefit in the way that we do continually in health and education. It is seen as obvious there, but somehow not in IT. There is huge public value on the IT front in the intellectual property in all public services, but we too frequently cede it to others.
In some of the contracting models we have used we have tended to say, "You have the whole thing; IT is yours." The Inland Revenue is a classic example where we have ended up in a single propriety supply-dominant situation. The current feeling in the industry is that no one will even tender for the Inland Revenue contracts because we have locked ourselves in. We effectively cede the intellectual property and fail to take advantage of the large community of developers who work across the public sector and whose work we could build into.
I have welcomed the Government's open source policy across the Dispatch Box. It is important to consider it in terms not only of classic open source software—Linux, Apache or the programmes—but of methodology. One can build open solutions on propriety software and companies, such as IBM, have taken us a long way forward. Its entire product range is now available with Linux as a platform, but it is not going out of business and giving everything away; it is selling solutions based on open source. Important software companies, such as SAP, have moved on to the open source platforms.
There is huge benefit to be reaped from the public sector. For example, we can imagine the vast number of people who work on digital imaging in the NHS looking at how to move X-rays around. Their expertise should be shared openly, instead of our shovelling the cash in the direction of external companies which then own the property rights. We may want to employ external companies to do the coding, but we should own the intellectual property, share it within the community and reap the benefits.
Mr. McWalter: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about open source. I wonder whether he agrees that the Government need to direct that process. Instead of fragmentation with everyone developing their own systems, co-ordination is required so that the systems are pulled together and end up being more effective.
Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman is correct. What was positive about the Government's policy was that they spelled out certain areas where I hope that the Minister will indicate that they are making progress. In particular, they specified that the e-Envoy and the DTI should look at making all Government-funded R and D
332WH
work open source as a default model, which was clearly within their policy. They are also looking at the option of purchasing the propriety rights to software so that in the health service, for example, one might buy the rights to a good proprietary package and make it available to the developer community. All of those would be great steps forward.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively. IT and e-transformation have now moved to the top of the political agenda, particularly with the Government's stress on IT and the NHS. IT is normally a backwater, but the success or failure of the NHS in terms of the Government's political targets is now dependent on whether e-transformation is achieved. The success or failure of Government IT projects now becomes for the first time a critical political issue. It will affect whether Labour wins the next election.
When the Passport Agency systems went wrong, it was annoying. If the NHS systems do not improve, it will be more than annoying; it will be a political make-or-break issue for the Government. I welcome the fact that IT is at the top of the political agenda and look forward to the rest of the debate.
3.48 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I thank the Minister for his speech and commend him on his aggressive attitude and deep knowledge, which is rare. I agree with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that he is a round peg in a round hole. Along with the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, that makes two round pegs in round holes, which must be rare in government. That is welcome because we are giving the right impression to the industry and to our citizens, which is so important. We spent five years not giving the right signal, and I am glad that we are doing so now.
When I came to the House in 1997 I did not think that it could spell the word "internet". We were one of the last Parliaments to go online. Now we are one of the finest. The transformation in our parliamentary data and video network in the past five years has been sensational and its instigators should be commended. I wish that the House could speed up its love affair with e-transformation. Although we passed the digital signature in 1998, we still cannot use a digital signature in the House for early-day motions or anything else. That is deeply disappointing, as we are not giving a lead to the rest of the country.
The Minister said that we would shortly be able to get a car licence online. That will be a wonderful transformation as unfortunately—I am sorry if any Swansea Members are present—the organisation is a disaster. Will the Minister put the BBC collection of the television licence fee online, too? In fact, why not merge those two businesses and float it on the stock exchange? If that money could be hypothecated it would be a major contribution to even more e-business for the Government.
Several different licence fee collection points throughout government could be merged. It is a bit like the back-end operation to which the hon. Member for

333WH
Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred. As he said, if there is one back office we want lots of channels into it. Who in government looks at this sort of process? We are losing an opportunity to have more efficient services and to make some money.
I emphasise the telephony element of e-transformation because many at local government level know that we are moving to front-office telephony. I shall explain why it is first-phase rather than third-phase and why I am nervous about it. The Government introduced a new child tax credit three years ago; the form was three pages long. In April there will be a new child tax credit; the form consists of 14 pages. The people who have to give that information are generally less able and less well educated; they struggle to read and find filling in forms difficult.
The same applies to housing benefit. Half the trouble is that the Benefits Agency will come back six or seven times to a constituent, who is overwhelmed because he does not understand the forms. The call centre, rather than saying, in effect, "Hallo, how can I misdirect you?" could say, "Please may I have your pin number? Can you confirm your date of birth?" as the banks do online. The person could then ask, "How can we help you fill in the form?" If they did so, £2 billion or £3 billion would no longer remain unclaimed; the amount that people received would go up substantially. That would improve their quality of life. One of the reasons why we become politicians is to improve people's quality of life.
Is there a best practice website in the Cabinet Office that gives the best telephony system in Britain, the best unit system supplying the telephony and the best-trained call centre staff? Could there be an award scheme to give gold medals to those groups? People talk about X-rays being sent up and down the country; as an MP, I would love to know where to find the best digital X-ray system. Where would I find it? There should be a best practice website for the public sector so that we can learn from each other, because that is what the web is about.
I have long argued for the information technology brief to be held in the Cabinet Office, which is why I am thrilled that the Minister is present. However, there are some outstanding issues, although I am not sure how and why they crop up. For example, if I had not tabled a question in December about the failed Foreign and Commonwealth Office computer system, I do not think that Ministers would have known that it was failing. That is critical, because we are trying to change the way the Foreign Office works.
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and I were fortunate enough to be on a British-American parliamentary group visit to California. To our great surprise, we found that the regional development agencies—south-east is in San Diego, east midlands is in Los Angeles, there are three in silicon valley and one is in San Francisco—do not report to the consular general's offices in Los Angeles, Phoenix or San Francisco. That is complete madness. The community in the United States does not understand where Britain is half the time. It does not want different agencies; a front window should be open electronically for the Foreign Office in California. It is, after all, the sixth largest economy in the world. It matters how we are perceived in California.
Mr. Greg Knight: I am with the hon. Gentleman 100 per cent. on this iszsue. The scenario that he describes is
334WH
one of the United Kingdom not having a focused voice in America. Does he agree that the development agencies that are using public money to set up offices in California would be better advised to give grants to bring broadband to rural areas here in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Wyatt: I will discuss broadband in a moment. We have agencies overseas—the British Tourist Authority, the British Council, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and now we have regional development agencies. What the right hon. Gentleman suggests is not the message to send to overseas plc. Someone will have to get a handle on this. It is confusing and is complicating the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in its responsibilities to the Department of Trade and Industry.
I am not fond of the Child Support Agency, but I will not lay blame for it. I come from a business and media background and did not know in 1997 what CSA stood for. However, I took a huge interest in it because it was the subject of the biggest part of my mailbox. I then became part of a confidential team in my Department to change the law. Once a week or once a fortnight, I used to go to meetings with the Minister. In about April 1998, it was explained to us that we would be introducing a system in April 1999. I said, "Oh really? There are 1 million cases and there will be approximately 1 million more by next April. I do not know of a piece of software that can deal with that." One of the permanent officials turned to the Minister and said, "It's done."
The reason why things have been delayed is either that the secretariat in that Department does not understand software or that people were conned by somebody telling them, "No, don't worry. Two million cases is a piece of cake." Today is 16 January 2003 and the system has yet to be introduced. That represents four years of hell for people whose cases are dealt with by the CSA, which came about as a result of a horrible piece of legislation. The cause of the delay is a failure to consider the e-implications. We must have a deep look into those implications when we pass legislation.
Have any further advances been made on lottery terminals? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned bank terminals. Of course, bank terminals go down at midnight and are empty for six hours a day—that is an example of a potential back-end use. The Branson bid included a proposal to do most of the work on the post offices and the licence fees, but I have seen no movement whatever from Camelot.
Mr. Allan: I could not agree more about bank machines. Recently, I was in Spain and noticed that cinema and theatre tickets were being sold from bank terminals as if they were internet kiosks. The network is ready and waiting, and I hope that the Government will take advantage of it.
Mr. Wyatt: I could not agree more.
I want to talk now about UK online, which is just wonderful. It is the most amazing thing to be able to open, in the poorest areas of my own patch, four centres. They are full. It is incredible; it is an unnoticed revolution. I commend the Government for what they have done. However, we also have libraries and schools

335WH
that are online but not connected to each other. Schools close at 4 o'clock and libraries close at 5 o'clock and are not open on Sundays when children need access. The UK online centres are good because they are open all the time.
I would like there to be some co-ordination. We could have created a broadband hub in every town and village and fed in the schools, the post offices, the libraries and the village halls. It is not clear to me that we have got that message across. The Minister is nodding; I am sure that he has got the message, but we have to corral Departments to think about joined-up government.
The BBC has missed a trick. I know that, at the media conference in Oxford yesterday, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced a review of the BBC. That is very welcome. The BBC spends more on its online site than Yahoo!, which is the largest online site; the BBC spends more money on its content than does the most commercial site. There is something wrong there. That money is being spent by the BBC, but not on a public service. For instance, people cannot get consumer advice online, or the Encyclopaedia Britannica or information services.
Mr. McWalter: I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying, but does he not commend the extraordinary depth and quality of the educational materials on the BBC website? They are some of the most splendid sources of information on the web.
Mr. Wyatt: I do commend them. However, the Open university, which is the finest in the world, does one thing while Learndirect produces something else on the same principle—teaching. There is also the BBC. That is crackers. The organisations should work together. The Open university should be a partner with Learndirect and Learndirect should be part of the BBC education project for which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport gave permission this week. There are insufficient stakeholders. The BBC wants to build a bigger and bigger empire, but I want it to be a stakeholder in other people's businesses rather than running things itself. Its website is excellent, but there is a principle that citizens need advice, such as on how to buy a house. That is a public service, which is what the BBC is for. Most of the BBC website does not represent a public service.
I went to see the Leader of the House to suggest that a review of broadband would be sensible and to ask him to set up a special Select Committee on broadband that could discuss all the implications such as whether broadband should be universally available, like water and electricity, and how we should achieve that. He was very keen. I then spoke to the Chairmen of the Select Committees to which broadband is relevant—Trade and Industry; Culture, Media and Sport and so on. None were interested in joining together to create a broadband Select Committee. It is sad that they would rather hold on tight to their little bit of territory. It is like the silos that we keep complaining about in government.
The hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam and for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and I created our own broadband group, which we called the shadow Select
336WH
Committee. We held a meeting, the Minister gave evidence and we have worked with Computing magazine to ensure that that evidence will come out. That committee will establish best practice, and we want a committee to consider spam for the same reason. Spam represented 8 per cent. of internet traffic a year ago, but now 35 per cent. of internet traffic is made up of spam e-mails. Some of it is awful and pornographic. It is crackers that billions of spam messages a day clutter up the internet.
The House needs to be able quickly to set up Select Committees on single issues so that we can corral the best information and bring people in to decide the legislation that we need. The fact that we cannot do that is a weakness of the House. I e-mailed the Minister this morning to ask whether he would allow us to hold a shadow Select Committee on spam, but I would rather have a proper Select Committee.
Mr. McWalter: As a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, I ask my hon. Friend to direct his suggestions to it.
Mr. Wyatt: I will do that, and I thank my hon. Friend for the suggestion.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I make no comment from the Chair. [Laughter.]
Mr. Wyatt: When I chased up my regional development agency, I found that there was absolute chaos. It had started using the money that has been made available without preparing an audit of need for the south-east. It said, "Here's some money; let's apply for it." Two hundred businesses have been given a satellite link for broadband. Well, please. That is what we mean about holding things in the centre and best practice coming out. We have wasted about £1 million on broadband. Not one of the links is in the Isle of Sheppey, which is part of my constituency and the sixth poorest area in the south-east. We do not have cable television because no one would bid for a poor franchise, would they? The Independent Television Commission, bless it, thought about the Isle of Sheppey, and then thought that the Isle of Thanet was an island. It put the two together and made a cable offer. Of course, nobody made a bid for it; the Isle of Thanet is the poorest area. Alleluia.
We have never had cable so we have always had to pay British Telecom prices, but we will never get broadband because BT will not bring it to our area. The South East England Development Agency, which has been challenged to reduce poverty, has not even done an audit of need. Will the Minister ask all the regional development agencies to send in audits of need before spending more on broadband?
We have got a satellite link in our rural UK online centres. That is a BT link and it goes down about 80 times a day because its Berlin operation is not working properly. We had to track down where in the system things are wrong. It is all very well to say, "Do satellite," but one has to be really careful with it. There are better satellite systems than the one that BT uses, but there are cost implications to them. The planning regulations must be changed so that broadband is delivered

337WH
universally just like water and gas are—it must be part of that provision. It is obvious that that is what we must do.
I commend a project that is in its infancy and that I mentioned yesterday. Nick Dunlop of PA Consulting near Victoria is putting together a very ambitious and visionary project called e-Parliament that will connect online all the Parliaments in the world, so that if someone has a particular interest—in health or transport, for instance—they will be connected to the people who are interested in that in France, Germany, the United States of America, Australia and so forth. It will bring people together. When someone thinks, "Hang on, I wonder how do they do that in Germany," they will not have to run around worrying about the answer. They will be able to click and connect with a group of people whom they can ask, "What is your legislation on that? Show me what it looks like." That is an amazing concept. This is the most exiting project that I have come across for many years, and I commend it to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Several hon. Members wish to speak. The spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition has not yet risen to his feet, and I would like to call him at approximately 10 to 5 at the latest in order to enable the Minister to have sufficient time to wind up.
4.6 pm
Mr. Chris Mole: E-government is one of the most exciting and crucial agendas of our time, and I am lucky to have had a range of experiences that enable me to bring a trio of perspectives to the subject. After surviving 17 years as a research manager at the BT laboratories just outside Ipswich, I became one of the few engineers to move into the brave world of politics at local, regional and now national levels. My most recent insights come from these experiences, but they are applicable across the full range of public services.
As a Member of Parliament, I want to reflect my constituents' desire to see a step change in the improvement of the convenience, quality and quantity of all public services at national and local level that are delivered by national Government or local government or by others acting on their behalf.
My constituents should expect the services of the future to be very different. Those services should be joined-up in ways that make sense to them; accessible at the times and places most convenient to them; delivered or supported electronically, thereby facilitating fast, more reliable and better value services; delivered jointly, where appropriate, by local and regional partnerships, and connected to a national infrastructure; delivered seamlessly, so that customers should not be asked to provide the same information more than once and service providers are better able to identify, reach and meet their needs; and open and accountable, so that information will be freely and easily available, complaints will be easy to make and responded to quickly and effectively, and citizens will be able to participate effectively in local decision making. As has been said, the focus of the development of e-government must, therefore, be citizen-centred.
338WH
The comments of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and Sir Jeremy Beecham, the chair of the Local Government Authority, summarised the approach on which we need to focus. Last year, they stated:
"e-Government means exploiting the power of information and communications technology to help transform the accessibility, quality and cost effectiveness of public services and to help revitalise the relationship between customers and citizens and the public bodies who work on their behalf.
e-Government is more than technology, more than the Internet, more than service delivery. It is about putting citizens and customers at the heart of everything we do and building service access, delivery and democratic accountability around them. Local e-government is the realisation of this vision at the point where the vast majority of public services are delivered. This is why the Government—and local government—have committed themselves to making all services electronically available, and the Internet available to everyone, by 2005."
Therefore, services must continue to be available to everyone, and that may mean delivery through a variety of channels that are suitable to different ages, cultures or social groups. We should aim for universal access, recognise the risk of digital divide, and look at solutions such as providing training and hand-holding for those currently without the necessary skills and confidence. Some service outlets, such as libraries, tourist information centres and colleges, could be tailored to provide such support. To an extent, Learndirect and other projects in my constituency are already doing that. All of that recognises the fact that government at any level is democratic and must be accountable. There are clearly issues about confidentiality and data sharing that must never be forgotten.
During the mid to late 1990s, the e-government agenda continued to grow in importance. It was obvious at that time that local government had an enormous capability to create innovative solutions, but the biggest challenge was the potential size of the agenda that organisations had to address. The agenda includes transactions, access channels, enablers, e-business and organisational development. Of those, transactions are probably the most straightforward and offer an immediate sense of progress. Certainly, in Ipswich, the borough council's sports facility bookings and the county council's online library service are excellent examples of how services have been make easier for citizens to use. Customer First provides a one-stop for social care customers. Electronic prescriptions speed up responses to medical needs and e-commerce improves transaction efficiency.
Similarly, there have been national initiatives, including NHS Direct Online. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency uses an online payment system for television licences, making life simpler for citizens. However, just considering the plethora of potential access channels highlights the difficult decisions that policy makers have to take. Which technologies will achieve penetration and which will last? Given the pace of change of technology, guessing the future is a risky business. However, web penetration in the UK is now significant, with a generation of people leaving school having learnt to use the web, a generation of workers for whom the internet is a way of life, and a growing army of silver surfers. Broadband connections are currently growing at a rate of 30,000 a week.

339WH
However, there are risks. Was WAP—wireless
application protocol—a successful technology? On the other hand, SMS text messaging was never supposed to be a primary feature of GSM—global system for mobile—mobile phone technology, and it now accounts for £1 million of business a week for mobile operators, generated mostly, but not exclusively, by those under 30. I was encouraged to hear that the new Connexions service in Suffolk is developing the use of text messages to arrange appointments and communicate with some of their clients in the 14 to 19 age group.
There is always the risk, for those of us who are old enough to remember the early days of video recorders, of another VHS-Betamax competition. On the subject of television—this is relevant to comments made by hon. Members—it is interesting that the iSuffolk Pathfinder is considering the potential of digital television. The case is unanswerable. The TV is just about the most ubiquitous piece of domestic technology, and if the Government achieve digital switchover by 2010, almost everyone will have one. The recent troubles of ITV Digital show that even in that channel, waters do not always flow smoothly. However, there are already solutions on the satellite and cable network platforms, although we might need greater penetration than one TV per household if we are to avoid arguments about going online to pay council tax when one's sons and daughters want to watch "Neighbours".
However, it is the last of the items on the agenda for public service agencies—that of organisational development—that is probably the most critical. In no sense can the full potential of e-government be realised by computerising existing processes. Indeed, wider modernisation must be seen as a sibling agenda, and the introduction of call centres, one-stop shops, customer relationship management systems and business process re-engineering must be thought of as part of the same set of challenges. At that point, decision makers may reach a crisis, as there are too many options, and the future is almost too uncertain for investment decisions to be clear. That can almost lead to a somewhat rabbit-like paralysis in the face of the technological headlights. Clear business planning will be one tool for informing the business case when savings can be identified and when investment payback times are reduced. Other strategies must include reducing the risk and sharing the cost.
It is likely, therefore, that to achieve maximum value for money, bodies will engage in multi-tiered, multi-agency partnerships. Frankly, the public do not see the silos in which services are held, whether by central Government or one of the tiers of local government, and naturally expect services to be joined up. They do not want to have to give their details more than 50 times to people in different organisations, let alone to those in the same one, as often happens. A local retailer who has access to some form of postcode database will only want to know a customer's house number and postcode to complete successfully all the address fields on an invoice. The private sector will be an important partner, bringing technical expertise, ready-tailored solutions and different cultural perspectives. We shall all watch the
340WH
partnership between Liverpool city council and BT to see the potential of such a high level of dependence on external solutions.
Clearly, where we start can be driven by national and local priorities, such as education, health, crime, economic development, transport and the environment, which go some way to guiding the e-government agenda in prioritising projects. The Local Government Association added e-citizenship and e-democracy to the service priorities. E-citizenship refers to the drive to empower local populations to give them the skills, confidence and opportunities to exploit e-enabled access. E-democracy means not just the capacity to vote electronically in local and national elections, but the use of the internet and related technologies to involve people in consultation and community planning.
E-enabled councillors are a crucial stage in the process. Councillors or non-executive directors of boards and other agencies that are online will have better access to information, be better informed, have a more effective interface with full-time staff and should engage more readily with their communities. They will also have a greater capacity to take key decisions about the e-government agenda.
It became a mark of inclusion in the post-executive/scrutiny split world of Suffolk county council that the leadership of the Labour group that I led would initiate e-mail-based policy discussions to clarify the thinking of colleagues around key issues. With more than 30 members in the group, it produced some lengthy e-conversations, but headed off much of the rumour and misinformation that so often plagues good decision-making.
For three years I was the deputy chairman of the East of England Development Agency, which had a different, but parallel, agenda. Its regional vision was
"to make the East of England a world-class economy, renowned for its knowledge base, the creativity and enterprise of its people and the quality of life of all who live and work here".
Within the regional economic strategy, EEDA supports enablers for regional economic competitiveness in which increasing the productivity of businesses and public agencies is critical. The fundamental principle is that, in a knowledge economy, a developed region like the east of England must compete on the strength of its skills and ability to exploit knowledge, not on wage competition.
The three most critical aspects of the RES for our region are: the coverage and capacity of broadband networks, access to ICT hardware linked to the networks and ICT to underpin the development of skills. As regards the last, I was pleased recently to open a learning centre and a community shop on the Chantry estate in Ipswich, bringing access and learning to an area where technology uptake might not otherwise have been expected.
The Ipswich constituency sits in a region with a mixed urban/rural topology, of which Suffolk is highly representative. That leads to critical questions about the development of innovative methods of delivering high quality and high capacity broadband network coverage through wireless, satellite or cable. I have even heard discussion about the development of a series of low orbit transmission stations suspended from medium altitude balloons, though I am thankful that suppliers are now offering satellite-based broadband products.

341WH
It is interesting to note that Suffolk was an early trial location in the 1970s for a line-of-sight microwave link intended to offer wireless voice services in the Saxmundham area. An abortive high capacity analogue microwave waveguide test was tried around the same time. Many thought that it would have been more valuable if it had been extended to Southwold and connected directly into Adnam's brewery.
The distances from exchange to premises are a technical barrier to broadband in rural areas. It is not just a question of whether an exchange can be enabled, but whether it is possible to get from the exchange to the premises. The problem of insufficient demand, which undermines the economic case for upgrade to ADSL or similar technology, can affect both urban and rural localities. A good example is the Felaw Malting enterprise centre in Ipswich—a successful location for growing and high-tech businesses, but the local exchange cannot currently supply high-speed data connection because it is not based on the town's main exchange.
Thankfully, the objectives of agencies such as the RDA and the UK broadband task force to co-ordinate the aggregation of demand, has been taken on commercially by BT. Some hon. Members have spoken about the BT website on which people can register their need for broadband: when demand is sufficient, conversion can take place. The Government's £1 billion investment in public service networks will contribute to the weight of demand to produce viable cases for broadband locally. It is through such solutions that our RDA envisages every home eventually having access and providing the opportunities for people to acquire the basic ICT skills that will allow them to access online learning.
EEDA is managing a £5.8 million Government fund to encourage more telecommunication providers to supply more broadband services to the east of England. Through that fund, it intends to establish a brokerage system for potential customers, encourage application providers to assemble packages of broadband applications to make such services more attractive to business and public services, connect business parks, run an awareness campaign and set up a competition to provide community-based demonstrations of the benefits of broadband technology.
The digital dividend at this stage is potentially significant. That dividend could include overcoming obstacles to accessing rural and peripheral areas, such as living locally and working globally; enabling business participation in e-commerce and e-banking and thereby enhancing productivity and competitiveness; and reducing the need to travel and the demand for new business premises by flexible and remote working. The benefits could also include giving flexibility to business location decisions, encouraging and promoting business start-ups in areas of physical regeneration, delivering training and learning opportunities via ICT, enabling the use of ICT for further skills development, and the promotion of social inclusion by enabling internet access for all.
In a way, the regional agenda exemplifies the best practice role of government. No one in central Government would claim, any more than they would in local government, that the ability of Departments to respond to the e-government agenda is anything more
342WH
than patchy and sometimes inconsistent, despite the best efforts of the Cabinet Office and the Office of the e-Envoy.
My favourite anecdote concerns the day on which we had been considering at county hall the Government's new proposals for education maintenance allowances. Frustrated by the enormity of yet another paper-based form to be faced by schools and pupils alike, I fired off an e-mail to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in his former capacity as the Secretary of State for Education. I suggested to him that Suffolk county council, of which I was leader at the time, could perhaps develop, in partnership with the Department for Education and Skills, a web-based form that might simplify life in schools. I waited patiently and finally received a reply from some functionary in the Department, which started, "I hope you do not mind me replying by e-mail." That sort of thing does not fill one with hope.
I am not sure that even the Cabinet Office has solved the problem. One of the sources of information that is critical to us as MPs is a list of ministerial responsibilities, which we use to direct inquiries from constituents to the correct Minister. Following last year's mini-reshuffle, the existing PDF file became out of date. Some weeks later, having failed to elicit a response to the message I had left on the Cabinet Office website, I e-mailed the officer responsible, who e-mailed me back saying that the document was going to the printers, which was not what I wanted to know. I do not know why they had not updated the PDF file on the website the day after the decision was finalised.
That is sufficient criticism, because the role of Government must be a positive and facilitative one. That role should include a statement of central priorities for local service delivery, policies that deliver outcomes that matter, a framework for strategic e-planning and delivery, a common model of e-government, technical standards to promote communication and shared services, a national infrastructure for electronic service delivery, and the allocation of resources.
The Minister and others mentioned the £1 billion that was allocated for networking in 2000, and the commitment in the comprehensive spending review to £6 billion for ICT for public services over the coming years.
I am pleased to see that the partnerships that are developing between local government in my constituency, central Government and other agencies intend to get the best for our citizens. As MP for Ipswich, I am encouraged to see that the iSuffolk Pathfinder has been an important tool in improving the convenience, quality and quantity of public services.
E-government is a critical agenda. Those who see that agenda as important only for some are a continual frustration to me. Driving change in public service culture is crucial to delivery, and all MPs should be engaged as advocates and champions for e-government to serve their communities.
4.23 pm
Dr. John Pugh: There is general consensus that e-transformation of public services is a good thing. It speeds up delivery, improves access, and enables information to be made easily and widely

343WH
available. However, there are also bad facets of e-transformation. It depersonalises a service that should be personal, creates confusion, excludes people who do not have access to the requisite equipment, and can lead to inflexibility.
However, there are thousands of good examples of the huge progress that has been made through e-government and e-technology—whether in applications and form filling, planning procedures, complaints procedures or traffic management. In the police force, enormous benefits have been gained in surveillance and detection due to the introduction of e-technology.
On education, recent research has shown that there is not always a proportional improvement in the performance of pupils despite massive investment in IT. I tried to think of an explanation and came up with a simple one that may commend itself. In essence, teaching is a communication business, and it is not invariably the case that people who sit in front of keyboards and stare at screens are the best at communicating. In fact, there is little correlation between good social skills and an obsession with computers. Even in the public service, we lose the personal dimension through various forms of e-government, which may not be an advantage.
However, my primary focus is on value for money. As we all know, there have been well-documented catastrophes in IT procurement throughout the public spectrum. One need only mention the Home Office, and the Learning and Skills Council, whose software makes it impossible to determine how much further education colleges have to spend. That is a recent hiccup, but one that is all too frequent in the history of e-government. One might also mention the enormous amount of obsolescence and the computer equipment that is now in crates or skips throughout the country because it was ordered ill-advisedly. That was not always because technology overtook it, but simply because such things as compatibility were not checked out.
I am concerned about the amount that we will spend on e-government. We have already spent enormous sums. Councils have spent fantastic amounts again and again. I accept that it is one thing to make the odd bad buying decision: over a period of time, good practice sets in and such mistakes become less frequent. However, I am deeply concerned about embracing a strategy that is correct and avoiding one that is flawed. Any advance in e-government that leads to a greater dependence on monopoly suppliers and providers worries me deeply. The entente between Bill Gates and the Prime Minister worried many people in the IT world and the commercial world in general. It is well accepted that Bill Gates and Microsoft are not natural pluralists. The experience in the United States and in Europe shows that, from time to time, Bill Gates needs to be reminded that there is such a thing as a competitive and open market.
Worrying signs persist. We all recognised that it was a mistake when the Government allowed Microsoft to design their e-portal in such a way that made it inaccessible initially to all but Microsoft browsers. The procedure was over-budgeted and we eventually tried to sell the system to Egypt. Even now, I am told that the relationship between the civil service and Microsoft is
344WH
cordial, to say the least, yet there are still certain hitches when using non-Microsoft technology to access Government services.
I am told that it is difficult to get far on page 3 of the income tax form without using Internet Explorer or some other Microsoft product. I am also told that the national health service has done a deal with Microsoft whereby computers are provided with the OEM operating system thrown in for free. I am worried by repeated stories in the press that digital certificates for VAT returns and similar forms are not universally accessible to non-Windows-based computers. Someone who is by no means inexpert in the use of technology to fill in their corporation tax return on the Equifax system told me today that they had experienced problems.
The Government have set their face against such problems. I know about the Electronic Government Interoperability Framework—eGIF—the principles of interoperability and other principles for which the Government stand. However, it is not the principle that primarily concerns me, but the implementation of it across the board. It is possible for industry standards to be confused with proprietary standards. Proprietary standards occasionally become industry standards simply because the firm is so successful and its technology so good that it dominates the market and everyone must use it. That has happened in all fields of technology from time to time. However, it is best when it happens through open competition.
It is crucial that the Government try to make that competition as open as possible, if only because it can save billions. There have been significant savings to private bodies that have looked outside the Microsoft world. A current example is the use of a UNIX-based system by the West Yorkshire police authority. There are significant and increasing risks in putting ourselves in the position of being solely dependent on a monopoly supplier, because we are moving away from a system in which we purchase software to one in which we lease and pay to re-lease software, thereby ensuring an income stream for the IT companies.
In the IT world, people are buying less and less hardware, possibly because they are unimpressed by the pretensions of new hardware. However, computer companies will pick up the income stream lost there by endeavouring to lease software, rather than sell it outright. Increasingly, software is requiring digital authorisation, which does not yet lock out third-party software but may in the future, and in America people are dreaming up schemes associated with trusted hardware for which not only the operating system, but the hardware that accompanies will be prescribed.
I am worried that we may be sleepwalking into a degree of dependence, which would be unfortunate as there is increasing evidence that there are a variety of robust alternative solutions outside individual suppliers. Recent research in education established that schools found Macintosh-produced products to be more stable and reliable than some of the products that they customarily buy, and systems exist that are not as virus vulnerable as some of the systems that the Government use. I hope that the Minister does not think that I am pleading for some sort of geeks, or anoraks, charter. I am arguing that what is written in the open-source software document presented by the Office of the

345WH
e-Envoy should not remain sitting in the document. It should come up front as a Government promotion. We are looking not for indulgence of anoraks, but a fight against monopoly provision and a battle for technological standards.
More importantly to the Government, it is an opportunity to save a colossal sum of money. I am worried about procurement naivety, and I should like to give an example of that from my experience. The House of Commons provides all hon. Members with PCs, which have Windows 2000 or nothing, although that is not the fundamental objection. We have an e-mail system that is probably the most virus vulnerable of any on the market, and we have also been provided with excellent Hewlett Packard machines, which provide scanning and copying facilities, fax access and so on. We pay for them as client MPs, as it were, and are provided with printer cartridges, which are replaced X number of times and quickly exceed the cost of purchasing the machine. If I had ordered a machine, I would not have put myself in that position, but the House of Commons has.
I am arguing for the promotion of robust competitive standards and proper and public audits of procurement, for which I think the Minister has sympathy. I am arguing not for a re-examination of patent law in so far as it constricts computer procurement, but for a realistic appraisal of benefits. Ultimately, I suppose that I am arguing for a little more cynicism and a little less naivety.
4.33 pm
Margaret Moran: I will argue for a little more politics and passion on e-transformation and perhaps a little less of the perception outside the Chamber—I think that we are the good guys, because we realise this—that the agenda belongs to boring bureaucrats and turgid techies. E-transformation has little to do with the technology; in my view, it is all to do with the citizen.
As has been said, we need to keep that citizen focus firmly in our mind and make some of the political arguments more strongly, particularly to those who will be delivering e-services and achieving our e-transformation, than we have perhaps done so far. Without that understanding, we are in danger of having not an e-transformation but an e-oil slick. That would be a superficial and unsustainable approach in which things happen as they always have and there is a gentle, pretty slick on the top that achieves nothing or is counter-productive.
I, too, congratulate the Minister. In him, we have someone who understands the agenda and is driving it forward. The announcement of additional resources at the e-summit has already been mentioned. Those resources are substantial and over and above those e-projects that have already taken place, such as UK online and schemes to get IT into libraries and schools. We must ensure that our reasons for transforming public services are clearly understood. There is an imperative to get it right. That is not easy, and we must ensure that the message of why we are doing this work is conveyed to councils, many of which are endeavouring to push the agenda hard, but some of which see the policy in terms of targets and ticked boxes rather than as a radical re-engineering transformation.
346WH
We must ensure that councils are looking not only at the quantity but the quality of services online. We need to get the message across to staff, some of whom may fear modernisation or job cuts by the back door rather than viewing the changes as a transformation of their employment opportunities. The changes can cut out the boring back room and release staff into more productive, satisfying frontline roles and personal service opportunities. Opportunities can be offered to citizens who, in many instances, feel no relationship to online services. They do not understand the value of such services or why they should use them. We have to think more broadly about encouraging citizen engagement online rather than simply seeing e-services as a mechanistic process of putting services online and hoping that citizens will engage with them.
The political message is not only, "My God, if the computer project crashes we will not have helped people on a hospital waiting list". It is broader. We want to modernise our public services, not only to save them, as in the bad old days, and to make them more efficient, although that is at the heart of what we are trying to do. We also have to transform them in order to continue investment in frontline services, to maintain and improve our citizens' confidence in our public services. The alternative is that people will lose confidence. The ethos of what we are trying to achieve—we do not mention the socialist principle too often these days, but we should—will be undermined.
There is a clear political divide. Some hon. Members in this debate see the issue purely in terms of efficiency, cost savings and, dare one say it, achieving their targets to reduce public spending and give money back through tax cuts to those who need it least.
We need to send a clear message. A key task is to encourage citizens to engage online. The key issue is e-equality—with a big "E". We must ensure the quality of online services and also the equality of services, which means targeting those citizens least likely to be engaged online. We must focus absolutely on that.
In years past, we have talked about the digital divide. It no longer exists in the sense of access to technology because the reverse is true and there is more kit out there than most people know what to do with. We must enable them to use that technology. There is another issue: empowerment—another big "E". It is about ensuring that communities have the confidence to go online and are able to use the technologies in various ways that are not prescribed by the Government.
People must feel comfortable with the technologies, and they must gain the confidence and skills that will enable them to feel that online public service is important and that they can engage with it. They could then inform us about the services that they value and tell us about their priorities. Those are the things to which we should be paying attention. If we do that, we are more likely to appreciate that process and, by linking what we do to e-democracy, to enhance the democratic process.
Citizens are telling us what they value and how they think that services could be improved, so we must ensure that public services are always improving. That issue is linked with e-participation and technology. If we are investing this much in our e-government services, we

347WH
must at least build into them the opportunity for citizens to give us feedback on a range of issues, thereby enhancing the health of democracy.
We are, at the moment, seeing different agendas forming. In talking about e-transformation, we must bring those agendas together, because one of our problems is partly the way in which we are organising and, as we have said endlessly, creating Government silos. The task of transforming Whitehall will inevitably be huge and, although I am sure that the civil servants will not be pleased to hear me say so, it will probably be the most difficult task. We must deal with that; otherwise we are in danger of delivering services, using that silo mentality, which do not relate to people's complex lives. The Government must ask the right questions. This is not a technocratic agenda. We must ask how we can help and enable people, rather than ask, "How are you meeting your 2005 targets?" We need to look at our structures.
I am delighted that the delivery unit, rightly, has the lead responsibility for the agenda. However, whether we are talking about e-public services provided by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, part of the Prime Minister's office or someone from the Lord Chancellor's Department, or about e-democracy, let us start thinking across the piece. If we do not, anger that we will miss opportunities. We are also in danger of initiative-itis, about which we complain endlessly. Departments set up projects, but they bear no relationship to each other and, as a result, we are not getting the best value, either for our money or for communities. We must focus on quality, not on quantity.
I agree with the hon. Member who referred to our looking at the kinds of services that we put online. I call that the "moose licence" approach to online services. The Canadian Government put moose licence applications online and wondered why they were not overwhelmed by people going online. I do not know how many people hunt moose—or, perhaps, meese—in Canada. We have put online the simple tasks and not those which people need or value. We need, therefore, to consider the more complex operations that, due to their procedures, require many different forms to be completed.
Housing benefit provides a classic example of how too many agencies can be involved. In my former life I was the leader of Lewisham council in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and we put housing benefit online and joined up with social services and the Benefits Agency to try to get some coherence for our citizens, so that they did not have to replicate information and we did not have the chaos of forms getting lost. Those services, and even more complicated ones, need to be online. It is no good just putting information services online, useful though that is; citizens need interactive and transactional services, but we are still far from achieving that.
Some years ago, we had a vision in Lewisham of a personalised, relationship-building portal whereby citizens could be e-mailed about the fact that Johnny
348WH
needed to bring his gym shoes to school that day or that Catford bridge was to be dug up the following week. That is how good businesses act, especially in the States. We should be aiming at that smart use of technology. We need a system to focus on complex services that affect people's lives—the wicked issues.
A little more than a year ago, I put forward a proposal to the e-Envoy's office about a project that we were trying to get off the ground in my constituency of Luton. It was called Women Speak 2. I cite the traumatic experience of a woman fleeing from domestic violence who had to contact between eight and 10 different agencies, giving the same information. Imagine that: she loses her home and her life, but then has to take the kids to different agencies and fill in eight to 10 forms. Why cannot such information be gathered at the click of a button?
Moreover, a click of a button could alert the police to a problem, and help would be available. What I am talking about is not rocket science, but a complex issue that could be dealt with through technology. I have heard no more about my proposal, but I am sure that the e-Envoy knows the reason for that. Such services would be incredibly valuable. They would make contact with the hardest to reach. If we can tackle such issues, everything else will come right.
Work needs to be more joined up. For example, we must ensure that the work of local authorities is online and that they know their targets for 2005. They must fill in their "implementing electronic government" statements. Why are we not encouraging them to consult about their community plans online, instead of that being done by four men and a dog in a cold, draughty hall on a rainy Wednesday evening? Why are we not enabling online links to be made to the neighbourhood renewal strategies and regeneration strategies for our communities?
Why, when the 10th most deprived ward in the United Kingdom—my area—has more technology than we know what to do with through UK online centres, schools and libraries, do we not have a sensible connecting strategy as Canada did? Connecting Canada allowed the community to go into schools or wherever technology was available to learn skills, to search for jobs, to play games or to set up e-communities. Our strategies are not joined up, partly for want of a ha'p'orth of tar. We have spent the capital. We need now to spend a little revenue to ensure that communities can be facilitated.
I am working on a project in my constituency called Click Bury Park. It is aimed at building a community portal for young Bangladeshi mums and youngsters, to enable them to use facilities outside of the time when they would usually be used. It was set up to bring together local information and to allow online debates to take place. The people involved want to discuss drugs and forced marriages to inform our public sector agencies and local authorities.
We need to take a community-based, bottom-up approach. I differ from some of my colleagues in that respect. If our citizens are to be online, engaged, e-enabled and skilled, we must allow them to participate in activities with which they feel comfortable. That is how our e-transformation agenda will make progress.

349WH
There has been too much top-down, and too little bottom-up. Let us have more community empowerment.
4.49 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: I am a bit short of time, so I shall use the time available to me to raise points that other hon. Members have not raised.
I suppose that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran). I accept that there is an important role to be played in respect of community development, but I shall plead with the Minister to be more directive and to bite the bullet on some of the implications of that initiative, particularly for support and administrative staff.
I shall begin, however, with the way in which e-government has affected me as a Member of Parliament. I must confess that, even as an ex-director of IT at a university, I did not initially allow my constituents to access me by e-mail. The reason for that was straightforward: I had a huge volume of mail, but there was only me and a small administrative team to answer it. Only when Parliament voted extra funds through was I able to appoint someone whose duties included helping me with e-mail. Now, instead of a closed system, I have an open system, through which I am accessible. The moral of that story is that we cannot simply give someone some type of link and say, "There you are. Now you've got it." There are staffing implications. If we provide the facility and the additional staff, we improve the service.
With my relatively modest IT skills, I could have taken short cuts. I could simply have set up an e-mail system, coded it, and, when people wrote in, issued an e-reply without taking into account what they had said at all. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) spoke about the possibility of a depersonalised service arising from e-transactions, and it is important to recognise that, if the service is too depersonalised, we make things worse, not better. People must be deeply involved in the delivery of these services. If that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South meant, I agree with her.
We are considering the empowerment of people to use e-technology, and that empowerment should go all the way down to their being able to report an overflowing dog poo bin, or whatever. That sounds trivial, but when people try to get my local authority to take the information that a dog poo bin needs emptying, no one seems to know who should be told about that. The telephone number on the sign may have been scratched off by vandals, so people do not know how to report it.
We need systems that do not deal only with reports. The councils should have an internal system that is IT-enabled, but much of the time that is simply not the case. Through a private finance initiative, my local authority, Dacorum borough council, is trying to become an IT chief authority by setting up a system and then offering IT services to others, in the hope that they will buy in and that that will keep the rates down and so on. That does not have my support, because the process of dealing with a fragmented system and making it slightly less fragmented is not as good as a process that is clearly underwritten by all the resources, authority and power that a Government can provide. I therefore hope that the Government will be more directive in dealing with these matters.
350WH
We have community safety wardens, who are responsible for expressing the concerns of people in the community to the local authority and the local police. Why, then, can we not have e-wardens? I am talking about localities in which people have a particular role to play in helping people to get the most from the technology that we now have available, whether that involves general information or empowering them to conduct transactions.
I subscribe to the citizens advice bureaux' system, which costs about £300 a year but is updated monthly on a CD-rom. It enables me to give completely up-to-date information to constituents about facilities that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux makes available. That is not available as an e-system, but all MPs can get hold of it. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), I do not think that the BBC needs to do that. That system is already available to people who are suitably interested and trained.
The plea for support from people at the bottom end of the system and direction from the Government at the top end has been striking. It was quite extraordinary that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) should say that broadband should be like water, and it was very welcome. The whole business has been hamstrung by the market. BT has headquarters in my constituency, as has Dixons. Dixons was furious that BT was pricing broadband so high. The services that could be provided were denied people. That price has finally come down, but we still have that old system and it will not let us have it if it is at all expensive to provide it.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey and for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) that broadband should be seen as a fundamental service. If it is not a fundamental service the school in an area that does not have it or has only limited access to it will become a worse school than one that does. When things are not put on the system because a huge amount of time is required to download them, the result is a restricted, diminished, impoverished service rather than one that addresses the needs of users and communities.
If the service is not universal the whole business is hamstrung and the schools and colleges in those areas that are denied proper access cannot make the best use of this technology. Development will be stymied unless we bite the bullet and accept that it must be a universal service. We must run with that through education and health and all the other systems that the Minister and the Government rightly want to see developed.
4.57 pm
Mr. Greg Knight: I welcome this debate. Today we have heard many interesting and relevant views. I congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part. The debate has been of the highest standard. Debates like this show the House at its best. I have to congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) on bringing the word "socialism" into a debate on the electronic delivery of services. I do not know whether it is ingenuity or her perverse reasoning, but the idea of introducing electronic public services did not originate post-1997; it was an initiative started under the last Conservative Government.

351WH
In 1996 we launched a Green Paper on electronic government, well before most people were taking the issue seriously. Hon. Members on both sides of the House rather thought that it was a subject confined to computer nerds. It is only with time that the House and the public at large have begun to realise that this is to do with the quality delivery of services and, therefore, the quality of life. If one can save money by delivering services more effectively and more cheaply, that money is available to go into the service itself, rather than its provision. My party's aim was to work towards implementing a policy of providing public services electronically. There is no divide between us on our aims.
However, I am disappointed that electronic government is behind schedule and, more worryingly, that we appear to be slipping behind many other countries, some of which were late starters in this field. We are a long way from realising the targets that even the Government have set themselves. We should not be afraid to learn from other countries how to make our electronic public services not only the best, but the best used in the world.
I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us today whether he thinks that the Government are now on target for achieving their goal of all public services being available online by 2005. If they are not, where does he see the difficulties arising? For example, one area that I am interested in is pre-legislative scrutiny. When does he envisage that being available regularly online? Is he intending to issue any benchmarks to Departments?
The Government's target of 2005 has already been pushed back once. Initially, we were told that they expected 70 per cent. of all services to be available electronically by the end of last year and, of course, as the Minister knows, that target was not reached. In assessing whether the target has been met, we need to look behind the figure because very often what is available online is not an interactive service, but information. Hopefully, it is the aim of all Departments as far as possible to enable the services available to be accessed electronically. At present, it is correct that online tax assessments can be completed, but the user target of 50 per cent. was not met. Part of the reason for that failure was not only in the reliability of the system, but in the security of it, which is a serious problem.
As the House will know, we had a problem fairly recently where it was feared that 700 or more people may have had their confidential tax affairs viewed by others who used the online service. Will the Minister comment on the remarks made by Sir Nicholas Montagu, chairman of the Inland Revenue, who said:
"The security breaches that led to the suspension of the online service on May 27 have been an acute embarrassment for the Revenue"?
The point that I hope the hon. Gentleman will address is that the privacy breaches could in the view of Sir Nicholas Montagu
"have lasting damage on the government's ambitions to deliver large numbers of services over the internet."
What has the Minister done following that breach to reassure the public? Moreover, following that problem, what security evaluation of online services has he
352WH
decided is necessary to be undertaken in the future? Security is an ongoing issue; does he have plans to put best practice in place?
Some hon. Members have already mentioned the point that in comparison with other countries, the electronic use of public services here is not as good as it could be. According to statistics, 14 per cent. of our population have used the Government's services at some point. That is a fairly low figure compared with other countries: the figure for France is 18 per cent. and Canada is way up there at 40 per cent. Does the Minister know why other countries that are as sophisticated as we are seem to be more successful in attracting users? Is the range of electronic services offered in those countries much greater because certain transactions that can be completed online in other countries cannot be done here? The registration of births can be done electronically overseas, but not in the UK. I hope that the Government will act to ensure that we at least keep pace with our European partners.
I want to be fair to the Minister and I acknowledge some success stories. NHS Direct, for example, is widely judged to provide a good service that works well. It has helped many people, particularly in rural areas, who are worried about the health of a family member. By going online to NHS Direct, they have been reassured, or at least pointed in the right direction. However, other public service websites have a long way to go before the same can be said. We have not seen enough progress in the availability of such services in other sectors.
The hon. Member for Luton, South mentioned the problem of access for poorer members of society. I understand that only 7 per cent. of those in the lowest income group currently have access to the internet. We must all work to increase that figure and help the most vulnerable in society to access e-government.
Those who possess a computer are often plagued with problems about constant software upgrades. What is profitable for software companies is not necessarily desirable for the consumer. The Government should examine further ways of providing access at locations that people can reach, both physically and financially, so that no one misses out on electronic provision of public services.
UK online centres are most welcome, but more needs to be done. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who could not stay with us because of a pressing constituency engagement, told me recently about a local business that obtained a grant of public money to have broadband installed. He wants to know why, when public money is invested, the recipients of grants are not required to make the service available to the wider community that they serve. It would be worth trying to link the giving of a grant to ensuring that the recipient uses it to benefit the local community.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) rightly spoke about the need for a change of mindset among the public. Many people probably ask themselves what would be the advantage of going online. If they can see an advantage, the mindset should quickly follow. I hope that the Minister will examine ways of enticing the public to use electronic services.
David Cairns: For the avoidance of doubt, I was talking about a change of mindset on the part of the

353WH
providers of services rather than individual consumers. The right hon. Gentleman is right that we need to make it more attractive for individuals, but I was talking about the producers.
Mr. Knight: I am grateful for that clarification and for the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement that I am making a valid point. I hope that the Minister will not rule out providing incentives, perhaps even financial ones through reduced fees, to encourage the public to embrace electronic access.
Many contributors to today's debate have said that low take-up is often linked to how websites are presented. Some are lacking in relevant information or are not updated. The Minister was honest enough to acknowledge the problem in his opening remarks and I am pleased that he is dealing with it.
As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said, there has been no single source for accessing information on public services and one has to go to each different departmental site for information. I hope that the development of UK online and the provision of a useful public access site will remedy what is clearly a gap.
Many services can be started but not necessarily completed online. I have not recently needed to apply for a passport, but I understand that if people seek to do so online, the application can be filled in electronically but has then to be sent back for a signature. For many people, that sort of process is far more hassle than it is worth. If they find that they can do only half the job electronically, many people will decide that they may as well go for the old-fashioned process of filling things in by hand. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government are doing about that particular problem.
We have been united in saying that universal broadband access is essential. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) raised that point and I know that his views are shared by the hon. Member for North Dorset and other hon. Members. A lack of availability of broadband in rural areas is bad news for small businessmen who seek to stay in their local community and develop their business but find that they are uncompetitive because they do not have access to the service. I hope that the Minister, not only in his reply today but afterwards, will continue to consider ways of bringing about a universal broadband coverage in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) mentioned regional development agencies and our joint surprise at the money that is being spent in California from UK public funds. He made his point very well.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde spoke about digital televisions. I wholeheartedly agree with him. A large strand of society does not need to use a computer and has no intention of buying one. Some people almost make a virtue of that, saying, "I'm never going to own a computer." However, if they had the facility in their own home to access services electronically through their television, they would be surfing most of the time. I would put my father into that category. He would not have a computer in his house but I know that, if he had a handset and a digital television and a keyboard, he would be a great user of
354WH
electronic services. When they come, such facilities will bring about a great change in the use of electronic services.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey said about his attempts to bring together a Select Committee to deal with the issue of broadband and how he had been thwarted by the parochial attitude of a number of Members of individual Committees. I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was leading such a campaign. The Procedure Committee and the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee would certainly wish to consider such a campaign. As a member of the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee, I would certainly be prepared to press the hon. Gentleman's points on his behalf. What he said was valid and relevant. I do not know whether he has tried to get the Chairman of the Liaison Committee on board, but I would urge him to do so if he has not done so already.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) mentioned video recorders and Betamax. I am a little older than he is and I can remember, in the days when it was a rare but desirable thing to have music on the move, that most of us who wanted to play music in a car or on a boat were faced with two options: cassette tapes or eight-track tapes. We all know what happened in the battle between the two—the cassette won and VHS won the battle with Betamax. The moral is that the best system is not always the winning system.
The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) made a valuable point about the dominant market position, which I hope the Minister will refer to in his reply. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Microsoft, but in future it could apply to another company. What he said about industry standards was valid and I hope the Minister will reflect on what he had to say on the risk of building in software dependency.
This has been an interesting debate and I welcome the opportunity we have had to discuss the subject. I look forward to further debates on the matter because it is vital to continue to ensure that our citizens receive the most efficient and cost-effective delivery of public services now and in the future. The key to that is increasing and improving electronic delivery.
5.15 pm
Mr. Alexander: I concur with the opinions expressed on both sides of the Chamber. This has been an invigorating and interesting debate, which I will reflect on long after its conclusion.
There have been contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House and I shall endeavour to reply to as many as I can in turn in the remaining time. However, first I want to pick up a point made by the Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) in his concluding remarks. He began by suggesting that there is no divide between the parties in recognising that e-enablement is an actuality in public service delivery. I suggest, respectfully, that there is as great a divide as there has ever been between the parties on the issue. The Government are investing £6 billion in such projects; that stands somewhat askance from the position of a party that in recent weeks confirmed its intention to cut

355WH
public expenditure not by 5, 10 or 15 per cent. but by 20 per cent. Crocodile tears about the need for more UK online centres are ill-judged against the financial background of a Shadow Treasury Bench committed to closing one in five.
In contrast, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) spoke with characteristic grace, and I am grateful to him for his kind remarks. As a fellow fisherman, I would not underestimate the significance of being able to find a fishing rod online; the problem for me after a day on the river is that there is all too rarely a fish on line.
The substance of the right hon. Gentleman's critique was that getting Government services online was not enough and in that respect we are also in agreement. I agree, too, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech in November, to which several hon. Members have referred. He said that in addition to the 2005 target—I will speak about that later—of getting Government services online, the Government were focusing on securing high levels of take-up on key e-services that had the capacity to add the most value in our drive to improve public services such as health and education. The right hon. Gentleman was less charitable, however, in his characterisation of progress on the issue of broadband, which we have debated for a number of years. On price, I can confirm that last year's wholesale DSL cuts put the UK third in the G8 for DSL prices, behind only Canada and Japan. Similarly, cable prices in the UK are now among the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Given the right hon. Gentleman's constituency interests, there is a concern about levels of coverage, but I emphasise that 67 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom has access to mainstream broadband services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) raised important points about the centrality of IT manufacturing to the local economy of his constituency with its historical connections with IBM, and the more general point about the experience of local government and the risk of automating the past, as he accurately put it. My local authority in Renfrewshire found challenges in coming to terms with receiving e-mailed requests for housing repairs 24/7. That has involved a number of changes to back-office functions. The opportunity he rightly identified for e-transformation is exactly the focus in the local government online strategy, which was published immediately after the Prime Minister's speech at the e-summit by the Deputy Prime Minister's office to provide the kind of sharing of best practice that my hon. Friend asked for. Of course he is right, as the strategy recognises, to argue for fundamental reform. He is equally correct to identify the need for sharing of best practice so that, where possible, unnecessary course duplication of diverse bespoke systems and the like can be avoided. He also brought a different dimension to the debate through his recognition of the central role of digital TV in this area of Government policy. It is less recognised than it should be that the United Kingdom has led the world in the level of digital television penetration.
356WH
As my hon. Friend accurately said, digital TV can play a critical role in making sure we address the equity as well as the efficiency issues. It is a commonplace that there are sectors of the community whose members may for whatever reason, as the Front-Bench spokesman acknowledged, have no wish for a computer in their home in the future, but who are relaxed about pressing the red button on the television and interacting directly through digital TV. That is why I am particularly glad of the work of the e-Envoy's office in ensuring services can be provided through digital TV, which has the capacity to reach sections of the community that might otherwise risk exclusion.
Perhaps more contentiously, as a friend I will accept my hon. Friend's proud and rather charitable interpretation of why Greenock and lnverclyde has the highest level of internet use per day in Scotland. I merely add for hon. Members' information that it tends to rain quite a lot in Greenock.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) echoed the comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire on the central charge that the Government need to focus more on getting services online. In this sense there is agreement across the House. He then made the case for further work to bridge the digital divide—another point on which we are in agreement. He identified Canada in particular as a leader in government services. It is fair to acknowledge that, not least on the basis of the benchmark work we have conducted, that is indeed the case. The hon. Gentleman recently travelled to Canada as representative to the e-Envoy's office to see some of the work there. I commend the Canadian Government's work in e-government services. Furthermore, when I spent time at the Department of Trade and Industry I found the development of the Canadian Government's broadband strategy highly instructive and useful in helping to frame the British Government's response to what are not altogether analogous but neither too dissimilar challenges.
The benchmarking exercise, which was published at the time of the e-summit, affirms our recognition that there are opportunities not only for local government but for central Government to learn from best practice elsewhere, partly because this is an innovative and new area of policy making. The e-Envoy's drawing together of strands of work from around the world has strengthened the case that Britain will be able to take forward this work effectively.
The hon. Gentleman was correct in paying tribute to Learndirect's work in Sheffield. It may not be known to hon. Members that in a previous life I was a speechwriter for the now Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). It was a matter of anxiety that year upon year in opposition we used to write into his conference speech the fact that we would establish a university for industry that would do for the modern era what the Open university achieved in the 1960s. Therefore it is a matter of particular pride to me not only that the university for industry has proved so popular, but that it has been so attuned to the needs of the time. We all have examples of constituents who have benefited from Learndirect. It is a good example of the current reach for services that otherwise might not be available.

357WH
The hon. Gentleman also made a point about banking services, from which an interesting analogy can be drawn with Government services. The number of people who no longer enter banks but instead either contact them by telephone or access them online is probably a good beacon of progress for us. Of course, there are particular security challenges in the banking sector, which in some ways replicate the challenges of e-government services. Where there are best practice examples we can learn from in the private sector we should undoubtedly do so.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to diversity of supply and avoiding proprietary lock-in. Government research and development and the use of open source are policy areas driven by the Department of Trade and Industry. Our policy on open source is a level playing field. We will consider open source solutions alongside proprietary ones in IT procurement and contracts will be awarded on a value-for-money basis, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) argued. I was intrigued by his characterisation of public sector difference. Where value can be extracted from our intellectual property rights, of course we should look at that. An example of that is the Government gateway, where we own the intellectual property rights; we have licensed it to Microsoft, and potentially stand to get significant income streams from overseas sales of this world-leading infrastructure.
I turn to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). He offered a range of characteristically innovative propositions to which I will give thought not only in the debate but after it has ended. I received his e-mail this morning, when I was sitting at my desk preparing for the debate. However, as we are under time constraints, I will not address all of the points that he raised.
On my hon. Friend's initial point about being able to pay for the television licence, I am reliably informed by my outstanding officials that licences can be bought online. The only difficulty that I faced is that I could not read the website address that had been given to me, so I respectfully suggest that my hon. Friend might wish to punch into Google, "TV licensing." That might be a useful start in seeking to ensure that one is able to access that site. On the general issue of best practice websites for the public sector, I commend the govtalk site on the office of the e-Envoy's website.
I said that broadband policy is led by the Department of Trade and Industry, but my hon. Friend's suggestion that there should be a broadband hub is currently being tested in the broadband fund pilots. He might be especially interested in the developing work of the South West of England Regional Development Agency in advancing a broadband hub in that part of the country.
On the alteration of planning regulations for broadband, that immediately brought to mind the last report of the broadband stakeholders' group, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is examining that issue through consultation, as was recommended by the group. That is also what my hon. Friend argued for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) brought the wealth of his experience from industry and local government to our deliberations. He made many points. One of them echoed the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey by
358WH
acknowledging the vital work that UK online provides, particularly to socially excluded communities throughout the country. I agree with those sentiments and wish to reiterate how central those centres are to our vision of social inclusion. I would argue that an appropriate analogy is the work that the Victorians undertook in establishing public libraries. That is one of the best parallels that can be drawn with this quiet revolution that has been taking place. By the strength of our common endeavour we were able to provide the means by which individuals, even in deprived communities such as mining towns and inner cities, were able to realise their potential through reading and learning.
With regard to my constituency, I would argue that similar transformative capabilities are being offered by computer learning centres. A single illustration might be sufficient to make that point. I recently visited the South End action centre in Paisley, which has established a computer learning centre, and the first thing that struck me was the fact that a senior citizen was sitting next to a teenager. These days there cannot be many public spaces—or places that have been provided by public investment—where such a wide age range is represented within a single community facility.
However, I was even more struck by something else. I asked the senior citizen about the use that he made of the e-mail service. He lives in the high flats that are across the road from the centre and he explained that his brother had left for Canada more than 40 years ago and that, because of the cost of using the telephone and sending post by air mail, they had very rarely communicated with each other until he was able to use the computer learning centre's facilities. Now he communicates with his brother by writing lengthy paragraphs to him once or twice a day. He said that that had transformed family relations, because he was able to catch up with a relative with whom he had lost touch for many years. That is exciting: I never anticipated that an online centre would have been put to that sort of use.
Other people in the centre were engaged in a range of different activities, such as looking for work and filling out CVs. If one is searching for an example of where, by the strength of our common endeavour, we can implement genuinely radical transformation, one needs to look no further than the computer online centres in our constituencies.
The hon. Member for Southport raised the issue of Microsoft and the gateway. The UK Government gateway will communicate effectively with the products of companies other than Microsoft. We support open standards: the Government abide by strict rules to ensure fair competition for procurement and service provision, and across Departments we work with various private sector partners to deliver our e-government objectives. In the gateway project alone, we are working not only with Microsoft but with several other partners.
I turn to the specific issue of which browsers can be used on the gateway. The browsers that are currently available are Internet Explorer, Netscape, Mozilla and Opera, and we are committed to providing further access. The majority of personal computers run Windows with Netscape, and these were implemented first, followed by Macintosh, which is the second most popular. Testing browser and operating system

359WH
combinations to ensure that they work successfully can be a lengthy process, and I hope that further browser and operating system combinations will be tested and released during the coming year.
I also affirm to the hon. Member for Southport that the Government have never worked to a policy in which Microsoft products and services were favoured above others, including open source software. Our policy is
360WH
explicitly to have a level playing field in Government procurement, so that OSS products and services will be assessed alongside proprietary ones, and the solutions will be chosen on a case-by-case basis.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I regret that we have run out of time. Before we end, I congratulate all hon. Members who have participated, as this has been an interesting and well-informed debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Five o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many full-time equivalent staff are employed in(a) the Department and (b) each of the agencies it sponsors; and what the figures were for 1997. [90662]

  Mr. Alexander
  Full-time equivalent numbers for staff in all civil service departments and agencies is released twice-yearly by press notice. The latest data, for April 2002, was published on 31 October 2002. Data for April 1997 appears in the annual publication "Civil Service Statistics". Copies of the press notices and annual publication are available from the Library of the House.

  It is not possible to make exact comparisons over time because of changes in the make up of the departments and agencies comprising the civil service. Not only do new organisations appear and old ones disappear, but staff changes may reflect the transfer of work between departments and agencies.

TRANSPORT

  Accreditation
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department is doing to support the Government's policy on accreditation. [88090]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as the sole national body for the accreditation, against international standards, of certification and inspection bodies, testing and calibration laboratories. My Department uses UKAS accreditation services whenever it is appropriate to do so.

  Examples include our ISO 14001 environmental management systems and the certification work undertaken by the Vehicle Certification Agency in the motor trade industry and proposed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in the shipping industry. The Highways Agency also continues to work closely with UKAS to help establish benchmark standards within the industry for certification purposes.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to publish the Government's response to the Central Railway's proposals for a freight line; and if he will make a statement. [91027]
  696W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 28 November,Official Report, column 455W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the distribution of his Department's whole-time equivalent staff was, including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to him, in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90471]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 609W.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90515]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department was formed on 29 May 2002. Expenditure on external consultants by my Department during the remainder of 2002 was £93.1 million.

  Freight Facilities Grant
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was paid in freight facilities grant in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [91547]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table shows UK Freight Facilities Grant payments by financial years:

  £ million

  1997–98

  8.4

  1998–99

  9.6

  1999–2000

  12.1

  2000–01

  19.9

  2001–02

  46.5

  I believe this year-on-year increase in the amount of money paid in grant to be clear evidence of our continuing commitment to transferring freight from road to rail or water, wherever it is practical and environmentally beneficial to do so.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his Department. [90859]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Approximately 7 per cent. of staff in DfT Central Units work part time. Information specifically on job sharers is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Job sharing forms just one strand of a range of possible alternative and flexible working arrangements. Under DfT central posting arrangements, all posts are open to part-time workers or job sharers. In very exceptional cases where line managers consider that a post cannot be filled on a
  697W
  part- time/job share basis, they must make a case to HR setting out compelling reasons for this. The vast majority of such requests are denied.

  The central Department, in conjunction with ODPM, supports a part-time workers network.

  The DfT agencies, in almost all cases, also operate a policy of advertising all posts as open to part-time workers or job sharers. All operate a range of flexible working options. Several also support part-time working or carers networks.

  Network Rail
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of expenditure by Network Rail on public expenditure commitments; and if he will make a statement. [90613]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Rail Regulator is currently conducting an interim review of Network Rail's access charges. This began on 15 November 2002 and is expected to be completed by the end of 2003.

  Port Marine Safety Code
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 9 December 2002,Official Report, columns 38–41W, on statutory harbour authorities, which statutory harbour authorities (a) have not completed and (b) have not indicated that they have completed implementation of the Port Marine Safety Code. [90801]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following competent harbour authorities have neither(a) completed nor (b) indicated that they have completed implementation of the Port Marine Safety Code because they have not yet issued a formal statement of compliance:

  Eastbourne (Sovereign Harbour)

  Irvine Harbour Company

  Porthleven Harbour and Docks Company

  Canterbury District Council (Whitstable)

  Carmarthenshire County Council (Llanelli/Burry Port)

  Exeter City Council

  Isle of Wight Council (Newport)

  Waveney District Council (Southwold)

  Worthing Borough Council

  Crouch Harbour Authority

  Looe Harbour Commission

  Maryport Harbour Commission

  Mousehole Harbour Commission

  Sandwich Port and Haven Commission

  Duchy of Cornwall (Isles of Scilly)

  Broads Authority

  My Department is reviewing the quality of compliance by harbour authorities and will be making further investigations of the above authorities and any others where there is an indication that they may not have given proper consideration to the principles embodied in the Code.
  698W

  Portland Search and Rescue Helicopter
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the risk assessment of the safety implications of moving the Portland search and rescue helicopter to Lee-on-Solent. [90409]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An operational analysis of the Portland area helicopter was carried out for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) by consultants for internal purposes. The analysis is technical in nature and is considered to be commercially sensitive and is therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 13 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Discussions about the future of the helicopter base are continuing.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will require the Strategic Rail Authority to publish regional freight strategies. [90846]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA's Strategic Plan, due to be published shortly, will provide some area-based information on the current use of the rail network for passenger and freight traffic throughout the country. There is no immediate plan to publish separate regional freight strategies.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many statutory instruments have been issued by his Department in each calendar year since 1979. [89836]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport was formed on 29 May 2002. During the remainder of the calendar year 2002 it issued a total of 639 statutory instruments comprising 78 general instruments and 561 local instruments.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress made to meet his target of(a) an increase of 75 per cent. investment in the transport service through the Transport 2010 programme and (b) a reduction of 15 per cent. in traffic congestion. [90793]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such targets were included in the 10 Year Plan for transport. Progress against the objectives in the Plan are set out in 'Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report' which was published 17 December 2002, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Trains (Cycle Storage)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met members of the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss the provision of cycle storage on trains; what the outcome was of these discussions; and if he will make a statement. [88942]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State for Transport, and other Departmental Ministers, meet the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) on a regular basis and discuss a range of issues.
  699W
  The SRA is continuing to encourage the provision of secure storage for bicycles at railway stations and for their carriage on trains where this is feasible. The SRA encourages all train operators to tailor their bicycle provision to the demand and latent demand on each route.

  Transport 2010
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the levels of(a) public and (b) private money being used to fund Transport 2010 in London. [90797]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Total public and private spending for London over the period of the 10 Year Plan are set out in the Finance Annex to "Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report" which was published on 17 December 2002 and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  In addition, Transport for London and the London Underground will have fares income available to them, and the Mayor will also have the revenues from his congestion charging scheme to spend on transport.

  Vehicle Registration
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many possible vehicle registration numbers exist, and how many were issued, in each of the series 51 and 02. [90990]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In each of the series 51 and 02 there are 7,312,896 registration numbers. For the 51 series 2,108,111 numbers were issued and for the 02 series 2,205,995 numbers.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many possible combinations of letters in the pattern of current vehicle registration numbers exist; and of those, how many are available for allocation in any six month period. [90991]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are 7,312,896 possible combinations in the current registration number system. From this total, combinations are withheld if they are likely to cause offence or are reserved for sale and in each six-month period the number available for allocation fluctuates. In the periods September 2001 to February 2002 and March 2002 to August 2002 there were 5,072,976 and 5,082,391 combinations available for allocation respectively.

DEFENCE

  Navall Air Defence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate his Department has made of the comparative effectiveness in their air defence roles of(a) fixed-wing carrier-borne aircraft, (b) modernised Type 42 destroyers and (c) future Type 45 destroyers. [90103]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom maritime forces normally operate as part of a Task Group, which protects itself against air attack through a series of 'layered' defences. Task Groups typically include carrier and/or land based fixed wing aircraft as an outer layer.700W
  Inside and complementary to this, the Type 42 Anti-Air Warfare Destroyers (and also Type 22 and 23 Frigates) are equipped to provide an air defence capability for both Force and self protection. The Type 42 Destroyers systems are being enhanced to ensure they remain effective in the air defence role.

  The Type 42 Destroyers will be replaced by the Type 45 Destroyers, fitted with the highly capable Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS). PAAMS will represent a significant improvement in Air Defence capability compared with that provided by the current Type 42 Destroyer fitted with Seadart. Key improvements will include better surveillance, increased channels of fire, a larger magazine capacity and a faster, more manoeuvrable missiles.

  The comparative effectiveness of these complementing layers has been successfully demonstrated in many recent National, NATO and Allied exercises and proven in the Gulf and Adriatic conflicts to adequately protect a Task Group.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce a policy whereby defence contracts awarded to foreign companies require 50 per cent.of the work to be carried out in the United Kingdom. [90430]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon Friend to the answer I gave on 13 January 2003 Official Report, columns 405–06W.

  Dstl Staff
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the initial capital spend for relocation of Dstl staff from Farnborough to Portsdown Main. [89814]

  Dr. Moonie
  The costs of house moves for the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) staff relocating from Farnborough to Portsdown Main, together with the additional travelling costs for staff choosing not to move house, are estimated to be £13.3 million.

  Dstl considered many different site rationalisation options. The selected option delivers the greatest improvements in synergy while remaining affordable.

  The estimated capital value of the contract to refurbish the Portsdown Main site is commercially sensitive and is withheld in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if an environmental sustainability assessment was made of factors that may result from the relocation of Dstl staff in Farnborough to Portsdown Main, with particular reference to changes in the level of commuter traffic; and if he will make a statement. [89815]

  Dr. Moonie
  A Strategic Environmental Appraisal (environmental sustainability assessment) was prepared in accordance with MOD Policy for each of the site relocation options considered by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl).
  701W
  It is recognised that the rationalisation of Dstl sites will result in a change in travel patterns, the overall effect of which is likely to be beneficial, in that it will contribute to reducing the need for travel between geographically dispersed sites. Dstl also recognises, however, that at Portsdown Main there will be local issues concerning the increased level of commuter traffic entering and leaving the area. Dstl are consulting with the local planning authorities and are commissioning consultants to identify any significant environmental constraints and to prepare a Preliminary Environmental Report. As part of this commission a detailed transport assessment will be completed, which will highlight areas where improvement and mitigation might be beneficial. Dstl are committed to establishing a travel plan for Portsdown Main with the aim of reducing dependency on the private car and promoting the use of other modes of transport. The prime contractor appointed to complete the refurbishment and re-population of Portsdown Main will be required to take full account of these findings during design, construction and subsequent operation of the site.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the financial appraisal and independent review by the MoD Senior Economic Advisor of the decision to move Dstl staff from Farnborough to Portsdown Main. [89831]

  Dr. Moonie
  The appraisal referred to contains information that is commercially sensitive, it is withheld in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) is currently requesting bids from contractors for the refurbishment of the Portsdown Main site and information contained in the appraisal may weaken Dstl negotiating position.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the loss to Dstl of experienced staff who are unable or unwilling to relocate from Farnborough to Portsdown Main. [89832]

  Dr. Moonie
  The move of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) staff from Farnborough to a new site at Portsdown is planned for 2006. At this comparatively early stage it is difficult to predict whether or not Dstl will lose staff and if so in what numbers. We hope that all staff currently employed by Dstl at the Farnborough site will choose to stay with the Laboratory and move to the new site.

  In October 2002, after the relocation decision had been announced to staff, Dstl commissioned MORI to carry out an independent Staff Opinion Survey. The response of staff, particularly at Farnborough, was very positive and had improved in key areas over the previous survey in 2001. There are no indications at this time that Dstl will lose significant numbers of staff because of its relocation plans.

  DynCorp
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel and from which departments or agencies within his Department, currently employed by 702W
  his Department, would be transferred to the employ of DynCorp should the company's bid prove successful; and if he will make a statement. [90776]

  Mr. Ingram
  Landmarc Support Services (LSS) have been selected by the Ministry of Defence as the preferred bidder to act as the strategic partner in the management and running of the Army Training Estate. LSS is a special purpose company owned by Interserve Defence Ltd and DynCorp International.

  Approximately 1,450 Civil and Crown Servants from the Army Training Estate, Defence Estates and Reserve Forces and Cadets Association would transfer, with their jobs, to LSS between April and August 2003, should a contract be placed. These staff will have their employment rights protected by both Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and MOD's codes of practice.

  Ethical Banking
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89942]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government believe it is important for consumers to have choice in financial products, including the availability of 'ethical' products. However, it would not be appropriate for the government to exclusively support the development of one specific group of financial service providers. It is for individual consumers to decide the attributes they most value from their financial services and for financial services firms to be transparent about their use of funds and investments.

  European Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what purposes beyond humanitarian relief, peacekeeping and crisis management British hardware and personnel committed to the European Rapid Reaction Force may be used; [89587]

  (2) what the British (a) hardware and (b) personnel commitment is to the ERRF; and to what extent this has changed since November 2002; [89588]

  (3) what British commitment he estimates will be required to meet goal shortfalls by fellow members of the ERRF in (a) its first year and (b) subsequent years. [89589]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no standing European Rapid Reaction Force. Under the European Security and Defence Policy, national forces will come together for specific, EU-led crisis management operations (the 'Petersberg tasks') where NATO as a whole is not engaged. These incorporate humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks, and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.

  We are not committing British forces to a standing structure—we and other member states are, on a voluntary basis, offering to make forces available to meet requirements identified in the Helsinki Headline Catalogue as necessary to enable the EU to undertake the full spectrum of Petersberg tasks. The potential British contribution could be up to 12.500 troops, 72 combat

  703W
  aircraft and 18 warships, with a full range of supporting capabilities. At the Capabilities Improvement Conference in November 2001, along with other member states, the United Kingdom increased its potential contribution in areas where capability shortfalls were identified. There has been no change since then.

  Headline Goal shortfalls are identified by comparing the combined total of forces offered by member states with the Headline Goal requirements and are therefore collective; it is not the case that the United Kingdom contribution is intended to meet the shortfalls of others. Implementing solutions to shortfalls is a matter for nations or groups of nations to undertake voluntarily.

  Field Hospital Volunteers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the 202 Field Hospital Volunteers have been called up; what their profession is in each case; and in which NHS facility they are employed. [90911]

  Dr. Moonie
  To date no members of 202 (Volunteer) Field Hospital have been called up, nor are there any immediate plans to do so.

  Iraq
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) briefing and (b) other assistance personnel from his Department gave to The Sunday Telegraph in respect of its report of 22 December 2002 about preparations for a military campaign against Iraq. [89883]

  Mr. Hoon
  No authorised briefing or assistance was given.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines he has given to the media about what is not appropriate to report in advance of possible military action against Iraq. [89884]

  Mr. Hoon
  No guidelines have been issued to anyone detailing what would not be appropriate to report should there be any military action against Iraq. However, the specific issue of reporting restrictions is dealt with under the DA Notice procedures, further details of which can be found on the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee website at:

  The Ministry of Defence will shortly be in touch with editors of the mainstream media about the arrangements for reporting during any possible future military action against Iraq.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children have been killed in Iraq as a direct result of bombs and missiles used to enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq since the policy of implementation was started. [90234]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are not aware of any child fatalities resulting from responses made in self-defence by coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.

  Coalition aircrew only ever respond in self defence against military targets. When attacks by Iraqi air defences force coalition aircraft to respond in this way,
  704W
  we go to great lengths to ensure that the risk of civilian casualties is minimised. Targets are selected with extreme care and precision-guided weapons are used.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to date of mobilisation of British troops and medical auxiliaries for prospective military activities in the Gulf. [90239]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not yet available. I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he expects the Fairford air base in Gloucester to play in any conflict with Iraq. [90255]

  Mr. Hoon
  RAF Fairford is a NATO designated standby base that is made available to the United States Visiting Force and from which a wide range of aircraft types can be deployed. The United Kingdom Government must be fully consulted and agree before any US Air Force aircraft are deployed operationally from any RAF base, including RAF Fairford.

  No request has been received to activate RAF Fairford for operational purposes and it would be inappropriate to speculate what role, if any, the base might play in the event of any conflict with Iraq.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD personnel are engaged in(a) translating and (b) analysing the dossier submitted by Iraq to the UN; and if he will make a statement. [88959]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Iraqi declaration in response to United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 is being analysed by the Ministry of Defence in conjunction with other Departments. Parts of the declaration are being translated into English by Ministry of Defence personnel and by personnel drawn from other Departments. I am withholding the number of personnel engaged in the tasks of translating and analysing the declaration in accordance with Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Future Joint Combat Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a decision is to be made on the additional purchase of Future Joint Combat Aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [90159]

  Mr. Ingram
  We do not expect to make a decision on how many Joint Strike Fighters are required to meet our Future Joint Combat Aircraft requirement until 2006. Work to inform this decision is ongoing and in the meantime our planning assumption remains that up to 150 Short Take Off and Vertical Landing Joint Strike Fighters will be required.

  A purchase of additional Joint Strike Fighters is one of the options being considered to fill any manned aircraft requirement within the Future Offensive Air System. A range of potential mixes of platforms is currently being looked at, including Long Range Cruise Missiles, Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicles and manned aircraft. No decisions have yet been taken.

  New Barracks
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites being considered for new barracks. [88571]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 16t December 2002, Official Report, column 518W, on RAF bases, for what reason no budget is shown for RAF Menwith Hill. [90153]

  Mr. Ingram
  RAF Menwith Hill is owned by the Ministry of Defence and made available to the US Department of Defense under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951. Administration of the base is the responsibility of the US authorities.

  Information on detailed operational matters at RAF Menwith Hill, including funding issues, is withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information on the grounds of national security.

  Reservists
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts signed by his Department requiring the service provider to employ sponsored reserves; how many sponsored reserves are required in each case; and if he will make a statement. [90774]

  Dr. Moonie
  As of 14 January contracts have been signed for the RORO Strategic Sealift which has a requirement for 180 Sponsored Reserves (SRs), the Survey Vessels Project which has a requirement for four SRs, the Mobile Met Unit which has a requirement for 48 SRs and the Heavy Equipment Transporter which has a requirement for 85 SRs.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many call-out notices have been sent out recently; how many call-out notices were sent to reservists and under what legal headings prior to and during(a) the Kosovo crisis, (b) the first Gulf war and (c) operations in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [90798]

  Dr. Moonie
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence stated in his announcement to the House on 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 24, we envisage initially sending out sufficient call-out notices to secure about 1,500 Reservists and we will issue further notices as appropriate. As of 13 January, some 615 call-out notices had been sent under the authority of the call-out order made on 7 January 2003 under Section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (RFA 96). For operations in the former republic of Yugoslavia (including Kosovo) and Afghanistan, Reservists were also called out under Section 54 of RFA 96. For Operation Granby (the Gulf conflict 1990–91), Reservists were called out under Section 10 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. Information regarding call-out notices served for these operations is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  706W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether reservists are awaiting call-up to come from(a) the Territorial Army and (b) the Civilian Regular Reserves; what reserve liabilities exist for each category of reserve in each of the three services; which situations must exist before recall can be permitted; what procedures have to be followed in order to implement the call-up in each case; and if he will make a statement. [90799]

  Dr. Moonie
  Initially we envisage to secure about 1,500 reservists under the call-out Order made on 7 January 2003. That Order was made under section 54(1) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. The vast majority of those being called out will come from the volunteer reserve forces, ie. the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marines Reserve, the Territorial Army and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. However, some reservists, particularly those who have skills not readily available in the volunteer reserve forces, will be called out from the ex-regular reserve forces, ie. the Royal Fleet Reserve, the Army Reserve and the Royal Air Force Reserve.

  The general liabilities for members of the reserve forces, both volunteer and ex-regular, are set out in Part VI of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, particularly sections 52, 54 and 56. The liability of certain officers and former servicemen who are not members of any reserve force to be recalled for service is set out in Part VII of the Act and the power to authorise their recall is laid down in section 68. The call-out Order made on 7 January does not authorise the mobilisation of such individuals and there are no plans to make a recall Order. Such an Order could only be made in time of national danger or if a great emergency had arisen.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons reservists can refuse to serve; what powers the MoD has to compel reservists to serve; and if he will make a statement. [90800]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Reserve Forces Act 1996 (RFA 96) requires Reservists who are served with a call-out notice to report for service at a specified time and place. Failure to comply may result in the Reservist being charged with desertion or absence without leave and may be tried by court-martial or summarily by a civil court. However, RFA 96 also contains safeguards for individuals, including the right to apply for exemption from or deferral of call-out. The detailed regulations are contained in the Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall) (Exemptions Etc) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 1997/307. Schedule 1 of those regulations sets out the grounds on which a Reservist may make an application. Reservists are made aware of their right to apply for deferral or exemption at the time of their call-out. There are separate arrangements for conscientious objectors.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists are being called up who reside in Scotland. [90391]

  Dr. Moonie
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence stated in his announcement to the House on 7 January 2003 Official Report, column 24, experience shows that the number of call-out notices issued needs to be significantly larger than the number of individual Reservists likely to be required. Under the

  707W
  call-out order made on 7 January 2003, we envisage initially sending out sufficient call-out notices to secure about 1,500 Reservists and we will issue further notices as appropriate. As of 13 January, some 615 call-out notices had been issued, of which 32 were sent to addresses in Scotland.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many statutory instruments have been issued by his Department in each calendar year since 1979. [89850]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held for the years prior to 1999. The Ministry of Defence issued the following number of statutory instruments:

  Date

  Statutory Instruments Issued

  1999

  4

  2000

  18

  2001

  10

  2002

  12

  Strategic Sea Lift Capability
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) current and (b) projected future strategic sea lift capability of the armed forces. [90102]

  Mr. Ingram
  Currently the Ministry of Defence has four Roll-On/Roll-Off vessels available full-time to meet our strategic sealift requirement. It is MOD policy is to charter merchant shipping from the commercial market to meet additional demands. In addition to this capability five Landing Ships Logistic (LSL) provide additional lift capability if not required for amphibious operations.

  For the future, with the full introduction of our new strategic sealift service by the summer, we will have six RoRo vessels available at various degrees of readiness. Four of these vessels will be employed by MOD to meet day-to-day requirements with the remaining two vessels at lower states of readiness being available to MOD when operational situations warrant. This capability will also be augmented by four Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) (LSD(A)) which again, will be available when not required for amphibious operations. These vessels, which have a significantly enhanced lift capability, will replace current LSLs and are scheduled to come into service from 2004.

  Type 23 Frigates (Chile)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to sell RN Type 23 frigates to the Chilean Navy; and if he will make a statement. [90160]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon Member to the answer my hon Friend the Under Secretary of State for Defence gave on 30 April 2002 Official Report, column 746W to the hon. Member for Essex, North (Mr. Jenkin).

  War Pensions
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of UK veterans from conflicts 708W
  since and including World War II have claimed war pensions (a) three years, (b) five years, (c) 10 years and (d) more than 20 years after they would have been entitled to start receiving the benefit since 1972. [91049]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not available in the format required and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The War Pensions Scheme is unique in that there are no time limits for claiming a war pension. As a consequence of this, the onus has always been on the veteran to make a claim and entitlement is normally only given from the date of claim.

  Warship Modernisation Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will write to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South regarding his answer of 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 457W, concerning the Warship Modernisation Project. [84153]

  Mr. Ingram
  I replied to the hon. Member today.

WALES

  Capita
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by the Office. [89977]

  Peter Hain
  No contracts have been awarded to the Capita Group by my Department.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State received from members of the public in relation to his ministerial responsibilities in 2002. [90729]

  Peter Hain
  During 2002 the Parliamentary Under-Secretary answered 46 letters from members of the public in his Ministerial capacity. In addition 258 letters, which had been addressed either to myself or to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, were answered on our behalf by officials.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he received from members of the public in relation to his ministerial responsibilities in 2002. [90959]

  Peter Hain
  During 2002 my predecessor and I answered 307 letters from members of the public in our Ministerial capacity. In addition, 258 letters which had been addressed to either the Secretary of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, were answered on Ministers' behalf by officials.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's performance against each of its public service agreement targets. [89922]
  709W
  Peter Hain
  My Department is not required to have a public service agreement because of the nature of its role and its size.

  Welsh Office Assets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the assets of the Welsh Office valued at more than £50,000, identifying in each case(a) the nature of the asset, (b) the latest estimated value of the asset and (c) the rationale for possession of the asset; and if he will make a statement. [89952]

  Peter Hain

  (a) Land and Buildings, that is, Gwydyr House in Whitehall, London SW1;

  (b) £1,7 million; and

  (c) it is the London headquarters of my Department and the location of my London office.

  Freehold Land and Buildings were valued on 31 March 2000 on the basis of open market value for existing use in accordance with the "Appraisal and Valuation Manual" produced jointly by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers and the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation. The valuation has been adjusted to its level at 31 March 2002 in accordance with accounting conventions.

  Welsh Office Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is for the latest year for which information is available of the cost to the Welsh Office of(a) its press office, (b) its legal office, (c) its private office, (d) its briefing unit, (e) its social policy unit and (f) its finance and administration unit; and if he will make a statement. [89956]

  Peter Hain
  The net administration costs of my Department in 2001–02 were £2.839 million. The costs of the constituent branches are not separately identifiable.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total expenditure of her Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90519]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's spend on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2001–02 was £28,234.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many full-time equivalent staff are employed in(a) the Department and (b) each of the agencies it sponsors; and what the figures were for 1997. [90678]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of full-time equivalent staff employed in the Department and the Royal Parks Agency are set out in the following table.
  710W

  Current

  1997

  DCMS

  459

  340

  RPA

  237

  238

  Ethical Banking
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89946]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department uses the Bank of England for banking services and there have been no other relevant contracts concluded.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost to her Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90500]

  Dr. Howells
  11 contracts were awarded to external consultants in 2002 totalling £323,820. This includes the Royal Parks Agency.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [90868]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a range of policies intended to help staff to better manage work-life balance, including support for part-time and job-share opportunities. All posts are open to those wishing to work part-time or job share although there are currently no posts being filled on a job-share basis.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much lottery money remains unspent, broken down by the distribution body. [91113]

  Mr. Caborn
  The amounts not yet drawn down from the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) are shown in the following table.

  Distributing body

  Unspent balance as at 31 December 2002 (£)

  Arts Council of England

  233,021,761.89

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  35,014,526.62

  Arts Council of Wales

  31,016,874.65

  Community Fund

  303,497,261.54

  Film Council

  72,119,368.59

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  1,020,616,023.34

  Millennium Commission

  330,359,968.55

  New Opportunities Fund

  937,329,787.85

  Scottish Arts Council

  50,812,445.67

  Scottish Screen

  2,839,957.24

  Sport England

  295,290,905.58

  Sport Scotland

  77,913,479.92

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  21,008,670.19

  Sports Council for Wales

  34,445,319.32

  UK Sport

  4,166,877.84

  Total

  3,449,453,228.79

  711W
  At 30 September 2002, the distributing bodies collectively had made commitments, with varying degrees of firmness, totalling £3.99 billion.

  Minimum Wage
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will estimate the impact of increasing the minimum wage(a) in line with average earnings, (b) to £4.17 per hour, (c) to £4.87 per hour, (d) to £5.00 per hour and (e) to £5.30 per hour, on the cost of salaries of departmental employees (i) in total and (ii) for each nation of the United Kingdom in the next financial year. [90598]

  Dr. Howells
  There would be no impact on the cost of salaries of DCMS employees in any of the scenarios(a) to (e) as all DCMS employees are paid at a higher hourly rate than £5.30 per hour. All DCMS employees work in England.

  Public Handling Rights
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much on average was paid out annually through Public handling Rights over the last five years; and what the administrative cost was. [89857]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]The average total amount paid out annually by the Public Lending Right fund to registered authors between 1997 to 2001, the last five years for which payments have been made, was £4.3 million. During the same period, the average annual administrative cost of the scheme was £745,000.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many public libraries have(a) closed and (b) opened in each local authority in England since 1997. [90733]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not held centrally. However, the total number of service points in each local authority open 10 hours or more per week, is contained in the annual Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Annual Public Library Statistics, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many public libraries there are in each local authority in England. [90961]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not held centrally. However, this information is contained in column 18 (Total Service Points open 10 hours or more per week) of the annual Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Public Library Statistics, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. The latest Actual figures available are for 2000–01. Estimates are available for 2001–02.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in 2002. [90536]
  712W
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many working days were lost due to illness in her Department in(a) 2002 and (b) each of the preceding five years. [90745]

  Dr. Howells
  Cabinet Office publishes an annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". The most recently published figures for the calendar year 2001 were announced by Ministerial Statement on 19 December 2002, and copies placed in the Libraries of the House.

  For DCMS the 2001 average working days absence per staff year figures were:

  Number

  Certified Sickness

  3.8

  Self-Certification

  2.1

  Total

  5.9

  Staff years

  420

  The 1999, 2000 and 2001 reports are available on the Cabinet Office website: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/civilservice/publications/sickness/index.htm. The sickness absence figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  DCMS is committed to managing sickness absence effectively, and in meeting the 2003 target for reduced sickness absence as set out in the Service Delivery Agreements (SDA).

  Sport (Stakeholder Support)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with(a) the Independent Football Commission, (b) football supporters' associations, (c) football clubs. (d) the Football Association and (e) the Football League regarding supporter and other stakeholder involvement with clubs; and if she will make a statement. [90735]

  Mr. Caborn
  I met Professor Derek Fraser, the Chairman of the Independent Football Commission, on 7 January to discuss a range of football issues including the involvement of supporters with clubs. DCMS officials regularly discuss issues of supporter involvement with the football authorities and supporters' representatives, most recently at the Football Association's meeting with supporters' groups on 13 January. The Football League and the Football Federation Supporters' Federation were represented at that meeting.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  A-level Results
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children were achieving(a) five or more GCSEs at A*-C grade, and (b) at least one GCSE at A*-G grade in (i) specialist schools, (ii) city technology colleges, (iii) all other comprehensives, (iv) grammar schools and (v) secondary modern schools. [89299]
  713W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested for the 2001 results is shown in the following table. The 2002 performance tables are due to be published later in January and I will write to the hon. Member with the updated information as soon as the data are available. I will also place a copy of the 2002 data in the Library.

  Average percentage of children gaining:

  Type of school

  5 or more A*-C GCSE/GNVQ3

  1 or more A*-C GCSE/GNVQ3

  Specialist schools1,2

  54.4

  96.9

  City technology colleges

  78.0

  99.0

  All other comprehensive schools4

  45.6

  95.8

  Grammar schools1

  97.5

  99.6

  Secondary modern schools1

  36.8

  95.8

  1 Includes 27 grammar schools and 20 secondary modern schools that are specialist schools. These schools are also included in the data for grammar and secondary modern schools.

  2 Maintained schools (excluding special schools) designated and operating as specialist schools as at September 2000.

  3 Results shown on same basis as Secondary Performance Tables i.e. adjusted for refugees and admitted pupils.

  4 Excludes specialist schools, grammar schools and secondary modern schools.

  Centres of Vocational Excellence
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Centres of Vocational Excellence have been established and in what specialisms; and how many have been established by(a) colleges, (b) private training providers and (c) employers. [90927]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Excellent progress has been made in establishing Centres of Vocational Excellence (CoVEs). 157 CoVEs have been created so far and in the Spending Review we announced additional funding to establish a total of 400 CoVEs by 2006.

  These CoVEs cover a range of specialisms and have a geographical spread to ensure local, regional and national skills needs are addressed. The following table sets out the range of specialisms (by number and percentage of current network):

  Specialism

  Number of CoVEs

  Percentage of current CoVE network

  Engineering

  36

  23

  Construction

  23

  15

  Hospitality/Tourism

  22

  14

  Creative Industries

  20

  13

  Health/Care

  17

  11

  ICT

  16

  10

  Land Based

  7

  4

  Business/Management

  5

  3

  Retail/Distributive

  4

  3

  Sport/Leisure

  3

  2

  Food Manufacture

  2

  1

  Hair/Beauty

  2

  1

  Of the 157 CoVEs established to date 138 are in Further Education colleges. 19 are in work based learning providers. Of these 8 are in private training providers, 8 in group training associations and three in large companies.
  714W

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many child care staff have been trained through learning and skills councils. [87983]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's chief executive will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Libraries.

  Departmental Consultation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his reason was for the duration of the consultation on the code of practice on admissions which concluded on 11 October 2002. [91244]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 14 January,Official Report, column 562W.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills(a) which projects will be funded and (b) how much will be spent on each project, in areas covered by each sub-category in table 4.2 of the Departmental report 2002 in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [89306]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are in the process of finalising expected programme expenditure for the current year and will make any necessary changes through the spring supplementary estimate which will be presented to Parliament in due course. Overall expenditure is likely to exceed the provision set out in the Departmental report through the planned use of accumulated end-year flexibility.

  My Statement to the House of 19 December 2002, Official Report, column 67WS, set out planned expenditure for 2003–04. I will be making a Statement on funding for higher education later this month.

  Departmental Special Advisers
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) names, (b) salaries and (c) responsibilities of each special adviser employed by his Department are. [89337]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Special Advisers in the Department for Education and Skills are Robert Hill and Lisa Tremble. They advise on the full range of education and skills issues for which the Department is responsible.

  The salaries of Special Advisers are determined by a job evaluation process undertaken by the Special Advisers' Remuneration Committee.

  Details of individual Special Adviser salaries are not given in order to protect the privacy of the individual concerned.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on
  715W
  underspend for his Department in (a) the current financial year and (b) each of the last five financial years. [89364]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Final expenditure figures for 2002–03 are not available until the publication of the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper in July 2003.

  Figures for 1997–98 to 2001–02 are presented in the following table:

  £million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total in year underspend

  72

  261

  615

  1,128

  1,246

  Of which:

  DfES

  72

  259

  536

  998

  1,111

  Sure Start

  —

  2

  76

  129

  71

  Ofsted

  0

  0

  4

  1

  3

  Children's Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  61

  The main reason for these in-year variances from plans stems from the nature of the Department's budgets and the difficulties this causes in forecasting spending accurately. For example: new and innovative programmes such as Sure Start rely on the pace of build up of local partnerships; capital projects can also take longer than anticipated to get off the ground; and the Department has a significant number of demand led budgets. The availability of End-Year Flexibility is designed to allow us to manage such fluctuations sensibly over a number of years.

  This year my Department intends to utilise approximately £600 million accumulated End-Year Flexibility, across a range of priorities, this will be drawn down at the spring Supplementary Estimate in February. The planned use of over £880 million accumulated End-Year Flexibility for years beyond 2002–03 was tabled in my statement of 19 December 2002, Official Report, column 67WS.

  Notes:

  1. All figures represent in year underspends with the exception of 1997–98 which includes cumulative underspends from the previous year. They are measured against the Departmental Expenditure Limit including any accumulated End-Year Flexibility drawn down in the year concerned.

  2. Figures exclude Welfare to Work and the Employment Service prior to the machinery of government changes in June 2001.

  3. Figures are not comparable due to the change to Resource Accounting and Budgeting in 1998–99. Figures for 1997–98 are in cash accounting terms.

  Development Teaching
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in the teaching of development issues in state schools; and if he will make a statement. [90904]

  Mr. Miliband
  Pupils study international development issues as part of both the citizenship curriculum—now statutory in secondary schools—and within geography. Primary pupils learn about living in a diverse world through citizenship, and about less economically developed countries through geography as part of studying water, settlements and environmental issues. As they progress to secondary level, they are taught about the world as a global community, including the political, economic, environmental and social implications of this, both through geography and citizenship. We have 716W
  worked with educational bodies in this field, such as the Development Education Association, to produce a teaching resource: "Citizenship, the Global Dimension". QCA has also sent detailed guidance to all schools to help teachers to develop pupils international understanding at various stages of their learning.

  Mandarin
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what level of funding has been required from secondary schools in relation to offering Mandarin on the curriculum in the next financial year; and what level of funding has been allocated to the subject; [90383]

  (2) how many secondary schools that are (a) providing and (b) pursuing specialist status on languages will have the teaching of Mandarin on the curriculum; [90384]

  (3) how many secondary schools taught Mandarin as an extra-curricular subject in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002; and how many taught Mandarin as part of the curriculum in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2002; [90368]

  (4) what resources were allocated to train teachers to teach Mandarin in (a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [90385]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not allocate funding for the teaching of specific individual languages. The National Curriculum requirement is that all maintained secondary schools should offer one of the working languages of European Union. Over and above that, it is for schools to decide which and how many additional languages they choose to offer. There are no specific resources allocated by the Department to train teachers in Mandarin. It is up to Initial Teacher Training providers to choose which languages to include in the courses they offer. However, the Government does allocate £300,000 per year to the British Council run UK-China Educational Co-operation programme, which includes language immersion courses in Mandarin Chinese for teachers and pupils and the exchange of language assistants.

  Although there is a strong language learning element to the programme, the UK-China Educational Cooperation programme, which has been running since 2000, also provides grants for school linking visits, joint curriculum projects, electronic curriculum links and head teacher study visits.

  There are no figures available on how many language colleges offer Mandarin but 50 of the 157 language colleges offer Chinese. Aspiring language colleges are not required to give advance notice to the Department of the languages they intend to include in their applications so it is not possible to indicate how many intend to teach Mandarin. However language colleges are encouraged to diversify their language provision and Chinese continues to be a popular choice for applicant schools. Specialist applications are assessed by independent assessors and are not approved by the Department on the basis of a specified range of modern foreign languages.

  From an analysis of OFSTED inspection reports for 1997–98, no mention is made of Mandarin. From the reports of secondary schools inspected by OFSTED for

  717W
  2001–02, it is noted that four schools taught Mandarin as part of the curriculum, four taught Mandarin as an extra-curriculum subject and three other schools taught Chinese as part of the curriculum.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many employers with(a) 25 employees or more and (b) less than 25 employees, were involved in modern apprenticeships in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [90925]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Data are only available for 2001. The Learning and Training at Work Survey in England for that year indicates that 12,000 employers with 25 or more employees had participated in modern apprenticeships in the previous 12 months and 24,000 with between one and 24 employees. The results of the 2002 survey are due to be published by the Department shortly.

  New Schools (Private Companies)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new schools have been funded by private companies since 1997; and how many are planned. [90902]

  Mr. Miliband
  All new maintained schools are funded principally through public funds, but promoters of voluntary aided schools generally provide 10 per cent. of the capital costs. The Department does not maintain any records of the source of the 10 per cent. funding for the establishment of any new voluntary aided schools, or any significant contribution to the costs of establishing any other maintained school.

  Academies are publicly funded independent schools with private and voluntary sector sponsors contributing up to 20 per cent. of the capital cost. Three Academies opened in September 2002, one of which is sponsored by a private sector company. A further nine will open in September 2003. At least 33 Academies will be open by 2006.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his Department's performance against its public service agreement targets on truancy, literacy and numeracy. [90552]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department publishes progress against all its outstanding public service agreement targets (PSAs) in its annual departmental report and autumn performance report. Progress against PSAs was most recently reported in the 2002 autumn report, published in November 2002, together with commentary where appropriate. A copy of the report is available from the House of Commons Library.

  Plant Hire
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the Construction Industry Training Board about the levy made on plant hire construction. [91223]
  718W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have had no discussions with the Construction Industry Training Board about the levy made on plant hire construction.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to meet representatives of the Hire Association Europe to discuss the Construction Industry Training Board levy made on members' companies in the hire industry. [91224]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  One of my officials met with Mr. John Coyne, Managing Director of the Hire Association Europe on 27 November last. I have no plans to meet with them.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he proposes to take arising from the judgment of the hon. Mr. Justice Keith in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, on 23 November 2001, about Gibbon Equipment Hire Ltd. and the Construction Industry Training Board. [91225]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The judgment by Mr. Justice Keith concluded that the definition of 'contractor's plant' in the Industrial Training (Construction Board) Order 1964 (Amendment Order) 1992 was clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. Also that Gibbon Equipment Hire was an employer in the construction industry, and therefore, required to pay the CITB levy.

  However, I have agreed to consider whether the hiring out of plant and equipment should continue to be included in the definition of the construction industry, and am awaiting proposals from the hire service sector.

  Ring-fenced Grants
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many ring-fenced grants(a) are provided and (b) were provided in each of the last five years to (i) each school in England and (ii) each local education authority in England; and what the (A) name, (B) purpose and (C) financial value of each was. [89342]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following ring-fenced grants have been provided by the Department since 1997–98:

  Standards Fund Grant (1997–98 to 2002–03):

  The Government's main means of targeting funds towards national priorities, such as the literacy and numeracy strategies and Excellence in Cities to reflect the central priority of raising standards in schools.

  School Standards Grant (2000–01 to 2002–03):

  To help schools to improve standards.

  School Budget Support Grant (2000–01):

  To increase the budget shares of schools maintained by local education authorities.

  Education Budget Support Grant (2001–02):

  To provide support to help some local education authorities manage funding changes in the financial year.

  Post Sixteen Budget Support Grant (2002–03):

  To provide support to local education authorities in respect of the transfer of funding for sixth form provision to the Learning and Skills Council.

  Teachers' Pay Reform Special Grants (2000–01 to 2002–03):
  719W
  To support the costs of the teachers pay reforms.

  Nursery Education Grant (1997–98 to 2002–03):

  To providers of early education to enable them to make free high quality, part-time early education places available to eligible children.

  Childcare Grant (1998–99 to 2002–03):

  To help improve locally, the infrastructure for the provision of child care.

  GM Transitional Funding Grant (2000–01 to 2001–02):

  To contribute towards local authority expenditure on the costs of transitional funding paid to former grant-maintained and grant-maintained special schools.

  GM Transitional Insurance Grant (1999–2000 to 2002–03):

  To help schools meet the cost of any insurance contract entered into when they were still grant-maintained schools.

  Education Action Zone Grant (1998–99 to 2002–03):

  To enable local partnerships of schools, parents and the private sector to develop innovative and radical solutions which will raise educational standards.

  Education Maintenance Allowance (1999–2000 to 2002–03):

  A financial incentive targeted at young people from less well off families to encourage them to enter and remain in further education.

  Capital Grants (1997–98 to 2002–03)

  To assist in raising educational standards by contributing towards meeting the capital investment needs of buildings at schools including condition, suitability, sufficiency and modernisation needs.

  Most funding provided by the Department is distributed via local education authorities (LEAs). EAZ funding is paid direct to the EAZ and not to the LEA. All maintained schools receive almost all their public funding from their LEA. The Department does not hold information on funding provided to individual schools.

  RC

  CE

  CE/Methodist

  Jewish

  Muslim

  Sikh

  7th Day Adventist

  Greek Orthodox

  1997

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1998

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1999

  2

  1

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2000

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2001

  1

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2002

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2003

  1

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2004

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9

  11

  1

  6

  5

  2

  1

  1

  School Standards
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the additional costs of achieving the targets contained in his Department's report, "Time for Standards", on recruiting(a) extra teachers and (b) extra support staff. [89294]
  720W
  Copies of tables giving a breakdown of the funding allocated for the above grants to each LEA in England since 1997–98 have been placed in the House of Commons Library. 2002–03 figures are to date and provisional. There are some gaps in 1997–98 as some LEAs only came into being the following year. For Standards Fund Grant in 1997–98 the allocations are shown against the 'successor' LEAs. Capital funding does not include Basic Need, when this has been allocated via Basic Credit Approvals which are unhypothecated.

  As part of the Government's commitment to reducing the proportion of support for local authorities provided as ring-fenced grants, we have ensured all of the growth in schools spending announced in the Spending Review will go direct to schools. DfES support will in future increasingly be provided through local authorities' Education Formula Spending Shares, which, following the outcome of the Spending Review and transfers of funding from DfES grant budgets, will be £5.6 billion higher in 2005–06, compared to 2002–03. The number of ring-fenced grants, and the level of support provided through ring-fenced grants, will fall over the next three years from 13 per cent. of the total school spending to 11 per cent.

  School Funding (Faith Organisations)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new schools have been funded by faith organisations since 1997, broken down by faith; and how many are planned. [90903]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives numbers of new grant maintained and voluntary aided faith schools that have opened, or have been approved to open, since 1997. These include independent schools approved for establishment as new maintained schools; but do not include former community schools which closed and reopened with a religious character. All these proposals, except one Jewish school, involved some capital building work and a financial contribution by the promoters.

  Mr. Miliband
  We are committed during this Parliament to the recruitment of at least an extra 10,000 extra teachers. We also estimate that there will be 50,000 new support staff in the same period. Both figures are for full-time equivalents.

  The additional pay bill costs1 in the 2005–06 academic year, compared to the 2000–01 academic year, of the additional teachers are estimated as some £200 million.
  721W
  The costs of the additional support staff will depend on school decisions about the level and mix of support staff they recruit and the wide range of support staff pay levels for different roles. The additional pay bill costs' in the 2005–06 academic year, compared to the 2000–01 academic year, are estimated as some £650–750 million.

  Total school revenue budgets will rise by some £6 billion in the 2005–06 financial year compared to this year.
  1 At today's prices and including NI and superannuation.

  Logistics (Skills)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support the Government have committed to the Sector Skills Council for the logistics industry. [90321]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Skills for Logistics Expression of Interest for a Sector Skills Council (SSC) was accepted, on 18 December 2002, by the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA). This will result in the SSDA committing development funding of up to £100,000 to help the sector prepare its bid for SSC status. If the resulting SSC bid is successful, Skills for Logistics will receive a full SSC licence and be eligible for up to £1 million a year from the SSDA to meet its core costs.

  In addition to the financial support the SSDA has provided advisory support to the logistics sector in the form of a dedicated business consultant who has been giving support and guidance to the sector since December 2001. This support has included advice on preparing their expression of interest and will continue throughout the six month development stage.

  Selection
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanisms have been set up to ensure that schools set up by private companies and faith organisations(a) do not select their pupils, (b) follow the national curriculum, (c) teach science, including Darwin's theory of evolution and (d) protect the human rights of female students. [90905]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Selection

  All new maintained schools are prohibited from selecting pupils by high academic ability by the School Standards and Framework Act (SSFA) 1998. The SSFA permits fair banding whereby schools select a proportion of pupils from each part of the full range of abilities. Academies and City Technology Colleges (CTCs) are prohibited from selecting by high academic ability by virtue of their funding agreements.

  Schools with a specialism in a prescribed subject are allowed to select up to 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude in that subject.

  Schools with a religious character are allowed in their admission criteria to give preference to adherents of their faith or denomination.

  (b) National curriculum

  All maintained schools, including those set up by faith organisations, are required to teach the National Curriculum. Academies are required through their
  722W
  funding agreements broadly to follow the National Curriculum and the national system of assessing it. CTCs are required to provide a broad and balanced curriculum with an emphasis on science and technology, and to teach the core and other foundation subjects of the National Curriculum. They are not required to follow the National Curriculum programmes of study, although most do so.

  (c) Science curriculum

  The National Curriculum requires all pupils to study the Science Curriculum at key stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 (ages 5–16). At key stage 4 pupils study the fossil record as evidence for evolution and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction. Schools do teach how scientific controversies can arise from the interpretation of empirical evidence and this is likely to include Darwin's theory of evolution. Pupils are encouraged to explore different views, theories and beliefs. The origins of the universe are also addressed in the teaching of religious education at key stage 3 (ages 11–14).

  (d) Human rights

  The human rights of female students are protected by legislation. All maintained schools, including those set up by faith organisations, must comply with the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination Acts, and with the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act provides a right to education without discrimination on any grounds, including sex and religion. Its application extends to female pupils in Academies and CTCs.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to harmonise(a) pay rates and (b) pay scales between teachers in schools and further education, and if he will make a statement. [90696]

  Mr. Miliband
  Further education colleges are independent corporations responsible for determining the pay and conditions of their staff. Therefore, it is not for the Government to harmonise FE and school teacher pay scales.

  Truancy
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school days were lost due to truancy in Lancashire in each year since 1997. [90741]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number of school days lost due to truancy in Lancashire since 1997 are as follows:

  Academic year (September-May)

  Number of day pupils of compulsory school age

  Number of school days lost due to truancy

  1996–971

  201,219

  176,296

  1997–98

  159,143

  129,313

  1998–99

  162,583

  150,654

  1999–2000

  162,979

  140,519

  2000–01

  160,768

  135,585

  2001–02

  159,398

  136,053

  1The figures for 1996–97 are pre local government reorganisation and are not directly comparable with the other years.

  Union Learning Representatives
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Union Learning Representatives there are within his Department; and if he will make a statement. [88831]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There is currently one Union Learning Representative in the Department. My officials are working with the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), the main civil service union, on how best to promote the development of Union Learning Representatives within the Department.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government's budget is for the promotion of Union Learning representatives in the(a) public and (b) private sectors; and if he will make a statement. [88832]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government does not have a specific budget for the promotion of Union Learning Representatives in either the public or the private sector. We recognise, however, that trade unions and their learning representatives have a key role to play in promoting the development of learning and skills in the workplace. To help them do this, my Department has provided financial support through the Union Learning Fund since 1988. This year (2002–03) £9 million is available and a further £33.6 million has been allocated for the next three years up to 2005–06.

  When it was launched, the Union Learning Fund was a new and innovative experiment, but it has now become an established part of the lifelong learning agenda. It is helping trade unions use their influence with employers, employees and others to encourage greater take up of learning at work and boost their capacity as learning organisations. It has so far benefited over 28,000 people in the workplace through a wide variety of projects ranging from tackling basic skills needs to advanced professional development. It has also led to the development of a new breed of activist, the Union Learning Representative, and has helped to establish and train a growing network which now stands at more than 4,000 learning representatives nationwide.

  Union Learning Representatives are ideally placed to help and encourage workers to improve their skills, particularly amongst the very lowest skilled workers and those with literacy and numeracy problems. That is why we have included a clause in the new Employment Bill that will give statutory backing to Union Learning Representatives. It will reinforce the invaluable role that Union Learning Representatives are currently playing in the workplace to promote workforce development and open up new training opportunities for their colleagues.

  Any trade union based in England can submit an application to the Union Learning Fund. A prospectus inviting bids for Union Learning Fund projects for the coming year was sent to trade unions at the end of November. This information is also available electronically via the DfES or TUC Learning Services websites. The closing date for applications is 24 January.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether Union Learning representatives will be made available in job centres; and if he will make a statement. [88833]
  724W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are around 70 ULRs working in the Department for Work and Pensions. It is not known how many of these are working in Jobcentre Plus.

  Vocational Placements
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) Beacon Schools, (b) Specialist Schools, (c) Centres of Vocational Excellence and (d) Education Business Links are involved in the part-time vocational placements announced in the Green Paper "14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards". [90928]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department is in the process of collecting this type of data about the "Increased Flexibility for 14–16 Year Olds" programme—analysis of the baseline will be available in the spring.

SCOTLAND

  Boundary Commission for Scotland
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how long after receiving the final report from the Boundary Commission for Scotland she intends to lay(a) the report and (b) the orders required to implement it before the House. [90404]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 requires me to lay the Boundary Commission for Scotland's report before Parliament, together with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, with or without modifications, to the report's recommendations, as soon as may be after receiving it from the Commission.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full-time equivalent staff are employed in the Department; and what the equivalent figures were for 1997. [90668]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many electors there are in each Westminster parliamentary constituency in Scotland as set out in the latest electoral registers. [90494]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Office for National Statistics is responsible for the collection and annual publication of data on the electorate. I understand that the figures for the electorate as at December 2002 will be published on 27 February 2003.

  Friends of Scotland Initiative
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of the cost of the Friends of Scotland initiative; and if she will make a statement. [90376]
  725W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Friends of Scotland initiative was launched in November 2001. The total cost of the initiative since then, not including staff costs, is £239,000.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the key Public Service Agreement targets of her Department are; what her latest estimate is of progress in relation to each target; and if she will make a statement. [90375]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Friends of Scotland initiative was launched in November 2001. The total cost of the initiative since then, not including staff costs, is £239,000.

  Public Spending
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of public spending per head from all sources in Scotland in the last year for which figures are available, originating from(a) local councils, (b) the Devolved Government and (c) Central Government. [90006]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The latest estimates of public expenditure for Scotland were published in the annual Treasury publication, "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2002–03". The next edition of this publication is expected in the spring.

  Table 6.9 shows local authority expenditure in Scotland for 2000–01 as £8,974 million, equivalent to £1,773 per head of Scotland's population. Table 8.7 shows total identifiable expenditure under Scottish Executive programmes in 2000–01 as £17,557 million, equivalent to £3,468 per head of Scotland's population.

  Table 8.7 also shows identifiable expenditure by other Central Government Departments in Scotland in 2000–01 of £10,871 million, equivalent to £2,148 per head of Scotland's population. In addition, there is £40,436 million of non-identifiable expenditure which is not specifically associated with a particular part of the UK.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Chemicals Policy
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of(a) the effect of the European Commission's Strategy for a future chemicals policy on the future competitiveness of the UK's chemical industry and (b) the level of UK skilled resource required to implement the strategy; and if she will make a statement. [87022]

  Mr. Meacher
  The overall aim and approach set out in the Commission's White Paper of February 2001 on a strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy are supported by the Government.

  In May 2001, the Government prepared a preliminary regulatory impact assessment (RIA) of the proposals in the European Commission's White Paper. A revised
  726W
  RIA will be required when proposals for the European Commission's legislation are available. As well as considering the benefits and costs of the proposals in detail, the RIA will include an assessment of the implications of the proposed legislation for the international competitiveness of the UK chemicals industry and other manufacturing sectors that use chemicals in their processes and products.

  The Government and Devolved Administrations have agreed a position statement on the New European Chemical Strategy, a copy of this is in the House Library and can be found on the Defra web site at www.defra.gov.uk. The result of this additional work will need to be taken into account before developing a final view.

  Agricultural Exports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much(a) her Department has spent and (b) has been raised through (i) its agricultural export promotion service and (ii) Food from Britain in each of the last 10 years. [87949]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]The information is as follows:

  (a) Departmental spend on its agricultural export promotion service1

  Year

  Spend £000

  2001–02

  1,111

  2000–01

  1,240

  1999–2000

  1,318

  1998–99

  1,407

  1997–98

  1,240

  1996–97

  1,384

  1995–96

  1,651

  1 Cash prices. Figures for years prior to 1995/6 not available because of organisational changes.

  Note:

  The Department has not charged for any aspect of its export promotion service and consequently, no money has been raised through this service.

  (b) Departmental grants to Food from Britain and amounts raised by Food from Britain through fee income for specific services provided to companies or organisations 1992–20021

  £000

  Departmental grant to FFB

  FFB fee1 income for services provided

  2001–02

  7,868

  7,787

  2000–01

  5,402

  7,029

  1999–2000

  4,986

  6,406

  1998–99

  5,282

  7,234

  1997–98

  4,918

  6,491

  1996–97

  5,318

  6,177

  1995–96

  5,400

  6,165

  1994–95

  5,249

  4,698

  1993–94

  5,009

  4,026

  1992–93

  4,757

  3,836

  1Cash price.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to promote agricultural exports from small and medium sized businesses in the UK. [87951]
  727W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]Defra's Agricultural Exports Branch has a varied programme of export promotion measures, including seminars, inward trade missions and a presence at key trade events abroad, all designed to provide a showcase for British excellence in agriculture. These measures are specifically devised to benefit small and medium sized companies and producers.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received from and discussions she has had with(a) the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (b) ERM Consultancy and (c) other organisations and individuals regarding the export promotion service for agricultural exports. [87950]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has received a letter from the Minister of State for International Trade and Investment, enclosing a copy of a report undertaken for her by ERM assessing the effectiveness of various central Government Departments international trade support services. ERM's consultants had previously had discussion with DEFRA officials. Ministerial colleagues have also received representations regarding the agricultural export promotion service from the China-Britain Business Council, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and two individual companies.

  Food from Britain
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when Food From Britain was last subject to a review by(a) her Department and (b) other Departments; and if she will place a copy of the review in the Library. [87952]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]A full quinquennial review of the efficiency and effectiveness of Food from Britain was completed by the Department (then MAFF) in 1998. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. In common with other non-departmental public bodies within the responsibilities of the Department, a specific review of Food from Britain's system of corporate governance was undertaken by the Department's internal audit division in 2002. Food from Britain has not been reviewed by other Departments.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of livestock movement controls on agricultural shows; and if she will make a statement. [90386]

  Mr. Morley
  The current rules already allow animals of all species to move to shows even if there is a standstill in place on their farm of origin, to move from show to show or to return to their farm of origin without triggering a 20-day standstill, provided they are individually identified and kept in isolation for 20 days before the first show, between shows, and on final return to the farm.

  A detailed risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis into the 20-day standstill is currently being carried out in line with the FMD Inquiry recommendations. We
  728W
  hope to be able to take account of the emerging findings to make decisions soon so that any agreed changes can be introduced in time for the 2003 spring movement season.

  Ancient Woodland
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she intends to implement the proposals to protect England's ancient woodland as set out in(a) the Forest Partnership for action and (b) Working with the Grain of Nature; a biodiversity strategy for England. [89757]

  Mr. Morley
  At the World Summit on Sustainable-Development in Johannesburg we launched the UK Forest Partnership for Action bringing together government, forest industry and environmental groups with a commitment to working together to promote sustainable development in the forest sector. Each partner will make their own contribution to the four priority areas, one of which is forest restoration and protection, through a range of actions.

  As set out in the biodiversity strategy for England we will be refining our approach to the conservation and restoration of ancient woodland, including research to increase our knowledge of the condition of woodland and practical action on the Forestry Commission's own estate to enhance biodiversity. We will also be revising our package of incentives to ensure they help protect and enhance ancient woodland, developing ways of providing more direct advice to owners, and ways of promoting the high value of ancient woodlands.

  One of the main threats to ancient woodland is the impact of adjacent agricultural activity and that is why the new entry-level agri-environment scheme pilots include woodlands. The scheme provides support for the maintenance of woodland fencing and the creation of buffer strips adjacent to woodlands. Both these measures will reduce or avoid any adverse impacts on woodland from adjacent agricultural activities.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has had with the Government. Departments responsible for provision of emergency telecommunication services about minimising the(a) numbers and (b) environmental impact of transmitters located in (i) AONBs and (ii) national parks. [90852]

  Alun Michael
  Defra officials met officials from the Home Office and Department for Trade and Industry in February 2002, and met officials from the Planning Division of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in December 2002. The meetings addressed the level of coverage required by the emergency services against the need to contain the number of telecommunication masts in AONBs and national parks, and to minimise the impact of the installation of essential masts.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was paid to the Countryside Agency for AONBs in 2002–03, for core costs and projected expenditure, broken down by AONB. [90895]
  729W
  Alun Michael
  For 2002–03, Defra has provided the Countryside Agency with an extra £2.5 million to increase core funding for AONBs and cover the necessary costs incurred by local authorities in preparing and publishing statutory AONB management plans. This has raised the AONB programme budget to £6.2 million. It is for the Agency to allocate monies to individual AONBs. I am advised by the Agency that currently the national figure is only broken down to a regional level. The Agency is moving to resource accounting this year, so that accurate figures by AONB will be available shortly.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what the timetable is for the creation of the first Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Conservation Boards under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; [90896]

  (2) when the secondary legislation necessary for the establishment of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Conservation Boards for the Chilterns and the Cotswolds will be considered by Parliament. [90851]

  Alun Michael
  Subject to successful completion of the current preparations, we plan to consult on draft statutory instruments establishing Conservation Boards for the Chilterns and the Cotswolds from March to June this year. I would then expect the orders to be laid (in draft form) before both Houses after Parliament returns from the summer recess. The orders would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to encourage AONBs to become recognised as biosphere reserves by UNESCO; and what support her Department will provide to successful applicants. [90853]

  Mr. Morley
  Any area considered for nomination as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve will need to fulfil the specific criteria for that designation. AONBs can be a useful supporting mechanism for a Biosphere Reserve as is the case with the recently extended Biosphere Reserve at Braunton Burrows in Devon. An area designated as AONB will not automatically meet the criteria for Biosphere Reserves. It is for the UK Man and Biosphere (UK MAB) Committee to consider applications for Biosphere Reserve status. The Committee will shortly be considering the next steps following the review of UK Biosphere Reserves. The Government will consider any proposal put forward by the UK MAB Committee on its individual merits for submission to UNESCO.

  There is no funding programme specifically for Biosphere Reserves, but Biosphere Reserve status has the potential to provide an area with a framework for attracting relevant funding streams such as LEADER + and stimulating investment. The Government support AONBs generally in England through the AONB programme, which in 2003–04, will receive grants worth more than £6 million. The Countryside Agency, who administers this funding on behalf of Government, pays up to 75 per cent. of an AONBs core costs and 50 per cent. of its project costs.

  British Cattle Movement Service
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many inquiries regarding lost documentation at the British Cattle Movement Service are under investigation. [90400]

  Alun Michael
  The British Cattle Movement Service operates to ISO 9001: 2000 standards, is registered with the British Standards Institute and its operating practices have received the Kite mark. All documents received by the organisation are scanned electronically and recorded on arrival, and great care is taken to avoid any loss.

  It is likely that this question refers specifically to movement notifications made by cattle keepers to the British Cattle Movement Service. BCMS has received around 22,000 representations about movement notification failures since May this year from around England, Scotland and Wales. Some cattle keepers have claimed to have told the BCMS about cattle movements, when their computerised records have been cross checked and deficiencies found, as part of the subsidy claims checking process. The Rural Payments Agency and the BCMS check these cases very carefully, and it is not right to assume that the BCMS has lost keepers' movement notification when there is no evidence of the document ever arriving at the BCMS site.

  If keepers want to guarantee that their notifications are received by BCMS, they can send them electronically to BCMS using the online system at: www.bcms.gov.uk The BCMS are encouraging all cattle keepers to register their records via the cattle tracing system online.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to improve administrative(a) accuracy and (b) efficiency at the British Cattle Movement Service. [90399]

  Alun Michael
  The cattle passport scheme has been in operation for over six years now and the national cattle database contains the details of the 9.4 million animals that make up the national herd. We are currently investing a further £12 million to upgrade the system and improve its performance.

  The British Cattle Movement Service operates to ISO 9001:2000 standards, is registered with the British Standards Institute and its operating practices have received the Kite mark. In addition to paper reporting systems, we have provided online facilities via a website for cattle keepers to register their animals. CTS Online was runner-up in the Government Computer Innovation Award in June 2002. The BCMS is constantly striving to improve their service and efficiency.

  Cetacean Bycatch
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the trials into the use of exclusion devices developed by the Sea Mammal Research Unit to reduce the bycatch of cetaceans in pelagic trawl fisheries. [90777]
  731W
  Mr. Morley
  During March and April last year the Sea Mammal Research Unit at St. Andrews University made encouraging progress in developing and testing separator grids during their monitoring work on the seasonal bass fishery off South West England. Some further work was carried out in December 2002 to refine the gear but planned trials at sea could not take place because of an accident involving one of the vessels chartered for the trial. The trial will now be resumed in spring once the commercial fishery restarts in order to further refine the system and assess its suitability for protecting dolphins in the fishery.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the deaths of dolphins in Devon and Cornwall in December 2002; and if she will make a statement. [90779]

  Mr. Morley
  Full figures detailing the deaths of dolphins and other cetaceans in Devon and Cornwall in December 2002 are not yet available and so an assessment has not yet been made.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions she has had with other European Governments regarding cetacean bycatch; [90780]

  (2) what recent discussions she has had with the European Commission on the issue of dolphins and other cetaceans being trapped in fishing nets. [90778]

  Mr. Morley
  I have written to Commissioner Fischler and to the French Minister pressing the need for action in this area and will continue to press the issue with EU Ministers. The Commission produced a draft discussion paper on these issues last year as part of its commitment under the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy to introduce measures to reduce cetacean bycatch. It is now for the Commission to bring forward concrete proposals, and when these come to the Council of Ministers for discussion I shall press for effective measures to be introduced.

  CHP Strategy
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to publish the final version of her Department's draft CHP Strategy. [90350]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government published its draft CHP Strategy for consideration on 15 May 2002. Responses to the Strategy consultation were summarised on Defra's website last November, and provide an important input to the Energy White Paper, which the Government aim to publish shortly. The White Paper will set out the Government's strategic approach to encouraging the further growth of CHP.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many departmental Christmas cards she and her Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign,
  732W
  address and place in envelopes; and if she will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card she has sent this year. [88114]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]Defra Ministers sent approximately 800 official Christmas cards in 2002, at a cost of £0.65 each, and total postage of £160. Clerical staff in Ministers' Private Offices spent the equivalent of approximately 22 man hours, at a cost of £10 per hour, addressing and placing the cards in envelopes. A sample copy of the official Christmas card will be placed in the Library.

  All expenditure incurred in the purchase and despatch of official Christmas cards is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much will be spent on(a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by her Department and Government agencies answerable to her Department; and of this sum, how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88129]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 December 20021]The information requested could not be provided without incurring disproportionate costs. However, any expenditure incurred on decorations, entertainment and any other festive activities is strictly for official purposes only, and is made in accordance with the departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principals set out in "Government Accounting".

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will review the Common Fisheries Policy with the EU; and whether conditionality on UK registered vessels to(a) land a percentage of catch in the UK, (b) have a minimum percentage of UK residents in the crew and (c) operate from UK ports will be part of the review. [90616]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1 January 1999, and with the agreement of the European Commission, all vessels fishing against UK quotas have had to maintain a genuine economic link with coastal communities in the UK. Annual reports on the operation of these arrangements have been placed in the Library of the House, the last report covering the year 2001. We have no plans to seek a review of these arrangements.

  Community Energy Programme
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the budget is for the Government's Community Energy programme in the financial year(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; what proportion of the funds available in each year have been committed to strategic research designed to secure the wider use of district energy schemes; what proportion of the funds in each year are absorbed by the administration of the programme by

  733W
  the Energy Saving Trust; and what plans there are for continuation of the programme beyond March 2004. [90351]

  Mr. Morley
  The Community Energy programme budget is £20 million in 2002–03 and £30 million in 2003–04. Up to £2 million of this is available for consultancy advice to develop bids. Support for strategic research to secure the wider use of district energy is funded and carried out separately, but informs the programme. The cost of the programme's administration by the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust is not met from the programme budget, but is separately funded by my Department. I hope that it will be possible to extend the programme beyond March 2004, but this is subject to resources being available.

  Regulation

  Section

  Consultation commenced

  Date regulations in force

  Regulations regarding mapping of access land and consultation on draft maps

  Section 11

  March 2001 (ended June 2001)

  1 November 2001

  Regulations regarding the establishment of LAFs and the appointment of members

  Section 94 (Part V)

  July 2001 (ended October 2001)

  7 August 2002

  Regulations regarding issue of provisional maps, appeals, and issue of conclusive maps

  Section 11

  November 2001 (ended 8 Feb 2002)

  29 July 2002

  Regulations on correcting minor errors and omissions in provisional and conclusive maps

  Section 11 (2) (l)

  October 2002 (ended 7 November 2002)

  February 2003

  Regulations regarding dedication of land for access

  Section 16

  January 2002 (ended 15 April 2002)

  March 2003

  Regulations relating to exclusion or restriction of access under Chapter II, including appeals (but not emergencies)

  Section 32

  December 2001 (ended 22 March 2002)

  February 2003

  Regulations on removal or relaxation of restrictions on access land and to exclude access in emergencies (including appeals)

  Paragraph 7, Schedule 2; Section 31

  February 2003

  August 2003

  Regulations on appeals relating to notices

  Section 38

  February 2003

  September 2003

  Regulations on references to public places in existing enactments

  Section 42

  March 2003

  October 2003

  Regulations regarding review of conclusive maps

  Section 11

  February 2004

  August 2004

  European Landscape Convention
  Mir. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government intend to ratify the European Landscape Convention adopted by the Council of Europe in October 2000. [90854]

  Alun Michael
  The United Kingdom already meets many of the requirements of the European Landscape Convention and Defra has commissioned consultants to report on the costs and benefits of the UK deciding whether or not to sign and ratify the European Landscape Convention. That report, together with a Regulatory Impact Assessment, will inform the Government's decision which will be taken in the next few months.

  Fishing Licences
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to review the operation of UK fishing licences; [90645]

  (2) how many UK fishing licences have been purchased by foreign owners operating from within the EU in each year since 1997; [90646]
  734W

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out the timetable for the implementation of regulations under Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [91136]

  Alun Michael
  The table records the overall progress we have made towards consulting on, and bringing regulations into force, and our current timetable for completing the process. The precise timing of each of the remaining intermediate stages may vary but we are firmly committed to ensuring the necessary regulations are made so as to allow the new right of public access under the Act to be rolled out on a region by region basis as scheduled.

  (3) what recent reports she has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the purchase of UK fishing licences by foreign owners operating from EU member states; [90647]

  (4) what estimate she has made of the proportion of boats over 10 metres in length in the UK offshore fishing fleet whose fishing licence is held by a non-UK resident EU national. [90649]

  Mr. Morley
  The operation of UK fishing vessel licences is kept under constant review, in consultation with the industry, through the Joint Industry/Departmental Licensing Working Group which meets regularly and last reported to Ministers in November 2002. In accordance with EU rules on freedom of movement and rights of establishment, EU nationals and corporate bodies incorporated in a member state may own and license vessels on the UK fishing vessel register provided that they are resident in the UK or have a place of business in the UK respectively or alternatively that they appoint a representative person in the UK. All vessels so owned must be managed, and their operations directed and controlled, from within the UK. They must also maintain an economic link with the UK. Reports on economic link compliance are
  735W
  published annually by Fisheries Departments and copies are available from the Library. Details of the number of licences acquired annually by foreign owners operating from within the EU are not recorded centrally by Fisheries Departments. However the reports on compliance include estimates since 1996 of the numbers of vessels which are understood to be beneficially owned in whole or in part by foreign interests. At 31 December 2001 there were 118 such vessels out of a registered over 10 metre fleet of 1,942 vessels, compared with 161 vessels out of a fleet of 2,467 vessels at 31 December 1996. There are currently nine vessels on the UK register whose licences are held by EU nationals not resident in, or companies not with a place of business in, the UK.

  Flood Defence
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Grant rate (percentage)

  Grant (£ million)

  Grant rate (percentage)

  Grant (£ million)1

  Environment Agency capital grant

  2—

  42.3

  2—

  65.0

  Environment Agency national initiatives and special funding after 2000 floods

  n/a

  19.2

  n/a

  5.0

  Local authorities

  45

  2.2

  45

  6.0

  Internal drainage boards

  45

  1.5

  45

  2.0

  1 Current provision, subject to change.

  2 Capital grant to the EA is limited by Grant Earning Ceilings (GECs) which are set annually for each EA flood defence committee and represent the maximum amount of expenditure on which Defra will pay grant in the year to which they apply. Each committee is also set a grant rate annually at levels which are designed to provide extra support in those parts of the country where needs are higher, as compared to local resources. The following table shows EA GECs and grant rates for the two years.

  2001–02

  2002–03

  GEC (£ million)

  Rate (percentage)

  GEC (£ million)

  Rate (percentage)

  North west

  7.8

  35

  9.1

  45

  Northumbria

  2.0

  35

  3.7

  45

  Severn Trent

  10.3

  35

  14.0

  45

  Yorkshire

  13.8

  65

  22.1

  65

  Anglia, Essex

  2.2

  45

  2.9

  45

  Anglia, Great Ouse

  5.3

  45

  3.7

  55

  Anglia, Lincolnshire

  8.6

  75

  7.7

  75

  Anglia, Norfolk and Suffolk

  5.7

  76

  10.1

  75

  Anglia, Welland and Nene

  3.6

  65

  3.6

  65

  Thames

  13.1

  35

  4.4

  35

  Southern, Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  1.1

  45

  1.2

  45

  Southern, Kent

  2.2

  55

  8.5

  65

  Southern, Sussex

  4.6

  65

  9.6

  65

  Wessex, Avon and Dorset

  0.4

  35

  1.0

  35

  Wessex, Bristol Avon

  0.3

  35

  0.4

  35

  Wessex, Somerset

  3.2

  65

  5.1

  75

  South West

  3.4

  45

  5.2

  65

  2003–04

  Allocations between operating authorities (including EA GECs and grant rates) for 2003–04 are still being considered.

  Flooding
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of how many homes flooded(a) in January and (b) in the previous three major floods. [90214]
  736W
  grant levels for flood defence throughout England are in (a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [91171]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra provides grant aid as a percentage of eligible costs to the flood and coastal defence operating authorities—the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and internal drainage boards—to assist with capital works and studies to manage flood risk. Grant is also made to the EA to assist towards the cost of national initiatives (such as the national flood and coastal defence database, flood warning public awareness and catchment flood management plans) and in 2001–02 exceptional funding was provided to the EA following the floods of autumn 2000 for emergency response and repair works and feasibility and design costs for accelerated river defences.

  2001–02 and 2002–03

  Amounts of grant in cash terms were as follows.

  Mr. Morley
  I am advised that 645 houses were flooded during the floods over the New Year holiday. As for previous events, it depends on what the hon. Member defines as a major flood. Floods occur most winters although property flooding is generally avoided. Obviously we are all aware of the autumn 2000 event in which more than 10,000 homes were affected. In addition the 1998 flood remains in most people's memory and in that event more than 4,200 homes were flooded. Prior to that, probably the most notable was the flood event which occurred in September 1968 when large areas of the south west and southern England
  737W
  including south and south east London were flooded. We do not have detailed information on the number of properties that were flooded.

  Foot and Mouth
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will pay invoices submitted to her Department by Peter Boddy Ltd. in connection with the slaughter of animals at Skipton, Thirsk and Whitby during the foot and mouth outbreak. [88501]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]Valid invoices submitted to the Department by Peter Boddy Ltd. in connection with the slaughter of animals during the foot and mouth outbreak have been paid. A legally binding full and final settlement agreement was made between the Department and Peter Boddy Ltd on 20 August, 2002.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will(a) authorise interest to be paid on the outstanding sums in the invoices rendered by Peter Boddy Ltd. and (b) make an ex-gratia payment to Peter Boddy Ltd. and his sub-contractor Mr. Houldey for the costs incurred in trying to obtain payment for her work during the foot and mouth outbreak. [88503]

  Separation distances for GM rapeseed trials in North America

  Brassica napus

  Brassica rapa

  Canada

  200 metres from Brasssica species or a 10 metre guard row of B. napus

  400 metres from other B. rapa and 200 metres from other Brassica species, or a 100 metre guard row of B. rapa flowering concurrently with the GM rape

  USA

  660 feet (201 metres) or a 30 foot (9.2 metre) border of non-GM rape flowering concurrently with the GM rape

  1,320 feet (403 metres) or a 30 foot (9.2 metre) border of non-GM rape flowering concurrently with the GM rape

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 7 November 2002,Official Report, column 549W, on GM organisms, when she expects to conclude her consideration of the European Commission's proposals on thresholds for the adventitious presence of approved GM seeds in non-GM seeds. [88007]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]Since my reply of 7 November, it has become necessary to consider the implications of the settlement reached at the November Agriculture Council for a 0.9 per cent. threshold for GM food and feed labelling and we still await sight of the European Commission's final proposals on seeds on which member states will be asked to vote.

  The Government's considerations are informed by the need for policy to be based on sound science and to be practicable and enforceable. We aim to preserve consumer choice by seeking adequate protection for the integrity of non-GM seeds.
  738W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]A legally binding full and final settlement agreement was made between the Department and Peter Boddy Ltd. on 20 August 2002. No moneys are owed by the Department to Peter Boddy Ltd. and Mr. Houldey. The Department wrote to Peter Boddy Ltd. on 3 December 2002 confirming no further payments would be made and that any question of Mr. Houldey's accounts were and remain a matter between Mr. Houldey and Peter Boddy Ltd.

  GM Organisms
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the separation distances are between GM and non-GM or organic oilseed rape in North America. [86975]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Canadian and US authorities do not require separation distances to be applied for commercial GM oilseed rape crops, but do require them for field trials. They distinguish between Brassica napus (which they call Argentine rape canola or swede rape) and Brassica rapa (which they call Polish rape canola or turnip rape). They do not differentiate separation distances based on whether the neighbouring crop is non-GM (conventional) or organic. In the UK the vast majority of the oilseed rape grown is Brassica napus, although some Brassica rapa is also grown. Cross-pollination frequency between B. napes and B. rapa is less than between plants of the same species. The separation distances in North America are as follows:

  Industrial Action
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many working days have been lost in her Department and its predecessors due to industrial action in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01, (e) 2001–02 and (f) 2002–03. [90245]

  Alun Michael
  During 2001–02 16,201 days were lost owing to industrial action by members of staff in the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its Agencies.

  During 2002–03 to date 205 days were lost owing to industrial action by staff at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) who are members of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) and Prospect unions.

  During 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000, and 2000–01, neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and food and its Agencies nor the sections of ex-DETR now part of Defra and their Agencies, lost any working days through industrial action by staff.

  Liability Legislation
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what position Her Majesty's Government took at the last Agriculture Council in Luxembourg on proposals for specific liability legislation for GMOs; and if she will make a statement. [86173]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Agriculture Council has not discussed specific proposals for GMO liability legislation. The Environment Council is at an early stage in its consideration of a draft environmental liability Directive that covers various activities including the release of GMOs.

  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms fall in nitrate vulnerable zones. [90727]

  Mr. Morley
  The total number of major farm holdings located in a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) in England is around 71,500. This figure is based upon Agricultural Census data 2000.

  River Management
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are to divert water from the River Frome into the River Stour; if the consequences of flood risk will be taken account of in such plans; and if she will make a statement. [90463]

  Mr. Morley
  Neither the Government nor the Environment Agency are aware of any plans to divert water from the Dorset Frome to the River Stour. While a number of such schemes involving other rivers have been considered in the past there are no plans relating to the Frome and Stour.

  If such a scheme were to be proposed then the Environment Agency would consider all the impacts of the scheme on flooding and the environment.

  Slaughter Premiums
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the implications for Government policy on the payment of slaughter premium of the arbitration decision in the case of Feakins v Defra. [89013]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]There are no implications. The arbitration award included no payment of slaughter premium. The Government have made it clear that slaughter premium

  Companies registered as stakeholder pension providers on 6 April 2001 1

  Address

  Have since 6 April 2001 notified that they have stopped offering stakeholder pensions direct to individuals2

  Abbey National Life Plc

  Abbey National House, 287 Vincent Street, Glasgow

  Allied Dunbar Assurance Plc

  UK Life Centre, Station Road, Swindon

  AXA Sun Life Plc

  AXA Centre, PO Box 1810, Bristol

  740W
  is not payable in respect of FMD culled cattle because the scheme criteria were not met, and that no adjustment is needed to compensation based on market value.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure made by her Department(a) came into force and (b) were considered by a delegated legislation committee in each of the last three sessions. [88026]

  Alun Michael
  Defra was created in June 2001. During the 2001–02 Session, 141 Statutory Instruments subject to negative resolution procedure came into force. Of these, 12 were considered by a delegated legislation committee.

  Tallow
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which companies her Department has contracts with for the incineration of tallow produced under the over-thirty-months scheme; and when those contracts were(a) agreed and (b) signed. [90844]

  Alun Michael
  9 companies have been awarded contracts for the incineration of tallow arisings produced under the Over Thirty Month Scheme. The companies and dates of contracts awarded are as follows:

  Company

  Date

  Gilberts Animal Feed (now John Pointon & Sons)

  17 December 1996

  Prosper De Mulder

  6 February 1997

  J. G. Pears

  12 February 1997

  Dundas Brothers

  9 May 1997

  Lisburn Proteins

  5 July 1997

  Canterbury Mills

  5 January 1998

  William Forrest & Son

  5 January 1998

  Dundas Chemical Company

  5 December 2000

  Ulster Farm by Products

  25 November 2002

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2002,Official Report, column 212W, which companies were registered as stakeholder pension providers on 6 April 2001; and whether any of these have stopped offering stakeholder pensions direct to individuals since then. [88221]

  Mr. McCartney
  [pursuant to his answers, 7 January 2003, Official Report, c. 172–74W and 13 January 2003, Official Report, c. 366–68W]: The information available is in the table.
  741W

  Companies registered as stakeholder pension providers on 6 April 20011

  Address

  Have since 6 April 2001 notified that they have stopped offering stakeholder pensions direct to individuals2

  St Andrew's Life Assurance Plc

  PO Box 10, Walton Street, Aylesbury

  De-registered3 as a stakeholder pension scheme August 2002 following parent company's (Bank of Scotland) merger with the Halifax

  B&CE Insurance Ltd

  Manor Royal, Crawley

  Brittanic Assurance Plc

  1 Wythall Green Way, Wythall, Birmingham

  Canada Life Ltd

  Canada Life Place, Potters Bar

  De-registered as a stakeholder pension scheme December 2002

  Chamber Pensions Ltd

  Manning House, 22 Carlisle Place, London

  Stopped4 July 2001

  Co-operative Insurance Society

  Miller Street, Manchester

  Clerical Medical Investment Group

  Narrow Plain, Bristol

  Deutsche Asset Management Life and Pensions Ltd

  One Appold Street, London

  Eagle Star Life Assurance Company Ltd

  UK Life Tower, Montpellier Drive, Cheltenham, Gloucester

  Friends Provident Life and Pensions Ltd5

  Pixham End, Dorking, Surrey

  Halifax Life Ltd

  Trinity Road, Halifax, West Yorkshire

  HSBC Life (UK) Ltd

  Norwich House, Nelson Gate, Commercial Road, Southampton

  INVESCO Pensions Ltd

  INVESCO Park, INVESCO Park Drive, Henley on Thames

  Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd

  Temple Court, 11 Queen Victoria Street, London

  Marks and Spencer Life Assurance Ltd

  Kings Meadow, Chester

  Merrill Lynch Pensions Ltd

  33 King William Street, London

  Nationwide Unit Trust Managers Ltd

  Nationwide House, Pipers Way, Swindon

  National Westminster Life Assurance Ltd

  PO Box 886, Trinity Quay, Avon Street, Bristol

  National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd

  Tiddington Road, Stratford-upon-Avon

  CGNU Life Assurance Ltd

  2 Rougier Street, York

  NPI Ltd

  Box 89, 55 Calverley Road, Tunbridge Wells

  Pearl Assurance (Unit Linked Pensions) Ltd

  Box 89, 55 Calverley Road. Tunbridge Wells

  Police Mutual Assurance Society Ltd

  Alexandra House, Queen Street, Lichfield

  The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd

  Abbey Gardens, 55 Kings Road, Reading

  Royal and Sun Alliance Life and Pensions Ltd

  St. Marks Court, Chart Way, Horsham

  Royal Liver Assurance Ltd

  Royal Liver Building, Pier Head, Liverpool

  The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd

  Royal London House, Middleborough, Colchester

  Royal Scottish Assurance Plc

  42 St. Andrew Square, Edinburgh

  Schroder Pensions Ltd

  31 Gresham Street, London

  Scottish Amicable Life Plc

  PO Box 25, Craigforth, Stirling

  Scottish Equitable Plc

  Edinburgh Park, Edinburgh

  The Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd

  Royal London House, Middleborough, Colchester

  Scottish Mutual Assurance Plc

  Abbey National House, 301 Vincent Street, Glasgow

  Scottish Widows Plc

  69 Morrison Street, Edinburgh

  FPS Stakeholder Trustee Limited

  Castle House, Park Road, Banstead

  The Standard Life Assurance Company

  Standard Life House, 30 Lothian Road, Edinburgh

  Teachers Provident Society Ltd

  Deansleigh Road, Bournemouth

  TUC Stakeholder Trustees Ltd

  Congress House, Great Russell Street, London

  Virgin Money Unit Trust Managers Ltd

  Discovery House, Whiting Road, Norwich

  Wesleyan Assurance Society

  Colmore Circus, Birmingham

  Winterthur Life UK Ltd

  Winterthur Way, Basingstoke

  1 Information from The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority's (Opra) register of stakeholder pension schemes.

  2 While registered stakeholder pension providers are required to inform Opra of any restrictions they impose on membership to their scheme, they do not have to inform the Authority of any changes to their marketing or publicity strategies.

  3 De-registered' effectively means leaving the stakeholder pensions market altogether.

  4 Stopped' means the provider does not accept business from individuals, but does offer stakeholder pensions to group clients.

  5 The Friends Provident Stakeholder Pensions Scheme closed to both new group and individual business in January 2002, while remaining open to accept contributions from existing members. However, Friends Provident's other stakeholder pension scheme, Friends Provident Pensions Limited Stakeholder Pension Scheme, continues to sell stakeholder pensions to both groups and individuals.

  Note:

  James Hay Trustees Ltd is not included in the table above because it did not register until after 6 April 2001 (registered March 2002 and de-registered August 2002).
  742W

  Child Poverty
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with other Ministers to ensure that no Government strategy impacts adversely on child poverty. [88542]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government is committed to building a fairer and more inclusive society in which everyone can contribute to, and share in, rising national prosperity. 'Opportunity for all—(the) fourth annual report' is the latest in a series that comprehensively describes the Government's strategy and progress in tackling poverty and social exclusion.

  The Government has set itself an ambitious target to eradicate child poverty within a generation.

  Ministers regularly meet with ministerial colleagues to discuss issues related to the alleviation of child poverty. They attend the Ministerial Group on Children and Young People (MISC9) and the Joint Ministerial Committee on Poverty, both of which address child poverty issues.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what differences there are in the treatment of(a) endowment mortgage savings and (b) ISA mortgage savings in assessing savings in each relevant means tested benefit, including council tax benefit with savings thresholds and disregards; and whether this issue is under review. [89104]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 9 January 2003]: Unlike an ISA mortgage savings scheme, an endowment mortgage also provides life insurance cover. It is a lon-standing principle that the surrender value of any life insurance policy should be disregarded when determining entitlement to the income- related benefits, including Council Tax Benefit. This is because the intended beneficiaries of life insurance policies, are not the policy-holders themselves, but any dependants they may have at the time of their death. Because a life insurance policy is an integral part of an endowment mortgage, the overall surrender value is disregarded in the same way. However, if a life insurance policy is surrendered early or linked endowment mortgage savings are redeemed, any resulting capital is taken into account in the normal way.

  Because ISA mortgage savings schemes do not provide life insurance cover any savings held are taken into account as capital from the outset when determining entitlement to the income-related benefits, including Council Tax Benefit.

  We keep all our policies under review. However, we have no plans to change the present rules in this area.

  Benefits Budget
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the benefits budget is for this financial year, broken down by English region. [87002]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 12 December 2002]: The Department does not forecast nor budget for expenditure on a regional basis. However, using the regional distribution of benefit expenditure for the
  744W
  previous two years, where available, an illustrative regional breakdown of benefit spending for 2002–03 is given in the table.

  £ billion

  Region

  North East

  5.6

  North West

  14.2

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  9.4

  East Midlands

  7.3

  West Midlands

  9.9

  Eastern

  8.8

  London

  13.2

  South East

  12.5

  South West

  8.7

  Total England

  89.6

  Source:

  Pre-Budget Report forecasts for 2002–03, combined with statistical and accounting data for 2000–01 and 2001–02. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Information is not available by Government Office Region for some benefits, the main ones being Statutory Maternity Pay, Social Fund and the Independent Living Funds. These are not included in the table. The amount of expenditure on benefits where no information is available is forecast to be £1.6 billion in 2002–03 for Great Britain as a whole (equating to 1.5 per cent. of benefit spending).

  Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the time limit is for claiming Bereavement(a) Allowance and (b) Payment; what powers exist to extend the limit in individual cases; and in what circumstances these powers are used. [88470]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We want bereaved people to claim and receive the help that they and their families are entitled to when they need it—immediately after the bereavement. Most people do: more than four-fifths claim within four or five weeks of their loss.

  Entitlement to Bereavement Allowance lasts for 52 weeks after the death of a spouse. If the claim for Bereavement Allowance is made within three months of the death, the benefit will be paid for the full 52 weeks. Where a claim is made more than three months after the death occurred, benefit is paid from the date of claim for the balance of the 52-week period.

  There are no powers to extend the three-month time limit for claims for the full 52 weeks benefit. However, there are special rules for cases in which a death is not confirmed until some time after it has occurred, for example, following a disappearance.

  Bereavement Payment, a one-off lump sum, must currently be claimed within three months of the death of a spouse. However, we laid amending regulations on 24 October 2002, which extend the time limit within which the lump sum Bereavement Payment may be claimed to 12 months in respect of deaths that occur on or after 1 April 2003. This aligns it with the period for which Bereavement Allowance can be paid. We believe this is a sensible alteration that will simplify the scheme for everyone, while remaining compatible with underlying benefit entitlement rules.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects the computerisation of the Child Support Agency to be completed. [90648]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) on 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 317W.

  Final Salary Pension Schemes
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to encourage companies to retain final salary pension schemes for existing employees and to make them available to new employees. [89051]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to my written answer of 13 January 2003,Official Report, volume 397, columns 361–62W.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the role of means-testing in providing provision for pensioners. [89776]

  Mr. McCartney
  The purpose of the minimum income guarantee is to ensure that no pensioner need live on less than £98.15 a week— £149.80 for couples (from April 2003, £102.10 a week for single pensioners and £155.80 for couples). In addition, the pension credit when it is introduced in October 2003, is intended to reward rather than penalise those people who have modest amounts of second pension or other savings.

  Maxwell Communications Pension Plan
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with the Consultative Committee of the Maxwell Communications Pension Plan; and if he will make a statement on the proposed reduction in benefits payable to pensioners under the plan. [88980]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government is aware of the difficulties surrounding the Maxwell Communications Pension Plan and sympathises with those affected.

  We have had discussions with the Independent Trustee of the Plan, The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc. but have received no request to meet the Consultative Committee of the. Maxwell Communication Pension Plan.

  The difficulties faced by the Plan are not connected to Maxwell's original fraud but reflect the subsequent performance of the pension fund in relation to the scheme's liabilities. As we have made clear to Law Debenture, this is an issue for the trustees, not the Government.

  We have set out the facts of the case in full in our response to representations received on this matter and I have placed a copy of that response in the Library.

  State Second Pension
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what is the weekly value of the state second pension in 2050 in the case illustrated in Figure 7.5 of the pensions Green Paper (Cm 5677); what it would have been under SERPS(a) as amended prior to April 2002 and (b) if the 20 best years provision had not been repealed; and what are the assumed earnings of the woman concerned. [89646]

  Mr. McCartney
  The weekly value of the state second pension in the particular case illustrated is £67. The weekly value of SERPS as amended prior to April 2002 is £33. If the 20 best years provision had not been repealed, the weekly value of SERPS would have been £87.

  It is assumed that the woman in question earns the average female full-time weekly wage when working full time (£383) and the average female part-time weekly wage when working part time (£144). She is assumed to work for 30 years, 17 of which are full-time.

  The reason that the 20 best years provision in SERPS generates a higher pension than state second pension is that an example of someone with substantial full-time work at average earnings is used. State second pension has been designed to benefit lower earners and part-time workers who would generally receive far less from the 20 best years rule than from state second pension.

TREASURY

  Small Suppliers (Video)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost of preparation and distribution of the Office of Government Commerce's video "Smaller Supplier…Better value?" was; how many were produced in each format; and how many have been distributed. [89593]

  Mr. Boateng
  The "Smaller Supplier…Better Value?" video was launched in November 2002, following a commitment to the Public Accounts Committee at the Improving Public Services through e-Government hearing held on 13 May 2002. The preparation costs were shared equally between the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and the Small Business Service (SBS).

  To reduce the postage and packaging costs this video was sent to some organisations as part of a larger mailing, sent in bulk for others to distribute using their existing networks and some were distributed at no cost. As these distribution costs are not held centrally this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cigarettes
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, columns 587–88W, on cigarettes, what method of calculation was used; and if he will place the calculations in the Library. [90313]
  747W
  John Healey
  The allowance made in the pre-Budget report public finance forecast is based on assumptions about changes to cross-border shopping behaviour following the October launch of the next stage of the Government's long-term strategy to tackle tobacco smuggling.

  The assumptions focus on effects that can be quantified with a degree of certainty. EU shoppers have always been allowed to bring back as much tobacco as they like, as long it is for their own use, and the revisions to the tobacco indicative levels as part of the October package do not affect that entitlement. Data from Customs and Excise's survey of cross-Channel travellers show that the majority of travellers made no purchases of cigarettes, and that, of those who did make purchases, two thirds purchased below the previous indicative level of 800 cigarettes, and that a further 15 per cent. purchased above. The recent change to the levels can be expected to have little effect on the shopping patterns of these travellers.

  The assumptions for the public finance forecasts relate to the impact on behaviour of those remaining travellers purchasing at the previous indicative levels for tobacco. Those assumptions include:
  that a small proportion of travellers may be expected to increase their purchases to the new level; and
  that the average level of other purchases would increase to 1,600 cigarettes, a three-month supply for an average smoker, taking into account the affordability and profitability of trips.

  Devolved Administration Finance
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what funds will be transferred from the Treasury to the(a) Scottish Parliament, (b) Welsh Assembly and (c) Greater London Assembly in the next financial year. [91327]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures for the grants paid to the Scottish consolidated fund and the NAW in 2003–04 will be published in the 2003–04 main supply estimates for the Scotland Office and the Wales Office in due course.

  The 2003–04 figure for GLA funding is not yet available. GLA funding comes from a range of sources and is not a single grant as in the case of Scotland and Wales. A large percentage of GLA funding comes from the local government revenue support grant, and the police grant. The Home Secretary and the Minister for Local Government announced a consultation on proposals for these amounts to the House on the 5 December. Further funding to the GLA comes through the GLA transport grant.

  Drugs
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many drugs seizures, broken down by type of drug, have HM Customs in Scotland made by(a) financial value and (b) weight in each of the last five years. [90611]

  John Healey
  Details of Customs' drug seizures are published in their annual reports, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library. Drugs seized by Customs are destined for all parts of the UK,748W
  and there is little direct importation of class A drugs into Scotland. For this reason it is not policy to break down seizure information to the constituent parts of the UK.

  Employment Costs
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the employment costs are, including benefits, of(a) Ministers representing the Office of Government Commerce and (b) special advisers and their supporting staff retained by the Office of Government Commerce. [90562]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers and special advisers spend a proportion of their time on OGC business. Their employment costs are borne by the Treasury.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts were claimed by companies under the Enhanced Capital Allowances scheme for each qualifying energy efficiency technology and product type in the last year for which figures are available. [90802]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list government contracts, including those with SMEs, and PFI and PPP contracts, where there has been an identified cost saving greater than 5 per cent. as a result of the services provided by the Office of Government Commerce. [90567]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on cost savings in individual Departmental contracts is not held centrally. The total value for money gains in Government procurement reported by central civil government bodies for the years 2000–01 and 2001–02 is £815 million.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on the GLA proposed budget for 2003–04. [91338]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Chancellor on 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 114–15W.

  Hypothecation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the use of hypothecation to improve environmental performance. [91535]

  John Healey
  The Government considers on a case by case basis whether the revenues from individual environmental taxes should be targeted at complementary spending measures.

  The Government published alongside the recent pre-Budget report its paper "Tax and the Environment—using economic instruments", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. This provides further guidance on how the Government considers the case for revenue recycling of environmental taxes
  749W

  North Sea Oil
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been received in oil revenues from extraction of oil from the UK section of the North Sea in each year from 1974 in(a) gross and (b) net

  £ million

  Corporation tax (CT) Of which:

  Financial year

  Licence fees1

  Royalty

  SPD2

  PRT3

  Total before ACT set-off4

  ACT set-off5

  Mainstream CT6

  Total revenues

  1974–75

  4

  15

  —

  —

  5

  —

  5

  24

  1975–76

  2

  20

  —

  —

  5

  —

  5

  27

  1976–77

  5

  71

  —

  —

  10

  —

  10

  86

  1977–78

  7

  228

  —

  —

  10

  —

  10

  245

  1978–79

  9

  289

  —

  183

  93

  40

  53

  574

  1979–80

  10

  628

  —

  1,435

  250

  78

  172

  2,323

  1980–81

  220

  992

  —

  2,410

  341

  97

  244

  3,963

  1981–82

  14

  1,396

  2,025

  2,390

  681

  270

  411

  6,506

  1982–83

  46

  1,632

  2,395

  3,274

  521

  202

  319

  7,868

  1983–84

  19

  1,904

  —

  6,017

  877

  430

  447

  8,817

  1984–85

  136

  2,426

  —

  7,177

  2,432

  1,244

  1,188

  12,171

  1985–86

  23

  2,057

  —

  6,375

  2,916

  1,085

  1,831

  11,371

  1986–87

  21

  919

  —

  1,188

  2,676

  1,130

  1,546

  4,804

  1987–88

  27

  1,024

  —

  2,296

  1,298

  681

  617

  4,645

  1988–89

  25

  602

  —

  1,371

  1,195

  685

  510

  3,193

  1989–90

  33

  575

  —

  1,050

  743

  495

  248

  2,401

  1990–91

  31

  605

  —

  860

  847

  363

  484

  2,343

  1991–92

  37

  557

  —

  -216

  638

  370

  268

  1,016

  1992–93

  34

  554

  —

  69

  682

  480

  202

  1,339

  1993–94

  43

  606

  —

  359

  258

  219

  39

  1,266

  1994–95

  41

  550

  —

  712

  380

  299

  81

  1,683

  1995–96

  49

  555

  —

  968

  766

  674

  92

  2,338

  1996–97

  48

  684

  —

  1,729

  890

  460

  430

  3,351

  1997–98

  54

  535

  —

  963

  1,779

  821

  958

  3,331

  1998–99

  62

  343

  —

  504

  1,605

  656

  949

  2,514

  1999–2000

  53

  389

  —

  853

  1,268

  120

  1,148

  2,563

  2000–01

  55

  552

  —

  1,517

  2,256

  —

  2,256

  4,380

  2001–02

  59

  558

  —

  1,307

  3,347

  —

  3,347

  5,271

  Notes:

  1. Licence fees include receipts from fees for onshore and offshore petroleum exploration and production licenses, including initial and periodic payments and tender receipts from offshore licensing of £37 million from the 4th round in 1971–72, £33 million the 8th round in 1982–83 and £121 million from the 9th round in 1984–85.

  2. Supplementary Petroleum Duty (SPD) was introduced with effect from 1 January 1981 by the 1981 Finance Act and lapsed after 31 December 1982; it was payable at the rate of 20 per cent. on the gross value of oil and gas produced under UK licences less an allowance per field of one million tonnes per year; it did not apply to PRT-exempt sales of gas to the British Gas Corporation.

  3. Advance Petroleum Tax (APRT) is included with PRT. The net PRT repayment in 1991–92 and low net receipts in 1992–93 resulted from high tax-relievable expenditure claimed on some fields.

  4. The level of Corporation Tax receipts in 1993–94 reflected low liabilities in 1992 (paid in the following financial year) and repayment resulting from lower settlements for earlier years.

  5. The ACT (Advance Corporation Tax) Set-off is estimated because the dividends attributable to UK oil and gas cannot be separately identified from other dividends.

  6. Mainstream Corporation Tax (CT) equals CT before the ACT Set-off less the estimated ACT Set-of.

  There have been no significant grants or other payments to the oil industry and hence the net revenues are the same as the gross revenues.

  Office of Government Commerce
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees work in the Office of Government Commerce, and what the cost is of their employment, including national insurance. [90563]

  Mr. Boateng
  At 31 December 2002 OGC had 672 employees, of which 243 were in the OGC trading fund, OGCbuying. solutions. The forecast annual OGC payroll cost for 2002–03, including employers national insurance and pension contributions, is £22.5 million, of which £6.4million is for OGCbuying. solutions.
  750W
  terms, allowing for grants and other payments to the oil industry. [90788]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Government revenues from UK oil and gas production are given in the table. Separate figures for just oil are not available.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the administrative estimate for the Office of Government Commerce was in the year ending(a) April 2001, (b) April 2002 and (c) April 2003. [90564]

  Mr. Boateng
  Net voted administrative costs are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  2000–01 actual outturn

  16.8

  2001–02 actual outturn

  31.3

  2002–03 estimate provision

  25.3

  The 2002–03 provision does not include any proposed spring Supplementary Estimate changes.
  751W
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times the Chief Executive Advisory Group of the Office of Government Commerce has met in the last year; what allowances from public funds are made to members of the group; and what the cost was in each year since 2000. [90565]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chief Executive Advisory Group to the Office of Government Commerce met four times in 2002. No allowances from public funds are made through OGC to members of the group but some members may claim travel expenses from their own departments. Administrative support is provided by OGC staff.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times the Supervisory Board to the Chief Executive of the Office of Government Commerce has met in the last year; what allowances from public funds are made to members of the group; and what the cost was in each year since 2000. [90566]

  Mr. Boateng
  The OGC Supervisory Board has met three times in the calendar year ending December 2002. No allowances are paid to Members but one external Member, who provides invaluable US public sector procurement experience, is reimbursed travel costs through OGC. The cost each year since 2000 is:

  Year

  £

  2000–01

  12,700

  2001–02

  16,700

  In addition some Members may claim travel costs through their own Departments.

  Rebated Gas Oil
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the use of rebated gas oil. [91158]

  John Healey
  Rebated gas oil, also known as red diesel, is liable for duty at the rate of 3.13 pence per litre and is used in excepted vehicles and as a heating and industrial fuel.

  Same-sex Couples
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what taxation benefits would be available to same-sex couples living together as a couple, and what would the cost of those changes be, if such same-sex couples were treated in the same way as normal couples. [89699]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no specific taxation benefits available for couples as such, although some tax allowances and reliefs are available to married couples. The Government intend to consult in the summer about the details of a civil partnership registration scheme for same-sex couples, including the implications of such a scheme for tax.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many days were lost due to sickness absence in the Department in 2002. [90550]
  752W
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working days were lost due to illness in his Department in(a) 2002 and (b) each of the preceding five years. [90748]

  Ruth Kelly
  Figures published by the Cabinet Office on sickness absence are available since 1994. The latest publication is "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service 2001" published in December 2002. For the Treasury, the figures for working days absence per staff year were:

  Year

  Working days per staff year

  1997

  4.9

  1998

  5.3

  1999

  5.5

  2000

  3.9

  2001

  4.7

  Figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  Spend to Save Initiative
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 62W, on the spend to save initiative, if he will place the evaluation in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [86848]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The results of the initiative were summarised and published in the Board of Inland Revenue's annual reports. They are set out in the reports for the years ending 31 March 1998 (page 21), 31 March 1999 (page 17) and 31 March 2000 (pages 15 and 16). These reports are available in the Library. They show that the initiative was a success, producing more than £1.8 billion in additional revenue, which was more than forecast, and a yield to cost ratio of 10 to 1. The Comptroller and Auditor General in his Audit of Assumptions for the pre-Budget 2000 report concluded that the monitoring and control systems were sound, and that the savings estimate was reported on a prudent basis.

  Tax Administration (Internet)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of(a) tax returns filed and (b) vehicle excise duty licences applied for via the internet since these services were first made available. [91022]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at 14 January 2003, 342,472 tax returns have been received over the internet since the service was first made available.

  The DVLA does not, at present, provide an internet service for vehicle excise duty licensing.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of setting up and administering the provision of(a) tax return filing and (b) vehicle excise duty licence application via the internet. [91024]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of providing self-assessment tax returns on the internet is:

  Fixed Cost
  753W
  The estimated cost of implementing the internet service for self-assessment for years one to three is about £17 million.

  Marginal Cost

  The on-going support costs, including maintenance, help desk support and on-going improvements to the system is between £3 to £4 million per annum.

  Future costings for VED licensing via the internet are not currently available.

  Taxation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the income tax receipts foregone, since 1999, as a result of the Government's policy of offering a tax relief on employee-loaned computers. [91021]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the income tax receipts foregone, since 1 April 2000, as a result of the tax credits introduced by Her Majesty's Government to encourage corporate venturing in the Budget of that year. [91026]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government introduced the corporate venturing scheme (CVS) in Finance Act 2000, but this is neither a tax credit nor does it give any relief against income tax. The CVS gives relief against corporation tax and the latest estimates are that the scheme has reduced corporation tax liabilities by £5 million for both 2001–02 and 2002–03.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Tom Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been issued for crimes against retailers since their introduction. [90262]

  Mr. Denham
  Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) are community-based civil orders which can be applied for by the police, British Transport police, registered social landlords or local authorities against an individual or several individuals whose behaviour is anti-social.

  Details on the offending types of behaviour initiating application for an ASBO are not collected centrally, although we are aware of areas where ASBOs have been used against shoplifters.

  Further information on the use of ASBOs can be found in Home Office Research Study 236, 'A review of anti-social behaviour orders', published 2002.

  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been taken out in England in each year since their introduction, by local authority area. [90656]

  Mr. Denham
  Since their introduction, 1 April 1999, up to 31 May 2000 data on the number of Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) issued was collected by police force area only. From 1 June 2000 official 754W
  statistics on the number of ASBOs issued are based on quarterly returns from Magistrates Courts Committees (MCCs) and from copies of the orders received since this date, we are able to identify the local authorities.

  I have placed a table showing the number of ASBOs issued within England, as notified to the Home Office, from 1 April 1999 to 30 June 2002 (latest available) in the Library.

  We are aware that the numbers of ASBOs made nationally have been consistently under reported in returns made by magistrates courts and are considering how reporting can be improved.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the local authorities in Scotland with whom NASS has a contract for accommodation to be provided for asylum seekers; and how many places there are in each such contract. [90495]

  Beverley Hughes
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has one contract with Glasgow City Council. Under the terms of the contract the Council is contracted to provide up to 2,500 properties.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children seeking asylum are in detention. [90659]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the age of individual detainees is not available except by examination of individual casefiles at disproportionate cost.

  Children are detained in two limited circumstances: either as part of a family group whose detention is considered appropriate; or, exceptionally, as unaccompanied minors while alternative arrangements are made for their care and normally just overnight.

  Child Curfew Orders
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child curfew orders have been issued in England and Wales, broken down by local authority area. [89480]

  Mr. Denham
  No applications have yet been received to establish a local child curfew scheme under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Some local authorities and police forces have considered the possibility, but concluded that other measures should be taken to tackle specific local problems.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 27 November 2002, regarding a constituent, ref 24789/2. [90260]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 January2003]I replied to my hon. Friend on 10 January 2003.

  Deportation
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 7 January
  755W
  2003, Official Report, ref 88368, what criteria his Department uses to assess whether it is satisfied that suitable arrangements are in place for reception and care when removing unaccompanied minors to their country of origin. [90448]

  Beverley Hughes
  Prior to return reception arrangements are considered on a case-by-case basis and possible arrangements are investigated before return is made. The most suitable arrangements are for the unaccompanied minor to be returned to his/her parents or other immediate family members willing to take responsibility for the child.

  Door Security Personnel
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been put in place to ensure high standards among door security personnel working for nightclubs and other entertainment venues. [89478]

  Mr. Denham
  The Private Security Industry Act 2001 provides for the establishment of a Security Industry Authority (SIA), which will have responsibility for licensing individuals, employed in designated sectors of the private security industry, including door supervisors. There will be two checks on people applying for licences—the first will be a criminal record check, the second will be a check on professional competencies. It is expected that the licensing of door supervisors will begin at the end of 2003 or early 2004.

  The Act also contains provision for the SIA to approve contractors in the industry.

  I am confident that the introduction of the SIA will, over time, contribute to the reduction of criminality in the private security industry, and help to raise standards of skills, training and supervision within the industry.

  Drug Users Treatment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the expansion of services to refer drug users to treatment via the criminal justice system will start. [90331]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government's Updated Drug Strategy, launched on 3 December 2002, described the introduction, from 2003–04, of a comprehensive new programme of criminal justice interventions aimed at getting drug misusers out of crime into effective treatment. This programme includes, amongst other initiatives, the enhancement of existing arrest referral schemes, doubling the availability of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders, building on the current Drug Testing projects and extending the approach more widely and piloting a presumption against bail for those who refuse to access treatment. The programme will be backed up by improvements in treatment capacity and local delivery.

  Some elements of the new programme, such as enhanced arrest referral, will apply across England and Wales from year one; others will be introduced on a phased basis, with the initial focus on those areas with the highest levels of acquisitive crime.

  Drugs Crime
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many teenagers he estimates have tried class A drugs in the(a) Twickenham constituency, (b) London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and (c) London; and if he will make a statement. [88825]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]The 2001/02 British Crime Survey estimates that 9 per cent. of 16 to 19 year-olds in London have at some time tried a class A drug. The equivalent estimate for the whole of England and Wales is 11 per cent. The difference between the England and Wales estimate and the London estimate is not statistically significant. These data are not available at constituency or borough level.

  The "Drug use, smoking and drinking among young people in England in 2001" survey estimates that 6 per cent. of school children aged between 11 and 15 years old have tried a class A drug. No geographical breakdown is available for this age group.

  Drugs Education Campaign
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new education campaign on the risks of drug misuse will start; and whether it will be standardised throughout the United Kingdom. [90330]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Due to launch spring 2003, the campaign is jointly funded by the Home Office and the Department of Health, working closely with the Department for Education and Skills. The campaign will run in England and it will build on previous awareness raising campaigns. The campaign will comprise a national framework which will be sufficiently flexible to enable it to be supported at a community level in order to respond to local priorities and needs.

  European Reception Policies
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the research on the reception policies of Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany has been published; and if he will make a statement. [90447]

  Beverley Hughes
  The research on the reception policies and practice of Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany has not yet been published. Publication was provisionally scheduled for end 2002. The Home Office now anticipates publishing the results of the above research in spring 2003, subject to the usual Research Development and Statistics (RDS) publication procedures, including peer review.

  Fireworks
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make the use of fireworks at certain times of the night a criminal offence. [90560]

  Mr. Denham
  We are aware of the noise and nuisance caused by fireworks. There is already legislative provision through the Noise Act 1996 to deal with noise
  757W
  nuisance, including fireworks, between 11 pm and 7 am. This legislation is adoptive. We are considering how best to encourage local authorities to make greater use of it.

  We are also considering as part of the development of the Anti-Social Behaviour White Paper what more needs to be done to tackle this nuisance which is blighting so many neighbourhoods.

  Gun Crime
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests and (b) cautions for gun possession were recorded in (i) 2002 and (ii) each of the previous five years in (A) Lancashire, (B) the North West of England and (C) Wales. [90739]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information contained in the table, which has been placed in the Library, gives the number of defendants proceeded against and cautioned for various offences of possession of firearms, 1997 to 2001.

  Arrest data are not collect centrally at the level of detail requested.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in the autumn.

  Illegal Immigration
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is in relation to the return of penalties paid by road hauliers for carrying illegal immigrants; what his policy is concerning unpaid penalties; and if he will make a statement. [91110]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government's position on the reimbursement of penalties paid under the previous civil penalty regime is clear. We are under no obligation to return any of the money paid against penalties imposed in cases which were not party to the Roth litigation. The previous legislation was not found to be unlawful. Theoretically, unpaid penalties could have been enforced but, in the light of the Court of Appeal's findings in Roth, we considered it appropriate not to take enforcement action in respect of outstanding penalties.

  Integrated Casework Directorate
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the visa application of Mrs. Gale of Ringwood of 21 October 2002, acknowledged on 14 November by the Integrated Casework Directorate, will be decided and the original documents returned. [90719]

  Beverley Hughes
  Mrs. Gale's application was decided on 10 January 2003. The decision and all supporting documents were returned the same day.

  Jamaican Visitors
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of visitors from Jamaica who have overstayed in each year since 1997. [90699]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of persons who have overstayed their conditions of entry to the United Kingdom is not available and no estimate 758W
  of this number has been made. However, we are aware that large numbers of Jamaican nationals who have been granted temporary admission subsequently abscond.

  More than 1,000 did so in the first six months of 2002.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under which Common law power the Metropolitan Police have closed Blackburne Mews, London W1; and how many times in the last 12 months Blackburne Mews, London W1 has been closed in accordance with(a) section 67 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 and (b) section 116 of the Highways Act 1980. [90555]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The temporary road closure has been authorised by Westminster City Council following an application by the Metropolitan Police for an order under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended by the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991). The order was put in place on 24 November 2001 and expires on 12 April 2003. Westminster City Council may ask the Secretary of State to extend the duration of the order for a further period of up to six months.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates Ministers in his Department have held meetings with members and officials of the United States Administration since 8 June 2001; where each meeting took place; which Ministers were involved in each meeting; which United States Administration Departments attended each meeting; and which members and officials from the United States Administration attended each of these meetings. [89465]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Ministers have held meetings with representatives of the United States Administration on a variety of issues since June 2001. In particular:

  The Home Secretary met John Ashcroft (US Attorney General) on 12 December 2001 at the Home Office. William Parish (US Ambassador), Michael Chertoff (Assistant Attorney General), Bruce Swartz (Deputy Assistant Attorney General), David Israelite (Deputy Chief of Staff) and a number of other key members and officials were also in attendance.

  The Home Secretary met Tom Ridge (Director of Homeland Security in the US) on 7 November 2002 at 1 Carlton Gardens. A number of other members and officials were in attendance including Minister Glyn Davies and Ambassador McNamara. An evening dinner was held at which my right hon. Friend (John Denham) was also in attendance; and

  John Denham met Tommy Thompson, Minister for Health and Human Services, on 8 May 2002 at the UN Secretariat in New York. Mr. Thompson was accompanied by an official who was an expert on children's services.

  Notifiable Offences (Bromley)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable offences there were in the London borough of Bromley in each year since 1973. [89802]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]Recorded crime figures ('notifiable offences') at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level have been collected centrally on a financial year basis for six key offences since April 1999. These statistics are published in Home Office Bulletins Issue 12/01 "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to March 2001", and Issue 7/02 "Crime in England and Wales 2001–02", which are available in the Library. The figures for Bromley are given in the table. Figures before this date were not collected centrally.

  Bromley Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership

  Offence

  April 1999 to March 2000

  April 2000 to March 2001

  April 2001 to March 2002

  Violence against the person

  3,224

  3,800

  3,843

  Sexual offences

  166

  186

  232

  Robbery

  518

  685

  917

  Burglary in a dwelling

  1,989

  1,821

  1,836

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  1,895

  2,046

  2,173

  Theft from a vehicle

  3,479

  2,958

  3,552

  Parole
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which body is responsible for updating the police national computer when an offender is arrested as a result of an order of recall due to breach of parole. [90731]

  Hilary Benn
  Responsibility for this would normally rest with the arresting force.

  Council tax—police element (band D)

  £

  Police authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Avon and Somerset

  45.73

  52.04

  55.09

  60.62

  67.59

  72.66

  83.4

  Bedfordshire

  46.46

  52.51

  55.84

  61.36

  66.98

  70.26

  78.69

  Cambridgeshire

  45.00

  51.03

  48.24

  52.11

  62.46

  68.04

  94.59

  Cheshire

  45.10

  51.16

  53.86

  56.28

  61.06

  64.66

  73.54

  Cleveland

  46.02

  54.87

  48.43

  62.55

  65.58

  69.51

  96.13

  Cumbria

  51.14

  58.20

  72.35

  78.27

  84.23

  90.60

  100.48

  Derbyshire

  45.18

  51.31

  57.30

  65.85

  71.12

  75.38

  91.96

  Devon and Cornwall

  45.66

  49.79

  48.30

  53.52

  58.87

  61.81

  73.8

  Dorset

  57.49

  63.59

  70.60

  77.12

  84.42

  92.25

  103.5

  Durham

  45.45

  52.20

  48.60

  50.40

  52.65

  56.43

  64.44

  Dyfed Powys

  46.57

  48.42

  59.58

  72.99

  85.41

  90.90

  98.10

  Essex

  48.42

  54.09

  62.28

  65.07

  67.95

  71.01

  77.67

  Gloucestershire

  44.96

  51.17

  57.74

  68.90

  77.98

  82.05

  94.01

  Greater Manchester

  45.86

  54.10

  56.28

  60.22

  62.72

  64.66

  68.86

  Gwent

  46.78

  49.10

  54.36

  59.74

  74.97

  84.03

  95.17

  Hampshire

  45.81

  51.75

  50.13

  53.91

  55.08

  59.04

  75.15

  Hertfordshire

  46.02

  51.51

  58.83

  63.54

  67.99

  72.39

  81.01

  Humberside

  45.78

  52.47

  52.47

  54.81

  60.30

  85.77

  95.4

  Kent

  45.81

  51.57

  48.45

  52.48

  55.73

  60.26

  73.64

  Lancashire

  45.71

  53.25

  53.48

  57.69

  62.60

  67.89

  73.86

  Leicestershire

  45.32

  52.26

  61.21

  63.79

  67.80

  75.52

  95.21

  Lincolnshire

  66.96

  69.03

  78.93

  81.99

  86.49

  90.36

  94.86

  Merseyside

  57.87

  66.87

  71.78

  77.44

  81.31

  85.37

  94.76

  Metropolitan police

  49.84

  57.00

  70.73

  77.44

  90.95

  118.85

  130.59

  Norfolk

  45.18

  50.58

  53.64

  64.35

  72.09

  83.61

  100.35

  People Smuggling
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide protection for vehicles against illegal immigrants at seaports; and whether civil penalties for unknowingly carrying illegal immigrants will be withdrawn. [90325]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration Service uses a wide range of technology to detect clandestine entrants, including heartbeat detectors, passive millimetric wave imagers and CO2 detectors. However, responsibility for protecting vehicles in order to prevent the carriage of unauthorised people properly lies with the vehicle operator and not with the Immigration Service. Carriers who comply fully with the Code of Practice for the prevention of clandestine entry, and who have no knowledge or suspicion of the presence of unauthorised people, will not be liable to a penalty. If liability is incurred, the level of penalty set will take into account mitigating factors which will include the extent of any checks, including those using CO2 or other detection equipment, carried out by third parties immediately prior to embarkation for the UK.

  Police Authority Funding
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's recommended projection is for the precept for each police authority in 2003–04. [91103]

  Mr. Denham
  We have not made any recommendations about precept levels for police authorities in 2003–04. These are local decisions for individual police authorities to determine.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Police Authority precept was for each authority in England and Wales in each financial year since 1996–97. [91105]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.
  761W

  Council tax—police element (band D)

  £

  Police authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Northamptonshire

  64.26

  70.56

  69.29

  76.08

  79.65

  83.00

  105.25

  Northumbria

  45.95

  52.73

  47.67

  49.82

  52.06

  55.65

  58.15

  North Wales

  46.21

  48.52

  58.54

  66.33

  78.49

  82.72

  96.53

  North Yorkshire

  45.40

  49.72

  48.46

  52.20

  57.04

  62.59

  88.59

  Nottinghamshire

  45.94

  49.78

  54.32

  61.55

  65.17

  70.17

  85.17

  South Wales

  46.36

  49.22

  56.25

  65.36

  80.42

  85.57

  89.85

  South Yorkshire

  45.80

  53.29

  54.28

  56.72

  59.26

  62.79

  74.09

  Staffordshire

  48.15

  54.74

  72.42

  78.86

  83.43

  94.37

  100.93

  Suffolk

  45.09

  51.39

  52.38

  56.16

  61.11

  67.14

  82.08

  Surrey

  42.93

  44.64

  66.06

  75.24

  79.41

  83.08

  96.44

  Sussex

  45.99

  51.66

  50.94

  53.19

  55.53

  59.13

  69.84

  Thames Valley

  46.96

  52.79

  50.76

  56.53

  60.34

  64.49

  73.49

  Warwickshire

  46.70

  52.24

  62.09

  71.18

  77.57

  85.17

  101.78

  West Mercia

  45.34

  50.87

  53.64

  59.00

  74.06

  78.50

  104.5

  West Midlands

  45.65

  53.20

  48.99

  51.19

  54.77

  57.21

  61.88

  West Yorkshire

  45.28

  53.17

  52.41

  54.76

  58.73

  60.82

  75.92

  Wiltshire

  49.44

  55.48

  62.77

  68.98

  75.84

  83.26

  91.54

  Police Communication Systems
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what health study his Department proposes to undertake into the Airwave Police Communication System; and if he will make a statement; [89603]

  (2) how many police forces use the Airwave Communication System; what representations he has received about the system; and if he will make a statement. [89604]

  Mr. Denham
  We have taken advice from experts and consider that Airwave is safe. The Stewart report recommended that a precautionary approach should be taken on mobile phones and health. The Home Office is, therefore, setting up a health-monitoring programme for Airwave users in the police service, inconsultation with police organisations, epidemiologists and occupational health experts. Tenders are currently under consideration.

  When a force moves to Airwave, the roll out is phased, starting from the point at which forces achieve a ready for service (RFS) date. Once that date has been achieved, the move from the existing system to Airwave begins within the force. Generally, that move takes place over a period of time with the forces migrating, typically, one division at a time.

  Currently, there are seven forces in various stages of migration to Airwave: Lancashire, Greater Manchester Police, West Mercia, Suffolk, Leicestershire, North Yorkshire and Northumbria. West Mercia has just become the first force to become fully live with Airwave.

  Representations have been received from a range of groups, including the Police Federation, Mast Sanity, Association of National Park Authorities, residents associations and individuals. Topics have included health and safety, mast placement and potential interference with other equipment.

  Police Funding (Dorset)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet representatives of the Dorset Police Authority and hon. Members representing Dorset to discuss the provisional funding settlement in Dorset police in 2003–04. [90755]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]We announced the provisional police funding settlement on 5 December. The consultation period for representations ended on 14 January. All representations received by then will be taken into account before the announcement of the final funding settlement on 5 February. I would be very happy to meet members of the Authority and hon. Members, as I have other hon. Members from other areas, but I must respect the closing date for representations on the allocation for next year.

  Police Response Times
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his most recent estimate is of the average response time to grade I incidents by the Avon and Somerset Constabulary in(a) rural areas and (b) urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [89696]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]The most recent figures available are those given in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) annual report, published on 9 December 2002. These show that the response times for attending incidents in(a) rural areas were 85.3 per cent. within 20 minutes and (b) in urban areas 83.9 per cent. within 15 minutes.

  Prisoners (Dependent Children)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) female and (b) male prisoners were parents of dependent children in each of the last four years. [89123]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no routinely collected data on the number of prisoners who have dependent children. However, a Home Office study of a large sample of imprisoned mothers and children, published in 1997, found that 60 per cent. of female prisoners had dependent children under the age of 18. Another
  763W
  smaller, but more recent, study of women prisoners and their work in custody, published in 2000, found broadly similar results (out of a sample of 567 sentenced women, 66 per cent. had dependent children under the age of 18).

  Directly equivalent information for male prisoners is not available. However, the 1991 England and Wales prison survey showed that 32 per cent. of male prisoners had dependent children who had been living with them just before they were imprisoned; the corresponding figure for female prisoners was 47 per cent.

  Injury accidents by police force area: GB 1996–2001

  Accidents

  Police force area

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Metropolitan Police

  40,405

  40,715

  40,010

  40,007

  37,708

  36,328

  Cumbria

  1,911

  2,090

  2,010

  2,049

  1,901

  1,823

  Lancashire

  6,301

  6,407

  6,148

  5,719

  5,501

  5,920

  Merseyside

  6,593

  6,658

  6,767

  6,829

  6,835

  5,783

  Greater Manchester

  11,932

  12,026

  12,093

  11,683

  12,011

  11,249

  Cheshire

  4,644

  4,786

  4,919

  4,713

  4,669

  4,523

  Northumbria

  4,751

  4,980

  4,858

  4,739

  4,862

  4,746

  Durham

  2,020

  2,055

  2,052

  1,837

  1,934

  1,862

  North Yorkshire

  3,274

  3,315

  3,278

  3,325

  3,141

  3,142

  West Yorkshire

  9,090

  9,501

  9,870

  9,526

  9,200

  8,740

  South Yorkshire

  4,737

  4,689

  4,831

  4,934

  4,877

  5,038

  Humberside

  3,742

  3,659

  3,612

  3,367

  3,456

  3,408

  Cleveland

  1,919

  1,880

  1,790

  1,647

  1,571

  1,532

  West Midlands

  9,203

  9,787

  9,766

  9,978

  10,640

  10,462

  Staffordshire

  4,941

  4,915

  4,537

  4,587

  4,688

  4,563

  West Mercia

  4,257

  4,391

  4,269

  4,256

  3,789

  3,846

  Warwickshire

  2,395

  2,477

  2,307

  2,278

  2,274

  2,244

  Derbyshire

  3,569

  3,824

  3,831

  3,860

  3,733

  3,681

  Nottinghamshire

  4,288

  4,262

  4,348

  4,044

  4,288

  4,103

  Lincolnshire

  2,548

  2,683

  2,733

  2,626

  2,565

  2,612

  Leicestershire

  3,632

  3,686

  3,854

  3,723

  3,821

  3,764

  Northamptonshire

  2,086

  2,210

  2,221

  2,299

  2,156

  1,945

  Cambridgeshire

  3,426

  3,492

  3,411

  3,161

  3,486

  3,503

  Norfolk

  2,644

  2,703

  2,778

  2,769

  2,645

  2,789

  Suffolk

  2,141

  2,224

  2,251

  2,298

  2,312

  2,356

  Bedfordshire

  2,225

  2,198

  2,168

  2,000

  2,035

  1,983

  Hertfordshire

  3,977

  4,097

  4,132

  3,995

  4,704

  4,518

  Essex

  6,228

  6,439

  6,435

  6,455

  6,985

  6,773

  Thames Valley

  8,234

  8,797

  8,553

  8,622

  8,659

  8,356

  Hampshire

  7,752

  7,656

  7,333

  7,187

  7,323

  6,934

  Surrey

  4,464

  4,338

  4,323

  4,284

  4,647

  5,153

  Kent

  6,263

  5,881

  5,855

  5,780

  6,086

  6,297

  Sussex

  6,284

  6,034

  6,199

  6,175

  5,974

  5,674

  City of London

  476

  461

  448

  470

  417

  423

  Devon and Cornwall

  6,031

  6,025

  5,830

  5,785

  5,673

  5,976

  Avon and Somerset

  4,557

  4,833

  5,393

  5,607

  5,280

  5,286

  Gloucestershire

  1,876

  1,858

  1,937

  2,078

  1,945

  2,074

  Wiltshire

  2,323

  2,490

  2,392

  2,359

  2, 393

  2,480

  Dorset

  2,710

  2,887

  2,843

  2,800

  2,897

  2,950

  North Wales

  2,621

  2,802

  2,781

  2,766

  2,656

  2,501

  Gwent

  1,658

  1,662

  1,722

  1,749

  1,626

  1,464

  South Wales

  4,347

  4,098

  3,840

  3,698

  3,598

  3,799

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,662

  1,688

  1,683

  1,680

  1,669

  1,735

  Northern

  884

  891

  948

  909

  802

  814

  Grampian

  1,448

  1,521

  1,408

  1,234

  1,219

  1,129

  Tayside

  —

  1,282

  1,258

  1,248

  1,175

  1,207

  Fife

  744

  806

  731

  710

  784

  734

  Lothian and Borders

  3,487

  3,456

  3,549

  3,188

  3,293

  3,200

  Central

  749

  870

  800

  735

  672

  636

  Strathclyde

  7,042

  7,381

  7,362

  6,905

  6,731

  6,521

  Dumfries and Galloway

  392

  421

  456

  375

  423

  435

  Great Britain

  236,193

  240,287

  238,923

  235,048

  233,729

  229,014

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic accidents there were in(a) the latest available year and (b) each of the preceding five years, broken down by police force area. [90722]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table shows the number of road traffic accidents involving personal injury for the latest year and each of the preceding five years, by police force area:

  Sangatte
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his negotiations with the French Government to close the Sangatte camp. [90610]

  Beverley Hughes
  Following my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's statement on 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 611W, I can add that the Red Cross centre at Sangatte was emptied by 14 December 2002 and is now being dismantled by its owners, Eurotunnel.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many statutory instruments have been issued by his Department in each calendar year since 1979. [89851]

  Hilary Benn
  Details of the statutory instruments (SIs) made by Home Office Ministers each calendar year since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of SIs made

  Year

  Number of SIs made

  1979

  143

  1991

  155

  1980

  150

  1992

  118

  1981

  119

  1993

  99

  1982

  104

  1994

  92

  1983

  112

  1995

  106

  1984

  84

  1996

  110

  1985

  138

  1997

  172

  1986

  134

  1998

  133

  1987

  134

  1999

  108

  1988

  116

  2000

  146

  1989

  114

  2001

  133

  1990

  130

  2002

  129

  Theft/Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [89893]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office has an Anti Fraud and Corruption Strategy that is based upon increasing the awareness of staff, use of cost effective methods to inhibit fraud and corruption and establishing procedures to respond effectively to incidents of alleged fraud including the provision of confidential 'hot lines'. The department's overall security arrangements provide the basis for combating theft, supported by reminders to staff about preventative measures available to them. Individual line managers are responsible for combating fraud and corruption in their own areas.

  In the 2001–02 annual return, the known cost to the Department of fraud involving employees and contractors was £142,485, of which £121,310 related to the Department's agencies.

  Truancy
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent study he has made into the link between truancy and street crime. [90781]
  766W
  Mr. Denham
  The study 'Young People and Street Crime' published by the Youth Justice Board on 9 January shows clearly that young people involved in street crime offences are more likely to have been disruptive in school and to have had a high level of absence through truancy or exclusion. This adds to the existing evidence to show that truancy and exclusion can increase the risk of offending. The 2002 Youth Justice Board Youth Survey showed that 44 per cent. of young people who admitted to offending in the last year had also played truant.

  The Government are taking action to reduce levels of truancy. Specific measures include the Behaviour Improvement Programme, covering over 700 schools, to improve pupil behaviour and reduce truancy and exclusions; the police and schools working together to conduct truancy sweeps; the deployment of an additional 100 police officers to work in schools; and increased powers to deal with the parents of persistent truants, including the piloting of new fast-track prosecution procedures.

  Visitor Counting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what latest estimate he has made of the cost of introducing and maintaining a system of counting visitors in and out of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [90697]

  Beverley Hughes
  A precise figure is not available, but the cost of recording electronically the admissions and departures of all non-EEA nationals is provisionally estimated to be around £20 million a year. This estimate includes the costs of reintroducing fully staffed embarkation controls, which were withdrawn for passengers travelling to European Union destinations from ferry ports and small airports in 1994 and reconfigured at major airports in 1998.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan (Heroin)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the effect of the war in Afghanistan on the supply of heroin to the United Kingdom. [90253]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The disruption of drug production in Afghanistan was not among the aims of the military campaign. However, the fall of the Taliban and consequent appointment of the Afghan Transitional Authority through a Loya Jirga meeting (Grand Council) has created a new opportunity to end Afghan opium production. The UK is co-ordinating international support for Afghanistan's drug control efforts and has produced, in consultation with the Afghan Government, other donors and international agencies, a long-term strategy for building up Afghan drug law enforcement capacity and providing alternative livelihoods to opium poppy farmers. The brutality of the Taliban regime had helped to restrict production of poppies in the final year of their rule. Their replacement by a Government committed to international human rights norms will inevitably see some increase in production. But alternative livelihoods
  767W
  could encourage growers to cease cultivation particularly if the Afghan Government undertake enforced eradication of crops. The strategy we have negotiated with the Afghan Government aims to achieve the Government's target of contributing to the elimination of drugs from Afghanistan within 10 years.

  BAE Systems
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the reports compiled by the secondee from BAE Systems following his secondment to the British Embassy in Brazil between May and October 2002. [89462]

  Mr. Rammell
  The report to which the hon. Member refers is currently in draft form.

  I will ask for this report to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as it is finalised.

  Bahrain
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals made an official confession of a criminal offence in Bahrain between 2000 and 2003 without the presence of a lawyer. [90301]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware of one British national who has stated that he confessed to a crime to the Bahraini authorities without a lawyer present between 2000 and 2003.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals made an official confession in prison in Bahrain between 2000 and 2003. [90302]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware of one British national who was detained and subsequently confessed to committing a crime between 2000 and 2003.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) fines and (b) compensation have been paid by the French Government for banning British beef; and if he will make a statement. [90462]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Commission withdrew its case in the European Court of Justice seeking a daily fine on France after France lifted its ban. Therefore, no fines were payable, but the Commission asked the Court to order that costs of the case be borne by France. The UK Government regrets the decision by the European Commission not to pursue the case for penalties against France. The UK has supported the Commission throughout and believes that pressing this case would have sent a firm message to member states that no one country can avoid its obligations and responsibilities.

  Compensation for losses must be sought by those directly affected. The UK Government intervened in the European Court of Justice to support the NFU's
  768W
  current case to rule the ban illegal in the French courts and will support those who wish subsequently to pursue any claims.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will bring forward plans for the devolved integration of British Overseas Territories into the United Kingdom. [90794]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no plans for the integration of the Overseas Territories into the United Kingdom.

  British Trade International
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the name of the committee within British Trade International is which oversees the placement and monitoring of secondments from outside organisations to the Foreign Office. [89532]

  Mr. Rammell
  British Trade International—the joint DTI/FCO body responsible for Trade Development and promotion of Inward Investment—oversees the placement and monitoring of secondments from outside organisations to Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In doing so BTI respects the Cabinet Office guidelines on Interchange and the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States Government regarding the prisoners held on the British military base in Diego Garcia. [90296]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. There is no truth in recent suggestions in the press that the US is holding prisoners on the island of Diego Garcia.

  Ethical Banking
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89941]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government believes it is important for consumers to have choice in financial products, including the availability of 'ethical' products. However, it would not be appropriate for the Government to support exclusively the development of one specific group of financial service providers. It is for individual consumers to decide the attributes they most value from their financial services and for financial services firms to be transparent about their use of funds and investments.

  Global Partners Agreement
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps the Russian Federation has agreed to take to advance the implementation of the Global Partners Agreement, known as ten plus ten plus ten; what further action it is required to take; and if he will make a statement. [91205]

  Mr. MacShane
  Russia is a committed member of the G8 'Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction'. In December 2002 the Russian Government decided to set up a new interagency committee, which will be chaired by the Russian Prime Minister. On 10 January this year Russia pledged $2 billion over the next 10 years to the Partnership. This includes $204 million on high-priority projects in 2003, focusing on the destruction of chemical weapons and work on decommissioned nuclear submarines.

  However, for most of the work to begin Russia has to agree to a legal framework that is satisfactory to donor countries. At present there are problems with liability and taxation provisions and these must be solved before many large projects can go ahead. This delay also affects the UK, which has made strenuous efforts to overcome these final obstacles. Conclusion of an agreement is a prerequisite to the start of much of the project-work. We hope that an agreement can be reached very shortly, as the UK is at an advanced stage of readiness and once the legal framework is in place, projects can quickly begin.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced to Parliament last July the UK's commitment to the Global Partnership of up to $750 million over 10 years (1 July 2002, Official Report, column 21). The UK Government believe the importance of the Partnership is clear, and puts a high priority on its contribution, as part of the UK's wider non-proliferation, security and foreign policy strategies.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Government's voting record for each measure, and amendments thereto, on the agenda of the first committee of(a) the UN General Assembly and (b) the UN Security Council in 2002. [90181]

  Mr. Rammell
  Voting records of First Committee resolutions of the UN General Assembly since 1997 may be accessed via the internet at http://disarmament.un.org/vote.nsf. Those for UN Security Council resolutions since 1983 may be found at http://unbisnet.un.org.

  North Korea
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the situation in North Korea. [90290]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary issued a press statement on North Korea's intention to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty on 10 January. The text of the statement is as follows:"I deplore North Korea's stated intention to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such a step, if carried through, will only increase North Korea's isolation from the international community. I call on the North Korean leadership to change course. The NPT is the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, supported by almost every country in the world. North Korea's action is therefore a matter of deep concern for the entire international community."

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in North Korea concerning its(a) nuclear power and (b) nuclear arms programmes. [90698]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not had any direct contact with the DPRK Foreign Minister on the matter of North Korea's nuclear programmes. However, our Ambassador to Pyongyang raised this issue during meetings with the DPRK Foreign Minister, Vice Foreign Minister, and titular Head of State Kim Yong-nam, at the end of December. FCO officials have also been in regular contact with the DPRK Chargéd'affaires in London on this issue since his arrival at the beginning of November. Most recently, FCO officials summoned the Chargéd' Affairs on 10 January to protest against recent actions by the DPRK. We shall continue to use official channels in London and Pyongyang to raise our concerns with North Korea about its nuclear programmes and intention to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many statutory instruments have been issued by his Department in each calendar year since 1979. [89835]

  Mr. Straw
  Departmental records show that for each calendar year since 1979 the number of statutory instruments for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the lead Department is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1979

  57

  1980

  41

  1981

  60

  1982

  35

  1983

  33

  1984

  29

  1985

  44

  1986

  34

  1987

  48

  1988

  36

  1989

  35

  771W

  Year

  Number

  1990

  39

  1991

  26

  1992

  44

  1993

  35

  1994

  30

  1995

  28

  1996

  34

  1997

  77

  1998

  30

  1999

  28

  2000

  37

  2001

  38

  2002

  29

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Congestion Charge
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what budget he has set aside for the likely cost of the London congestion charge. [91099]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 20 November 2002,Official Report, column 125W.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes in council tax in each local

  Council Tax Receipts for "Rural" Authorities from 1993–94 to 2001–02 (in 2001–02 prices)

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  England

  8,313

  9,095

  9,551

  9,994

  10,545

  11,344

  11,850

  12,531

  13,209

  Designated rural authorities by region

  East of England

  388

  428

  451

  473

  504

  560

  598

  641

  679

  East Midlands

  275

  318

  336

  349

  382

  418

  439

  468

  492

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  48

  50

  55

  57

  61

  67

  71

  74

  77

  North West

  234

  262

  271

  281

  294

  324

  336

  354

  368

  South East

  720

  799

  848

  892

  945

  1,028

  1,081

  1,145

  1,203

  South West

  473

  541

  553

  575

  614

  677

  711

  763

  804

  West Midlands

  176

  193

  197

  208

  220

  272

  292

  307

  329

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  199

  224

  233

  232

  241

  260

  277

  292

  310

  The real terms are calculated using the HM Treasury GDP deflator.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many households in(a) England and (b) local authorities defined as rural, by region, were identified as being in each band for council tax purposes in each year since the introduction of the scheme. [90838]
  772W
  authority would be required and possible, assuming spending next year were at FSS level and no change were made to its non-grant income. [90685]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Council tax is a local tax. Decisions on council tax are for local authorities to take, after consulting with their local electorate and taxpayers. It is not this Government's policy to preannounce spending totals or council tax increases for local authorities.

  FSS is not, and should not be used as, a measure of assumed local spending. The spending review identifies how much is available in total grant for local authorities. The FSS distributes the available amount to authorities in a way that reflects local pressures in comparison to other areas. There is an allowance per head with top-ups for local pressures such as deprivation, labour costs and sparsity.

  Housing (Rural Areas)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much revenue was collected in real terms for each council tax band in(a) England and (b) local authorities defined as rural, by region, in each year since 1992. [90839]

  Mr. Leslie
  The following table shows the amount of council tax receipts, net of council tax benefit, collected each year in(a) England and (b) local authorities, by region, since 1993, shown in 2001–02 prices. Authorities are defined as 'rural' on the basis of the Countryside Agency's classification of English Local Authorities.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister collects information on the amount of council tax, net of council tax benefit, collected by each local authority in cash terms. This information is aggregated and can not be reliably broken down by council tax band.

  Mr. Leslie
  The following table shows the number of chargeable dwellings in(a) England and (b) local authorities defined as rural, by region, by council tax band since 1993. Chargeable dwellings are dwellings eligible for a council tax charge. This information is taken from the Calculation of Council Tax Base for Revenue Support Grant Purposes Return (CTB1) which is based on information available to the authority in November each year. Authorities are defined as 'rural' on the basis of the Countryside Agency's classification of English Local Authorities.
  773W

  Number of chargeable dwellings in "rural" local authorities from 1993 to 2001

  Thousand

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  Total

  1993

  England

  5,062

  3,733

  4,280

  2,866

  1,782

  962

  729

  115

  19,529

  Designated rural authorities by region

  East of England

  131

  223

  235

  142

  88

  46

  30

  3

  898

  East Midlands

  174

  148

  135

  76

  47

  27

  19

  2

  627

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  45

  16

  15

  11

  8

  6

  4

  0

  106

  North West

  141

  105

  96

  62

  41

  24

  17

  2

  487

  South East

  86

  201

  366

  300

  215

  137

  116

  17

  1,438

  South West

  151

  230

  238

  174

  127

  73

  51

  5

  1,048

  West Midlands

  64

  84

  88

  54

  40

  24

  19

  2

  375

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  102

  95

  98

  59

  42

  24

  16

  1

  437

  1994

  England

  5,128

  3,792

  4,298

  2,900

  1,781

  939

  698

  107

  19,643

  Designated rural authorities by region

  East of England

  135

  227

  236

  143

  88

  46

  29

  3

  907

  East Midlands

  180

  152

  135

  77

  47

  26

  18

  2

  635

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  47

  16

  15

  11

  8

  6

  4

  0

  107

  North West

  145

  106

  96

  63

  41

  23

  16

  1

  493

  South East

  91

  207

  371

  305

  215

  134

  113

  15

  1,452

  South West

  157

  237

  241

  178

  127

  70

  46

  4

  1,061

  West Midlands

  66

  86

  88

  55

  40

  24

  17

  2

  378

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  104

  96

  99

  60

  42

  22

  15

  1

  440

  1995

  England

  5,165

  3,836

  4,327

  2,927

  1,796

  938

  683

  103

  19,777

  Designated rural authorities by region

  East of England

  139

  230

  237

  145

  90

  46

  29

  3

  919

  East Midlands

  183

  154

  135

  78

  49

  26

  17

  1

  643

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  47

  17

  15

  11

  8

  6

  3

  0

  108

  North West

  146

  108

  97

  64

  42

  23

  16

  1

  497

  South East

  94

  211

  376

  308

  217

  135

  112

  15

  1,467

  South West

  162

  242

  245

  181

  128

  69

  43

  4

  1,073

  West Midlands

  67

  87

  89

  55

  41

  24

  16

  2

  381

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  106

  98

  100

  62

  43

  22

  14

  1

  446

  1996

  England

  5,203

  3,871

  4,351

  2,956

  1,813

  947

  688

  103

  19,934

  Designated rural authorities by region

  East of England

  142

  233

  239

  147

  93

  47

  29

  3

  932

  East Midlands

  187

  159

  138

  81

  52

  28

  18

  1

  663

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  47

  17

  15

  12

  8

  6

  3

  0

  108

  North West

  148

  108

  98

  65

  43

  23

  16

  1

  501

  South East

  96

  214

  380

  311

  218

  137

  113

  15

  1,482

  South West

  164

  245

  247

  183

  130

  70

  43

  4

  1,086

  West Midlands

  68

  88

  89

  56

  42

  24

  17

  2

  385

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  106

  95

  89

  58

  40

  21

  13

  1

  422

  1997

  England

  5,230

  3,896

  4,380

  2,988

  1,837

  962

  697

  105

  20,093

  Designated rural authorities by region

  East of England

  143

  235

  241

  149

  95

  48

  30

  3

  944

  East Midlands

  188

  160

  139

  83

  53

  29

  18

  1

  672

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  47

  17

  15

  12

  8

  6

  3

  0

  109

  North West

  148

  110

  98

  66

  43

  23

  16

  1

  506

  South East

  97

  216

  383

  313

  220

  139

  115

  15

  1,496

  South West

  167

  247

  249

  185

  132

  71

  43

  4

  1,099

  West Midlands

  69

  88

  90

  57

  43

  25

  17

  2

  390

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  106

  95

  90

  58

  41

  21

  13

  1

  426

  1998

  England

  5,242

  3,918

  4,405

  3,017

  1,862

  976

  707

  106

  20,233

  Designated rural authorities by region

  East of England

  145

  236

  243

  152

  97

  50

  30

  3

  956

  East Midlands

  190

  161

  141

  85

  55

  30

  18

  2

  681

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  774W 775W

  Number of chargeable dwellings in "rural" local authorities from 1993 to 2001

  Thousand

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  Total

  North East

  47

  17

  15

  12

  9

  6

  4

  0

  110

  North West

  149

  110

  99

  66

  44

  24

  16

  1

  510

  South East

  99

  217

  385

  315

  222

  141

  116

  15

  1,509

  South West

  168

  249

  251

  188

  135

  72

  44

  4

  1,111

  West Midlands

  79

  104

  103

  68

  51

  30

  19

  2

  456

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  107

  96

  91

  59

  41

  22

  13

  1

  430

  1999

  England

  5,248

  3,942

  4,430

  3,049

  1,888

  993

  717

  108

  20,374

  Designated rural authorities by region

  East of England

  146

  238

  245

  154

  99

  51

  31

  3

  967

  East Midlands

  191

  163

  142

  87

  56

  31

  19

  2

  690

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  47

  17

  16

  12

  9

  6

  4

  0

  110

  North West

  150

  111

  99

  67

  45

  24

  16

  1

  514

  South East

  100

  218

  386

  317

  224

  143

  118

  15

  1,522

  South West

  170

  251

  253

  190

  137

  73

  44

  4

  1,122

  West Midlands

  80

  105

  103

  69

  53

  31

  20

  2

  461

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  107

  97

  91

  60

  42

  22

  14

  1

  434

  2000

  England

  5,296

  3,972

  4,462

  3,086

  1,918

  1,012

  729

  110

  20,586

  Designated rural authorities by region

  East of England

  149

  240

  247

  157

  101

  52

  32

  3

  981

  East Midlands

  193

  165

  144

  90

  59

  32

  19

  2

  703

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  47

  17

  16

  12

  9

  6

  4

  0

  111

  North West

  151

  111

  100

  68

  46

  25

  17

  1

  520

  South East

  102

  220

  389

  320

  226

  145

  120

  15

  1,536

  South West

  172

  253

  256

  192

  140

  74

  45

  4

  1,137

  West Midlands

  81

  105

  104

  70

  54

  31

  20

  2

  467

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  109

  97

  92

  61

  43

  23

  14

  1

  440

  2001

  England

  5,295

  3,991

  4,487

  3,117

  1,947

  1,028

  740

  112

  20,717

  Designated rural authorities by region

  East of England

  150

  242

  248

  159

  103

  53

  32

  3

  990

  East Midlands

  194

  166

  145

  92

  61

  33

  20

  2

  713

  London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East

  47

  17

  16

  13

  9

  6

  4

  0

  112

  North West

  152

  112

  101

  69

  47

  25

  17

  1

  525

  South East

  102

  221

  391

  321

  228

  146

  121

  16

  1,546

  South West

  173

  255

  258

  195

  142

  76

  46

  4

  1,149

  West Midlands

  81

  106

  104

  70

  54

  32

  21

  2

  471

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  109

  98

  93

  62

  44

  24

  14

  1

  445

  Total figures are subject to rounding.

  Local Education Authority Finance
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for each Local Education Authority the formula spending share, expressed as the amount available for each pupil, in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools for financial year 2003–04 and subsequent years for which data are available. [88637]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 January 2003, Official Report, columns 231–33W.

  London Mayor (Budget)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Mayor of London regarding his draft budget; and if he will make a statement. [90288]
  776W
  Mr. Leslie
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Mr. McNulty) has regular monthly meetings with the Mayor of London at which a wide range of topics are discussed.

  Post Office Network
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assistance he is giving to post offices in low income areas of cities. [90941]

  Mr. McNulty
  The £15 million Deprived Urban Post Office Fund was launched by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 30 December 2002. It provides grants of up to £50,000 to sub-postmasters in the most deprived urban areas of England to modernise their branches as part of the Government's long-term drive to regenerate impoverished urban communities.

  The grant can be used on new retail facilities, shop alterations or improved security. The aim is to reduce the risk of closure of those branches in deprived urban

  777W
  areas, which are not closing as part of the Post Office Urban Network Reinvention scheme. In order to secure funding sub-postmasters will need to show that they are at risk of closure and that the grant will significantly reduce this risk.

  More than 400 post office branches in the 10 per cent. most deprived wards without an alternative branch for more than a half a mile will be given priority under the fund. Initially only they will be able to apply for funding. After six months other post office branches in the 10 per cent. most deprived wards will be able to apply and after one year branches in the rest of the 20 per cent. will also become eligible.

  Separate schemes have been announced for the rural network and the Welsh network, with schemes under development in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Prosecuting Authorities
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of what offences local authorities may act as prosecuting authorities; what decision-making procedures are used by local authorities in respect of charges; and if he will place in the Library the code for prosecutors and charging standards that is used. [88471]

  Mr. Leslie
  Local authorities may act as prosecuting authorities in respect of a very wide range of regulatory functions, such as trading standards and environmental health, and their own byelaws. In deciding whether to prosecute, authorities should have regard to the Crown Prosecution Service Code of Practice for Crown Prosecutors, which is already available in the Library of the House. In addition the Cabinet Office and the Local Government Association have drawn up an Enforcement Concordat for adoption by authorities and for some functions statutory Codes of Practice are in force.

  Refuse Collection
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals to introduce charging regions for refuse collection have been discussed by his Department as part of public service agreement framework negotiations with local authorities. [88707]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Defra has successfully negotiated with local authorities more than 70 waste targets as part of the Local PSA framework. A number of local authorities have requested either the power to charge householders for refuse collection, or the power to charge for un-segregated waste at Civic Amenity sites. Defra have not been able to grant such powers due to legislative constraints.

  The Cabinet Office's Strategy Unit has carried out a wide ranging review of waste policy and has now reported. One of its main recommendations was that local authorities that wished to take forward household incentive schemes to help reduce waste volumes and increase recycling should be allowed to do so. The Government is currently considering its response to that report.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arson Attacks
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Chief Constables Dertificates have been issued in the past 12 months in respect of arson attacks on,(a) Orange Halls, (b) premises owned by the Gaelic Athletic Association clubs, (c) Ancient Order of Hibernian's halls, (d) Roman Catholic chapels or halls, (e) Protestant churches or halls, (f) controlled school buildings and (g) maintained school buildings. [88380]

  Jane Kennedy
  The maintenance of records about Chief Constables Certificates was decentralised to the district command units upon their establishment on 1 April 2001. Therefore, an answer to the above question could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Back to School Grants
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the criteria are for application for Back to School grants administered by the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund. [87338]

  Mr. Browne
  The Back to School Grant was launched by the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund on 1 July this year and finished on 30 September. It was run as a pilot scheme and the directors of the Memorial Fund have not yet decided if it should run again next year.

  The Back to School Grant was open to parents who had children aged 18 or under in full-time education living at home with them and who, as a result of the Troubles, had:

  (a) lost either a parent, partner or child; or

  (b) themselves have been injured; or

  (c) become the primary carer for an immediate family member who has been injured;

  and who were in receipt of one of the following benefits:
  Income Support, Job Seekers Allowance (income based), Working Families Tax Credit, Disabled Persons Tax Credit or Housing Benefit.

  Christmas Expenses
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many departmental Christmas cards he and his Ministers intend to send in 2002; how much these cards will cost(a) to buy, (b) to post and (c) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes; and if he will place in the Library a sample copy of the official Christmas card he has sent this year. [88104]

  Jane Kennedy
  The total number of Christmas cards sent by the Secretary of State and his Ministers is 3,480 at a cost of £2,582.56.

  Of this total 1,623 were sent by first class post at a cost of £767.00.

  1,857 were sent by the internal mail service, no cost incurred.
  779W
  Approximately 20 hours was spent in staff time in undertaking this work (information previously held on Christmas card lists reduced the time spent on this exercise). The Secretary of State and his Ministers personally signed all cards.

  A sample copy of the official 2002 Christmas cards will be placed in the Library.

  Discrimination Cases
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discrimination cases involving Government Departments, non-departmental Government bodies and agencies were settled out of court in each of the last three years where confidentiality clauses were invoked. [84126]

  Jane Kennedy
  The number of discrimination cases involving Government departments, non-departmental government bodies and agencies which were settled out of court in each of the last three years where confidentiality clauses were evoked are shown in the table:

  Financial year

  Number of Cases

  December 1999–2000

  5

  2000–01

  14

  2001–02

  13

  Domestic Violence
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on additional measures to tackle domestic violence in Northern Ireland. [84479]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI have 35 Domestic Violence Liaison Officers who receive comprehensive training in domestic violence procedures. They support the frontline uniform response officers who are required to take decisive action at the scene of a domestic dispute. The PSNI are also working in partnership with other statutory and voluntary organisations undertaking research into a partnership approach to the problem of domestic violence.

  Furthermore, the Northern Ireland Office is currently co-ordinating, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Departments, the development of a strategy to tackle violence against women in Northern Ireland. The strategy will look at a range of crimes where women are predominately the victim including domestic violence. Sexual crime and fear of crime will also be dealt with under the strategy. The tackling violence against women strategy will focus on improving prevention, protection and provision of service to women. The strategy is due for publication in spring 2003.

  Although it is generally accepted that domestic violence is predominately directed towards women we must remember that men can also be sufferers. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's Regional Forum on Domestic Violence has commissioned research into the experiences of 50 male sufferers of domestic violence. Discussion is ongoing with Queen's University about publication of the
  780W
  findings. The Forum will then consider whether additional steps need to be taken to help male sufferers specifically.

  Elderly People (Services)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what services each Department provides free of charge to those aged 65 and over in Northern Ireland. [87339]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Agriculture's Agri-Food Development Service offers a comprehensive lifelong learning provision relevant to the agri-food industry and rural communities. Those working within the local agri-food industry and rural communities, including those aged 65 and over, may participate on a free of charge basis. A free collection service is provided to all farmers irrespective of age for fallen bovines aged over 24 months and fallen sheep to enable Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE) surveillance testing to be carried out.

  Department of Culture Arts and Leisure (DCAL) does not directly deliver services on the ground. However, through its Agencies and NDPBs it does provide services to the public, etc. The following are offered free of charge—24 Museums offer free admission to all, including over 65s. And additionally, four charging museums have occasional days of free entry for senior citizens. The public library service which DCAL funds through the five Education and Library Boards offers Book loans, reference services and access to the internet free of charge for all users of the Public Library Service regardless of age. The Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) offer free access to the archives held by PRONI regardless of age.

  The Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) provided the following services free of charge to those aged 65 and over in Northern Ireland; Employment Services delivered through JobCentres and Jobs and Benefits offices Access to Work (NI) Employment Support Job Introduction Scheme New Deal…for Disabled People New Deal 50+ Training for Work Worktrack Essential Skills for Living courses on offer at 34 learndirect Centres throughout Northern Ireland.

  In addition to the services provided by the national health service that are free to everybody irrespective of age, Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety people aged 60 years and over are entitled to free prescriptions and eye-tests. The Home Help service is free to people aged 75 and over.

  The Department of Environment (DOE) through the DVLNI provide driving licences free to those 70 and over in Northern Ireland.

  The Department for Social Development (DSD) administers The Warm Homes and Warm Homes Plus schemes administered by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and available to homeowners and those in private rented sector housing, are provided free of charge to everyone, regardless of age, in receipt of certain income and disability related benefits.
  781W
  The Department for Regional Development (DRD) provides resources to enable public transport operators to offer free travel to persons aged 65 years and over.

  Roads Services provides free travel for the over 65s on the Strangford to Portaferry ferry service and Air and Sea Ports Division funds such free travel on the Ballycastle to Rathlin ferry.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90509]

  Mr. Pearson
  The total expenditure on use of consultants (including the Northern Ireland Office) for the financial year 2001–02 was £19,846,396.

  Fire Authority
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether logbooks on all motor cars owned by the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland are completed in accordance with the undertakings in the Northern Ireland Assembly's Public Accounts Committee report on The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland: Fleet Management and reports on the 1998–99 and 1999–2000 accounts. [90183]

  Mr. Browne
  The Fire Authority introduced new vehicle logbooks for completion in respect of all Fire Authority cars from May 2002. However, on the advice of the Fire Brigades Union, officers are not fully completing the logbooks for all journeys undertaken. The Acting Chief Fire Officer is attempting to resolve this refusal to implement Fire Authority policy with the Fire Brigades Union.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many lifejackets were purchased by the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland in the six months to 1 January 2002; and how much of this consignment is available for use. [90184]

  Mr. Browne
  The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland purchased 160 lifejackets in the six months to 1 January 2002. Each of the 67 fire stations has been issued with two lifejackets with the remainder held in reserve until all training in the use of the lifejackets has been completed.

  Former Prisoners (Payments)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many former prisoners with terrorist convictions are receiving payments from Government agencies in remuneration for work carried out by them through legitimate community groups or community programmes. [89438]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no centrally monitored records on this matter. Accordingly, this information can be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Former RUC Officers
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many former RUC officers, who retired under the Patten severance package, have re-entered the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [86436]
  782W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland has employed, through open competition, seven people as support staff members who previously retired as police officers under the voluntary severance scheme.

  Golden Jubilee Medal
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made by the Chief Constable for the distribution to his officers of the Golden Jubilee Medal awarded by Her Majesty the Queen. [88381]

  Jane Kennedy
  A total of 9,917 Police Service of Northern Ireland officers satisfy the qualifying criteria for the Golden Jubilee Medal.

  The main distribution of these medals will commence early this year; first on a district command basis and then to officers based regionally and within HQ departments. Arrangements will also be made for the issue of medals to those who were eligible before leaving the Police Service and to the next of kin of eligible officers who have since deceased.

  To date 521 medals have been issued. They were allocated in advance of the main distribution to facilitate officers participating in wreath-laying services connected with Remembrance Sunday.

  Independent International Commission on Decommissioning
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much expenditure has been incurred by Her Majesty's Government in respect of travel by each member of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning in each year since its formation. [83101]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Commission's travel costs are shared equally between the British and Irish Governments. The British Government's share of the costs, since 1998, has been as follows:

  £

  Britain's share of costs

  1998

  81,542

  1999

  151,624

  2000

  173,389

  2001

  187,125

  20021

  88,721

  TOTAL

  682,401

  1 Up to 31 October 2002

  Memorial Fund
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public funds have been allocated to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund since its commencement. [87337]

  Mr. Browne
  To date the Government have allocated a total of £7,007,288 to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund.

  NHS University
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with
  783W
  the Secretary of State for Health regarding the extension of the proposed NHS University to Northern Ireland. [90389]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been kept fully informed of plans to establish a university for the NHS (the NHSU).

  NHSU has initially been developed with the Department of Health for the NHS in England although it is recognised that discussions will have to be held with other administrations on the scope of NHSU outside England. As a first step the NHSU Development Plan is being circulated to HPSS bodies and other interested parties here for comment. This process will inform decisions on how NHSU might be used to support lifelong learning for everyone involved in health and social care in Northern Ireland.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Northern Ireland ambulance sub-station emergency call out times. [90019]

  Mr. Browne
  Ambulance Service response times to emergency calls has improved significantly since substations were introduced. For example, in the 12 months since the ambulance sub-station at Carrickfergus was opened in January 2002, the 8-minute response target was met in 45.3 per cent. of cases—against a target of 50 per cent.—while the 21-minute response target was met in 94.7 per cent. of cases—against a target of 95 per cent.

  Police Service
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vacancies exist at present for the post of Chief Inspector in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. [84138]

  Jane Kennedy
  Currently, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has sufficient officers in the rank of Chief Inspector to cover existing vacancies.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many officers have been recruited to the PSNI under the 50:50 rule since its introduction; and how many have been recruited in each recruitment phase; [85686]

  (2) how many police recruits from (a) the Roman Catholic population and (b) others have been recruited to the PSNI since its formation. [86444]

  Jane Kennedy
  As at 6 December 2002, 581 recruits, of whom 297 have declared themselves to be Catholic, and 284 non-Catholic, have been appointed to the PSNI. 305 appointments were made from Competition 1 and to date there have been 192 appointments from Competition 2 and 84 appointments from Competition 3. Further appointments from Competitions 2 and 3 have yet to be made.

  While every effort is made to balance the total appointments from each competition on a 50:50 basis, the balance of appointments can be subject to some fluctuation between competitions. The appointments of a number of non-Catholic candidates from
  784W
  Competitions 2 and 3 have been deferred due to personal circumstances, and in some cases at the request of candidates themselves.

  Police Widows
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial assistance the widow of a police officer who was killed in the line of duty will receive. [86654]

  Jane Kennedy
  The financial assistance awarded to the widows of police officers killed in the line of duty is governed by the RUC Pensions Regulations 1973 and 1988 and the RUC Injury Benefit Regulations 1988 which provide for the payment of a gratuity and a pension.

  Prior to 25 November 1982 the gratuity was two × average pensionable pay (APP). The APP was averaged over three years. From 25 November 1982 the gratuity was five × annual rate of pay or four × total remuneration, whichever is the lower, plus two × maximum pay of a constable in the London Metropolitan less 1¼ APP.

  The widow's pension awarded is the rate of pay plus rent allowance less child allowance for the first 13 weeks. Thereafter, the pension is 50 per cent. of APP. Child allowance is 10 per cent. of APP per child up to a maximum of 40 per cent.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many RUC widows have been widowed as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland since 1973; and how much money has been distributed to RUC widows since 1973. [86652]

  Jane Kennedy
  Police Service of Northern Ireland records indicate that 224 awards have been paid as a result of officers being killed in the line of duty as a direct result of terrorist activity. The total amount of money distributed in respect of these 224 awards could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  The above awards would not take into account the £4.2 million paid by Government to those RUC widows whose husbands were killed by terrorists prior to 25 November 1982, or any subsequent payments made to RUC widows by the Police Fund.

  Policing Board
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are made for publishing the proceedings of the Policing Board; and on what date minutes of proceedings were placed on the Policing Board website in each month since the formation of the board. [84209]

  Jane Kennedy
  This is a matter for the Policing Board. I have written to the Chief executive and asked that he respond direct to my hon. Friend.

  Provisional IRA
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of Provisional IRA activity along the roads of south Armagh; and what action he intends to take. [84458]
  785W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Government do not comment on intelligence assessments. The Secretary of State continues to make judgments on ceasefires, taking account of all the relevant factors, but it has been made plain that there must be an end to all paramilitary activity, including training, targeting and punishment attacks.

  Until terrorism has been set aside in favour of totally democratic and peaceful means, Government will maintain an appropriate security response to protect all the people of Northern Ireland.

  RUC Officers (Dependants)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance is available to dependants of ex-RUC officers murdered by terrorists. [84518]

  Jane Kennedy
  The RUC Benevolent Fund, the Police Dependants Trust and the Northern Ireland Police Fund are in a position to provide financial assistance to the families of ex-police officers murdered as a direct result of terrorism. In addition to financial support, PSNI Welfare Services and the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust can provide emotional and counselling support.

  Dependants of ex-officers murdered may also apply to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund, an independent charity largely funded by Government that provides financial assistance and grants to victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

  RUC Officers (Remembrance)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to ensure that ex-RUC officers murdered by terrorists are recognised(a) on police memorials and (b) in the Book of Remembrance. [84519]

  Jane Kennedy
  The majority of memorials erected locally within police stations, and the Book of Remembrance at PSNI HQ Brooklyn, commemorate the death of serving police officers as a result of terrorist activity. There are no plans to include ex-officers in these memorials. Ex-officers will however be named on the planned memorial to be erected within the RUC George Cross Garden of Remembrance at PSNI HQ Brooklyn.

  Scheduled Offences
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) juveniles and (b) adults have been charged with offences arising out of civil disturbances in (i) north Belfast, (ii) east Belfast and (iii) Northern Ireland in the current year. [86643]

  Jane Kennedy
  The table provides details of the number of persons charged between 1 January and 30 November 2002 with specific offences relating to disorderly/riotous behaviour/throwing of petrol bombs.
  786W

  Security situation statistics: Persons charged with specific offences relating to disorderly/riotous behaviour/throwing of petrol bombs—1 January 2002–30 November 2002

  Age Group

  Belfast North DCU

  Belfast East DCU

  Northern Ireland

  Under 17 years

  10

  2

  13

  Age 17 years and over

  32

  15

  82

  Notes:

  Juveniles are classified as being 16 years and under.

  The above figures are provisional and may be subject to minor adjustment.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the formation of parental consultation bodies to consider the Burns proposals for secondary education. [88788]

  Jane Kennedy
  I want to hear the views of parents on the responses to the Burns consultation and on the next stages of the post-primary review. A sample of schools, drawn from all sectors and management types across the five education and library boards, (a copy of which has been placed in the Library) have each been asked to nominate a parent to meet with my officials in mid-January to give their views on these issues. This follows the process used by CCEA in its consultation on the Curriculum Review.

  Security (North Belfast)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when steps will be taken to provide increased security measures at the Ardoyne road interface in North Belfast. [86645]

  Jane Kennedy
  Sectarian violence in North Belfast is constantly monitored by both NIO and PSNI and, in response to this, security measures are kept under continual review. A 3 m high extension has been completed to the security fence that runs along the Alliance avenue/Glenbryn park interface, bringing the total height to 9 m. Also, in addition to the CCTV camera already in place at the junction of Ardoyne road/Alliance avenue, the PSNI are currently installing two new cameras at Berwick road and Etna drive.

  I am confident that these measures will not only bring some respite to local residents, who suffer most as a result of sectarian violence, but will also assist police both in terms of efficiently deploying resources and effecting arrests.

  SPED Applications
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) police officers and (b) prison

  787W
  officers have applied for the Scheme for the Purchase of Evacuated Dwellings in Northern Ireland in the current year; how many have been successful; and what the total cost was in each case. [86620]

  Jane Kennedy
  From 1 April 2002 175 prison officers have applied for SPED, and to date 112 have been accepted on to the scheme. Within the Police Service of Northern Ireland, 126 officers have applied for SPED and 107 have been accepted.

  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE), operates the SPED scheme. Under the scheme, if the Chief Constable issues a certificate confirming that a threat or intimidation is real, this is sufficient for the NIHE to invoke the scheme. Therefore, the NIHE do not know the background of cases. Up to 12 December the NIHE have had 433 applications at a total cost of £22.213 million.

  Voter Identification
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his estimate is of the number of persons removed from the electoral roll in each constituency following legislation on voter identification; what percentage of the electorate this represents; and what the ratio is between the reduction within each constituency and the size of the electoral majority of the sitting hon. Member. [86018]

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of persons removed from the Electoral Register in each Parliamentary constituency following 2002 annual canvass

  Percentage of previously registered electors this represents

  Size of electoral majority at General Election on 7 June 2001

  Belfast East

  6,637

  11.53

  7,117

  Belfast North

  9,434

  15.9

  6,387

  Belfast South

  10,084

  16.98

  5,399

  Belfast West

  10,970

  18.56

  19,342

  East Antrim

  6,452

  10.57

  128

  East Londonderry

  5,564

  9.12

  1,901

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  5,440

  7.95

  53

  Foyle

  9,492

  13.13

  11,550

  Lagan Valley

  7,510

  10.22

  18,342

  Mid Ulster

  4,606

  7.26

  9,953

  North Antrim

  6,222

  8.19

  14,224

  North Down

  6,968

  10.96

  7,324

  Newry and Armagh

  7,647

  10.27

  3,575

  South Antrim

  8,427

  11.91

  1,011

  South Down

  7,205

  9.54

  13,858

  Strangford

  7,248

  9.95

  1,110

  Upper Bann

  6,763

  9.1

  2,058

  West Tyrone

  5,533

  8.92

  5,040

  Weston Park Commitments
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which political parties gave commitments at Weston Park in respect of the new Northern Ireland policing legislation and on other proposals presented. [86454]

  Jane Kennedy
  The agreement at Weston Park was that between two Governments. Together with the Irish Government, we published, on 1 August 2001, our joint proposals on four areas—policing, normalisation, the stability of the institutions and decommissioning—
  788W
  Mr. Browne
  The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 requires an application for voter registration in Northern Ireland to be signed by, include the date of birth, and the national insurance number (or a statement that the applicant does not have a national insurance number) of, each of the persons to whom the form or application relates. Applicants are also required to make a statement that they have been resident in Northern Ireland for the requisite three-month period before the date of their application and to state any other address in the United Kingdom in respect of which they are, or have applied to be, registered. The Chief Electoral Officer is required to remove a person's name from the Electoral Register if their application does not contain any of the above information. These changes came into effect at the Annual Canvass conducted on 15 October 2002. The new Electoral Register was published on 29 November 2002.

  132,000 fewer names appeared on the 29 November Electoral Register than appeared on the previous register of 15 August. Anyone among that 132,000 who is eligible to be registered will be able to do so via Rolling Registration before the next scheduled Assembly election on 1 May 2003.

  The figures in the attached table have been provided by the Chief Electoral Officer and are available on the Electoral Office website: www.electoralofficeni.gov.uk

  together with a draft statement which the parties would issue in the event that the overall package was acceptable. In the event not all the parties accepted those proposals.

  All the changes to the policing legislation that the Government had undertaken to consider in the context of the review of policing arrangements were set out in the updated Patten Implementation Plan, published on 17 August 2001.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent discussions she has had with the Home Secretary regarding the treatment of women prisoners. [91062]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have had no recent discussions with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regarding the treatment of women prisoners.

  Equal Pay
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent representations she has received about the gender pay gap. [91063]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have received no representations in the last three months on the gender pay gap.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Minister for Women what plans she has to reduce the pay gap between women and men. [91059]

  Ms Hewitt
  The causes of the gender pay gap are complex. The Government have set in place a number of measures designed to tackle them. The Employment Act 2002 when it comes into force in April 2003, for example, will introduce an equal pay questionnaire and measures to help mothers stay attached to the labour market.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what plans her Department has to increase the UK's manufacturing productivity levels; and if she will make a statement. [90938]

  Alan Johnson
  Manufacturing matters hugely to the prosperity of the UK. But we know that our manufacturing productivity levels here in the UK are significantly lower than in some of our competitor nations. That is why this Government have focused the spotlight on manufacturing productivity through the Manufacturing Strategy it published last May, the first by any Government since the 1970s.

  Post Office
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what payment will be made to sub-postmasters who make payments from(a) a high street bank account, (b) a universal bank account and (c) a post office card account. [90947]

  Mr. Timms
  Remuneration for sub-postmasters is a commercial matter between the Post Office and the sub-postmasters.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met the chairman of Postwatch to discuss the availability of post office card accounts and the Post Office Reinvention Programme. [90948]
  790W
  Mr. Timms
  DTI Ministers and officials have regular contact with Postwatch to discuss a range of issues concerning postal services.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask to Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of the post office network. [90951]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government remain fully committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices and is investing, very substantial sums in supporting the modernisation of the network in line with the PIU report's recommendations.

  Energy White Paper
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to publish the energy White Paper. [90949]

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish the energy white paper. [90950]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government expects to publish energy White Paper shortly.

  Arms Sales
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry What has been the cost to public funds in the last financial year of arms sales financed by ECGD payments. [90946]

  Nigel Griffiths
  ECGD charges premium for all its business, regardless of sector, at a level which reflects its assessment of the risks involved and is sufficient to meet the financial criteria set by Ministers. For defence business in 2001–02, ECGD paid claims of £125 million which were in respect of guarantees issued before this period. ECGD has paid no claims on defence business underwritten since May 1997.

  Belfast City Airport
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will refer to the Competition Commission a bid to take over Belfast City airport. [91342]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under the Fair Trading Act 1973 a merger qualifies for investigation if it creates or enhances a 25 per cent. share of supply in the UK or a substantial part of the UK, or if the gross value of the worldwide assets being taken over is more than £70 million.

  In the first instance it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to advise Ministers on whether or not a qualifying merger should be referred to the Competition Commission.

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) who will conduct the review into the childcare tax credit; what the review's terms of reference are; whether the results of the review will(a) be published and (b) be made available in the Library; and if she will make a statement; [90770]
  791W
  (2) whether the review into the childcare tax credit will (a) look at extending the scope of the credit and (b) examine regional and national differences in the take-up of childcare tax credit; [90771]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the difficulties involved in making an estimate of the number of parents eligible but not claiming the childcare tax credit. [90772]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  As announced in the joint report released by DTI and Treasury on 14 January, "Balancing Work and Family Life: Enhancing Choice and Support for Parents" the Government are committed to keeping under review how well support for child care costs within tax credits is working, in particular, the effect that the increased flexibility has on the ability of parents to adjust their child care requirements to suit their needs. Clearly the new system will need to be in place for a period of time before consideration can be made of the effects of the new more flexible system.

  In order to qualify for childcare tax credit, parents have to satisfy two requirements. Firstly they must qualify for WFTC working more than 16 hours per week with a family income below the eligible maximum. Secondly they have to be using registered child care and if you have a partner he or she must also be working more than 16 hours. Because of the difficulties in identifying the people meeting these criteria and the constantly changing profile of recipients, it is difficult to estimate the number of parents eligible but not claiming the childcare tax credit.

  Consumer Credit Act
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on what conclusions she has reached as part of her Department's review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 with respect to the questions of(a) how credit card annual percentage rates are calculated and (b) whether there is a case for reform of the statutory rules. [90030]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]A review of the Consumer Credit Act was announced in July 2001. To date, consultation papers have been published on the financial limits in the Act and the agreements that are exempt from its control; the early settlement of consumer credit agreements; and the conclusion of agreements by electronic means.

  Taking the review forward, I will shortly be consulting on changes to the licensing system and to provisions on extortionate credit.

  ELGAR IT
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) purchase cost, (b) installation cost and (c) annual operating costs since its installation were of the ELGAR IT system; and if she will make a statement. [88834]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested cannot be provided as pricing information about the ELGAR contract is Commercial in Confidence and is therefore subject to exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information.

  Energy Options
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the latest position on research, demonstration and development expenditure on energy options and institutions. [90238]

  Mr. Wilson
  The latest available figures (2001–02) for direct Government expenditure on research, demonstration and development are as follows:

  £ million

  Renewables

  11

  Nuclear fusion

  14.3

  Meteorological Office emergency response arrangements

  2.1

  Clean coal

  4.1

  Combined heat and power

  2.4

  Notes:

  1. Of DTI's total spend on nuclear R&D given above, £14.3 million was on fusion research and £2.1 million in support of Meteorological Office emergency response arrangements. Expenditure on nuclear R&D by public sector bodies is set out in their annual reports and accounts and could not be provided in the manner requested without disproportionate cost.

  2. The table sets out identified Government spend and excludes, for example, spending by research councils, which could not be separated in the manner requested without disproportionate cost.

  3. DTI's New and Renewable Energy R&D programme also includes support for activities which are not technology specific, for example, export, commercialisation, marketing and international activities.

  4. In 2001, payment appropriations from EC Budget to Euratom were 209 million euros and to the European Commission's Joint Research Centre 249.7 million euros.

  5. UK payments to the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2002 were as follows:

  IAEA Regular budget subscription—£6,261,011

  IAEA Technical co-operation fund—£2,525,046.

  Energy Review
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the involvement of DEFRA in the energy review; and if she will make a statement. [90791]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is a Member of the Cabinet Committee, DA(N), which is overseeing the energy review and the team who are undertaking the detailed work includes a number of officials drawn from DEFRA.

  Engineering Construction Industry
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what measures she proposes to tackle skill shortages in the engineering construction industry. [90945]

  Mr. Wilson
  DTI is working with the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (the statutory body for the industry) and other key players in the sector to address skills shortages and other related issues. We have helped:Establish a working group to help identify and address key skills gaps.
  Part-fund and Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) study into the feasibility for a national level

  793W
  competence assessment scheme for the engineering construction industry.
  Support an audit of adult basic skills needs in the sector.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what fair trade criteria she sets when deciding upon what suppliers to use. [89913]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is government policy to promote fair trade products, against the background of the need to obtain best value for money, the EC procurement rules and the Department's objectives. Within these guidelines the Department and its Agencies are committed to supporting ethical trading wherever possible. For example, the Department's Catering Contractor to its London Restaurants makes available fair trade tea and coffee to staff.

  Foreign Direct Investment
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the United Kingdom's position is in the EU league table of stock of foreign direct investment; and if she will make a statement. [88880]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Latest UNCTAD figures confirm the UK's ranking as Europe's top investment location in the stock of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) with $496,776 million and that we are second only to the USA in the world. Latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures also show that FDI stock in the UK in the third quarter of 2002 was at a record level of £390.6 billion, an increase of £25.1 billion or 7 per cent. over the same quarter in 2001. These figures are a clear vote of confidence in the UK's business conditions.

  The Government are determined to see the UK remain the top location in Europe for inward investment and will continue to pursue economic policies which will enhance the UK's attractions including lasting economic stability, open markets and a pro-business environment.

  Illegal Working Practices
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government are doing to combat illegal working practices and how many companies have been prosecuted since 1997 for such practices. [85385]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department for Work and Pensions is focusing increasingly on fraud where dishonest employers abuse the system, for example by not paying national insurance contributions or by paying artificially low wages to workers who continue to claim out-of-work benefits.

  We have put in place a programme targeting these employers and have specialist teams working together with the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise to tackle employer fraud, including Joint Shadow Economy Teams. In addition we have since 1 May 2002 had powers under the Fraud Act to impose a financial
  794W
  penalty on employers who abuse the system instead of prosecuting them. This new power, together with the work we are doing jointly with the taxation Departments, marks a step change in our approach to those employers who would collude with their employees in cheating the tax or benefit systems.

  Information on the number of employers prosecuted specifically for collusion is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Medical Advisers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many medical advisers are employed in her Department; where they are located; and if she will make a statement. [88835]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department does not directly employ any medical advisers. Occupational health advice is provided under contract by an external supplier.

  Miners' Compensation
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are used to determine the payment of compensation to former miners suffering from(a) respiratory disease and (b) vibration white finger. [90279]

  Mr. Wilson
  The criteria for eligibility for compensation for respiratory disease and vibration white finger (VWF) are detailed in the High Court judgements handed down against British Coal in 1998 and 1997 respectively. These criteria formed the basis of the Claims Handling Agreement, which were subsequently negotiated with the solicitors acting for the claimants.

  Former miners and their families are entitled to compensation if the claimant is found to be suffering from respiratory disease caused by his exposure to mine dust and fumes while employed underground after 4 June 1954, the date of liability. For VWF former miners and their families are entitled to compensation if the claimant is found to be suffering from VWF caused by his being employed in an occupational group whereby exposure to vibratory tools was substantial or significant after 1975.

  New Export System
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many annual transactions in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 could have been covered by the New Export System procedures; and how many are expected to be cover ed in (i) 2003 and (ii) 2004. [89131]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total of export declaration transactions in 2001 was 4.5 million and the total for 2002 was also 4.5 million. All of the export declaration transactions made during 2001–02 could have been handled by the New Export System (NES) had the system been in place

  795W
  at that time. It is estimated that 4.5 to 5 million export declaration transactions will be processed in 2003 and the same in 2004 providing there are no major changes to current pattern in UK exports.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulatory impact assessment has been carried out of the New Export System; and what the estimated annual costs are to business. [89133]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The implementation of the New Export System (NES) has required no new regulations, just new procedures and therefore no regulatory impact assessment has been required. There are, however, compliance rules for exporters who choose to use simplified procedures for export declarations. These procedures have been widely publicised and are documented on HMCE website.

  There is no estimate of annual costs to business as a whole as the cost will depend on how each exporter has chosen to implement NES and any savings offset as a result of a reduction in paper handling.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to co-ordinate the introduction of the New Export System with comparable measures in the EU countries. [89134]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Although regular liaison and exchange of information takes place with other member states on all international trade matters, there is no joint initiative to implement New Export System (NES) across the EU. However, several other member states have or will be implementing electronic export declarations and others have taken an active interest in the UK implementation of NES. NES is also fully compliant with EU regulations.

  Nuclear Accident
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's role is in the event of a nuclear accident. [90230]

  Mr. Wilson
  DTI would be the lead Government Department in the event of an emergency at a civil nuclear site in England or Wales and would be responsible for co-ordinating the response to the emergency at the national level. In Scotland, this responsibility would fall to the Scottish Executive.

  As lead Department, DTI would set up its Nuclear Emergency Briefing Room in London to liaise closely with all relevant local and national agencies and departments, and co-ordinate necessary action at national level; be the main source of information from central Government to the public and media; alert the UK's international partners; brief Ministers on the emergency; and appoint a Government Technical Adviser (GTA) from HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to advise the police and emergency services on measures to protect the public. DTI would work closely with the Scottish Executive which has parallel arrangements for an emergency in Scotland. DTI
  796W
  Ministers would report to the Houses of Parliament in respect of an emergency at any civil nuclear site in the UK.

  DTI participates in the regular programme of off-site nuclear exercises held for all nuclear sites to help maintain constant readiness and, through the lessons of those exercises, seek improvements.

  Nuclear Installations (Consequence Management)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the major programme of activities to reduce vulnerabilities and strengthen the arrangements for consequence management at nuclear installations. [90315]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is working with the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the civil nuclear industry to both identify and reduce vulnerabilities and strengthen arrangements for consequence management. It is not Government policy to discuss details of security arrangements at civil nuclear sites.

  Oil Reserves
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the annual global(a) production and (b) consumption of oil each year since 1997. [90786]

  Mr. Wilson
  Estimates of global production of crude oil and natural gas liquids together with estimates for global oil demand are produced by the International Energy Agency and are given in the following table.

  Million metric tones

  Year

  World production of crude oil and natural gas liquids

  World oil demand

  1997

  3,464

  3,393

  1998

  3,532

  3,419

  1999

  3,456

  3,474

  2000

  3,585

  3,516

  2001

  3,579

  3,519

  Source:

  International Energy Agency (Oil Information 2002)

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the average(a) gross and (b) net price received per barrel of oil extracted from the UK section of the North Sea in each year since 1974; and what the average price of oil per barrel was on the world market in each of those years. [90792]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI surveys which collect data giving the average price received per barrel of oil extracted from the UK were begun only in 1976. The prices from these surveys have been converted to $/barrel and are shown in the table against the spot prices of the three major world benchmark crudes. The prices shown are gross; prices net of costs and taxes/royalties cannot be estimated because data restricted to oil production are unavailable.
  797W

  Crude Oil Prices 1976–2001

  Spot marker prices

  Average UK price received

  £/tonne

  $/bbl1

  Brent $/barrel2

  Dubai $/barrel3

  West Texas intermediate $/barrel4

  Exchange rate $/£

  1976

  55.0

  13.2

  12.8

  11.6

  12.2

  1.80

  1977

  59.4

  13.8

  13.9

  12.4

  14.2

  1.75

  1978

  53.2

  13.6

  14.0

  13.0

  14.6

  1.92

  1979

  73.7

  20.9

  31.6

  29.8

  25.1

  2.12

  1980

  111.9

  34.7

  36.8

  35.7

  38.0

  2.33

  1981

  138.3

  37.3

  35.9

  34.3

  36.1

  2.03

  1982

  142.0

  33.1

  33.0

  31.8

  33.7

  1.75

  1983

  148.3

  30.0

  29.6

  28.8

  30.3

  1.52

  1984

  164.9

  29.4

  28.7

  28.1

  29.4

  1.34

  1985

  158.3

  27.4

  27.5

  27.5

  28.0

  1.30

  1986

  73.3

  14.3

  14.4

  13.0

  15.0

  1.47

  1987

  81.7

  17.9

  18.4

  16.9

  19.2

  1.64

  1988

  63.4

  15.0

  15.0

  13.2

  16.0

  1.78

  1989

  81.0

  17.7

  18.2

  15.7

  19.7

  1.64

  1990

  94.6

  22.5

  23.8

  20.5

  24.5

  1.79

  1991

  86.0

  20.3

  20.0

  16.6

  21.5

  1.77

  1992

  83.4

  19.6

  19.4

  17.2

  20.6

  1.77

  1993

  85.8

  17.2

  17.1

  14.9

  18.4

  1.50

  1994

  77.0

  15.7

  16.0

  14.8

  17.2

  1.53

  1995

  81.1

  17.1

  17.2

  16.1

  18.4

  1.58

  1996

  96.9

  20.2

  20.8

  18.6

  22.2

  1.56

  1997

  87.4

  19.1

  19.3

  18.1

  20.6

  1.64

  1998

  60.0

  13.3

  13.1

  12.2

  14.4

  1.66

  1999

  80.0

  17.3

  18.3

  17.3

  19.3

  1.62

  2000

  138.0

  27.9

  29.0

  26.2

  30.4

  1.52

  2001

  125.6

  24.1

  24.8

  22.8

  25.9

  1.44

  Notes:

  1. Assuming 1 tonne = 7.5 barrels

  2. 1976–1984 Forties, 1985–2001 Brent

  3. 1972–1985 Arabian Light, 1986–2001 Dubai

  4. 1976–1983 Posted WTI prices, 1984–2001 Spot WTI prices

  Sources:

  UK price received: DTI PQ1100 Quarterly Enquiry and preceding surveys.

  Spot marker prices: BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2002).

  Exchange rate: ONS.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of(a) the quantity of oil in the world that remains unextracted and (b) how long this will last at present rates of extraction. [90787]

  Mr. Wilson
  The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that proven global reserves of conventional crude oil and natural gas liquids are 959 billion barrels. In addition, the IEA estimates undiscovered resources of conventional crude oil and natural gas liquids to be 939 billion barrels and recoverable non-conventional reserves, such as oil shales, to be 580 billion barrels. In their 2002 publication World Energy Outlook, the IEA commented that resources of conventional crude oil and natural gas liquids are adequate to meet the projected increase in demand to 2030, although new discoveries will be needed to renew reserves.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much oil has been extracted from the UK section of the North Sea in each year since 1974; and what the estimated total left unextracted is. [90789]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information on offshore UK production of crude oil and natural gas liquids is provided in the table.
  798W

  Year

  Million tonnes

  1974

  0.3

  1975

  1.5

  1976

  12.1

  1977

  38.2

  1978

  53.9

  1979

  77.6

  1980

  80.2

  1981

  89.2

  1982

  103.0

  1983

  114.6

  1984

  125.7

  1985

  127.2

  1986

  126.6

  1987

  122.8

  1988

  113.7

  1989

  91.0

  1990

  89.8

  1991

  87.6

  1992

  90.3

  1993

  96.5

  1994

  121.9

  1995

  124.8

  1996

  124.5

  1997

  123.3

  1998

  127.3

  1999

  132.8

  2000

  123.0

  2001

  113.8

  799W
  As at the end of 2001, oil reserves on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (including onshore and outside the North Sea) were estimated to range between 605 and 1,430 million tonnes for remaining reserves in existing discoveries and between 205 and 1,930 million tonnes in potential future discoveries.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the nuclear power stations proposed to be built under the new nuclear programme will be built in Scotland. [90760]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]There is no such programme. Development consent for any new nuclear power station in Scotland would be a matter for Scottish Ministers, if such a proposal should arise.

  REPPIR
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much each local council is expected to spend on implementing REPPIR; how much each local council has spent on formulating their latest REPPIR plan; how much each local council has spent on acquiring the necessary equipment; and what stocks of equipment each REPPIR council has. [90231]

  Mr. Wilson
  Information about the expenditure local authorities have incurred in complying with the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001 (REPPIR) is not collected by the Health and Safety Executive who enforce the Regulations and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  To date, off-site plans under REPPIR have been identified as necessary for all sites licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 and certain Ministry of Defence sites. REPPIR allows local authorities to charge site operators for their costs in preparing, reviewing, revising and testing off-site plans and has formalised local arrangements that existed for many nuclear sites prior to the Regulations coming into force. I would not expect the additional costs to local authorities of complying with REPPIR to be significant.

  Waste Recycling
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department has allocated for waste recycling projects undertaken by(a) local authorities, (b) non-profit making organisations and (c) industry in financial years (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [90451]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]My Department has allocated £7 million for financial year 2002–03 and £7.7 million for 2003–04. The majority of this is industrially linked R&D support, particularly through the Department's contribution to the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). DTI has not allocated specific budgets to local authority or non-profit making organisation projects.

HEALTH

  Consultants
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants on the register of the General Medical Council are over 60, broken down by nation and region; and what the figures were in each of the last five years. [90758]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]The General Medical Council (GMC) holds limited, but not historical, information. According to the GMC, as of 13 January 2003, there were 43,375 doctors in the United Kingdom on the GMC Register who were also on the specialist register. Of these 4,758 were aged 60 or over.

  Diabetes
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are suffering from diabetes in each health authority in the UK. [90038]

  Mr. Lammy
  I regret that this information is not available in the format requested. However, an estimated 1.3 million people in England have diagnosed diabetes. A population of 100,000 would be expected to include between 2,000 and 3,000 people with diabetes.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence he has collated on the effect that changing the name of hospital accident and emergency departments will have on the frequency that they are used; and if he will publish it; [91209]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Dott plan to rename accident and emergency departments in hospitals; and to what he proposes to change their name; [91206]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the cost of renaming hospital accident and emergency departments. [91208]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department of Health has no plans to change the name of accident and emergency departments and has therefore made no estimate of the costs or effect of doing so. We understand the British association of accident and emergency medicine (BAEM) and faculty of accident and emergency medicine (FAEM) are balloting their members on a proposal to change the name of the specialty to emergency medicine. We will consider the views of the BAEM and FAEM when they have reported them to the Department.

  Drug Addicts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered drug addicts there were in the(a) Twickenham constituency, (b) London borough of Richmond upon Thames and (c) London in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [88830]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following the closure of the Home Office Addicts Index in 1997, the regional drug misuse databases were the main source of information on persons presenting to drug treatment services with a
  801W
  drug problem. Information is available by health authority and regional office area and is shown in the following table:

  Number of users reported as presenting for treatment for drug misuse in Kingston and Richmond health authority and the London regional office area, April 1995 to March 2001

  Six month period ending

  Kingston and Richmond health authority

  London regional office area

  September 1995

  207

  5,727

  March 1996

  201

  5,867

  September 1996

  235

  5,690

  March 1997

  219

  5,684

  September 1997

  143

  4,057

  March 1998

  137

  4,292

  September 1998

  157

  6,564

  March 1999

  164

  5,748

  September 1999

  195

  6,294

  March 2000

  244

  6,713

  September 2000

  225

  6,626

  March 2001

  247

  6,730

  Notes:

  1. Reporting to the Regional Drug Misuse Databases was voluntary; changes in numbers of users presenting may, at least in part, be due to changes in reporting practice.

  2. Following NHS reorganisation in 2002, Kingston and Richmond health authority became part of the South West London Strategic Health Authority.

  Source:

  The Department of Health series of Statistical Bulletins "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases. Bulletins for the six months ending March 1998 onwards are available on the internet at http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/work public health.htm#SDD

  Drug Rehabilitation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drug rehabilitation places are available to registered drug addicts in the(a) Twickenham constituency, (b) London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and (c) London; how many registered drug addicts in the (i) Twickenham constituency, (ii) London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and (iii) London are receiving (A) rehabilitation and (B) other forms of drug treatment; and if he will make a statement. [88829]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available in the form requested. In the case of residential rehabilitation, places are often purchased at a residential centre that may be outside the drug misusers area of residence. In practice some local authority social services departments agree to fund long distance placements with the agreement of the drug misusers so he/she can be removed from the area where they are involved in drug using. This means that in theory all of the approximately 3,100 residential rehabilitation places for drug and alcohol misusers in England are available to drug misusers resident in Twickenham and other parts of London. However, purchasing decisions are a matter for agreement between the drug misusers and the local agencies.

  A one off exercise was carried out to estimate the number of drug users in England in contact with drug treatment agencies in 2000–01. Around of 27,400 individuals were reported to be in contact with drug treatment agencies in London; of these, 142 were reported as being in treatment at community specialist services in the London Borough of Richmond upon
  802W
  Thames. A statistical bulletin "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases on drug misusers in treatment in England, 2000/01" was published in December 2001, and is available on the Department of Health website at, http://www.doh.gov.uIc/public/sb0133.htm

  Foundation Trusts
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how frequently an NHS foundation trust will be required to review its constitution. [91106]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to legislation, the constitution of a national health service foundation trust will be set on establishment. There will be no requirement on NHS foundation trusts to review the constitution.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how representatives from the employee membership will be elected to the board of governors of a foundation trust; whether there will be provision for different grades of staff to be represented; and what role staff trade unions will play in the process. [91107]

  Mr. Hutton
  It will be up to national health service foundation trusts, and NHS foundation trust applicants, to arrange elections to suite local circumstances and ensure a proper balance on the Board of Governors as set out in paragraphs 2.25–2.28 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the possibility of all employees of a foundation trust being given automatic membership of the trust; and for what reasons he has decided that employees must register for membership. [91108]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not received any representations on this issue. Subject to legislation, all employees, defined as people who have a permanent contract, or a fixed term contract longer than 12 months, will be eligible to become members if they choose as set out in paragraphs 2.6–2.10 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". It will be up to individual national health service foundation trusts to decide whether they want staff membership to be automatic.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether an employee of a foundation trust who is a registered member of the trust will be able to retain membership rights after leaving the trust's employment. [91109]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to legislation, membership will be open to employees after leaving the national health service foundation trust's employment if they meet the eligibility criteria set by the NHS foundation trust in line with paragraphs 2.6–2.9 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts".

  Free Health Checks
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of restoring free(a) dental and (b) eye examinations to (i) all adults, (ii) those over 65, (iii) those over 60 and (iv) those over 55; and if he will make a statement. [89555]
  803W
  Mr. Lammy
  About a quarter of dental examinations carried out on adults in the general dental service have either no patient charge, or else the patient pays a reduced charge. It is estimated that making dental examinations free to adults would reduce patient charge revenue in England by:

  Adults

  Reduction in patient charge revenue at 2002–03 charge rates in f million

  Age 18 and over

  87

  Age 65 and over

  15

  Age 60 and over

  22

  Age 55 and over

  30

  Additional costs would arise if there were any associated increase in the overall number of dental examinations and national health service dental treatments.

  In April 1999 we made everyone aged 60 and over eligible for a free NHS sight test. Children, people on low incomes and those suffering from or predisposed to eye disease are also eligible. Our estimates of the costs per annum of extending eligibility further are:

  Adults

  Additional costs per annum in £ million

  Age 18 and over

  80

  Age 55 and over

  15

  Hospital Performance Ratings
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what weighting is given to each of the criteria in performance ratings for hospitals, with particular reference to(a) clinical excellence and (b) good administration. [82993]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The national health service published in July 2002 a "Clinical Focus" containing nine indicators reflecting the standard of clinical care provided by NHS hospital trusts. Success against many of the targets and indicators in the ratings would be necessarily underpinned by high quality administrative and managerial work.

  Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust area were waiting for in-patient treatment on the latest available date. [91207]

  Mr. Lammy
  There were 9,468 patients waiting for in-patient treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust at the end of November 2002.

  Source:

  KHO7 return

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much medical training is received by those manning the telephones of NHS Direct before they commence work. [86065]
  804W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 19 December 2002,Official Report, column 1053W.

  NHS Prescriptions
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will adjust the level of income which allows those on incapacity benefit to receive free NHS prescriptions to compensate for the recent increase in incapacity benefit. [90284]

  Mr. Lammy
  Calculation of entitlement to help with health costs under the national health service low income scheme is based on income support arrangements. Claims are assessed by a comparison of requirements and resources. Any increase in either will be reflected in the calculation.

  Overseas Medical Staff (Recruitment)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from foreign governments about recruitment for the NHS of(a) nurses and (b) doctors in their countries. [84593]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 858W.

  Since then, no further governments have made representations to the Department concerning the recruitment of doctors and nurses in their countries to the national health service.

  We continue to discuss work programmes with New Zealand, Ghana, South Africa, the Caribbean and Poland, which will aid the retention of their health care professionals.

  In addition, we have had a further approach from the Italian Government to discuss the possibility of recruiting doctors from their country.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many departmental minutes issued by his Department were outstanding on 30 November, that referred to public private partnerships as included in Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts; and what their value was. [89420]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]There are no departmental minutes outstanding referring to public private partnerships arising from Table B14 of the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts.

  Tuberculosis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 December, Ref 83328, which health authorities have levels of tuberculosis higher than the national average. [86803]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 December 2002]Information reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service notification of infectious disease system 2001, show that the following health authorities have levels of tuberculosis higher than the national average.
  805W
  Newcastle and North Tyneside, Liverpool, Bury and Rochdale, Wigan and Bolton, Leeds, Berkshire, East Lancashire, Sheffield, West Pennine, Bexley/Bromley/Greenwich, Merton/Sutton/Wandsworth, Bedfordshire, Walsall, Calderdale and Kirklees, Croydon, Leicestershire, Bradford, Manchester, Kensington/Chelsea/Westminster, Coventry, Birmingham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest, Hillingdon, Barnet/Enfield/Harringey, Lambeth/Southwark/Lewisham, Ealing/Hammersmith/Hounslow, Camden and Islington, Brent and Harrow, East London and City.

  Traumatic Brain Injury
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to provide support for(a) those with a traumatic brain injury, (b) their families and (c) carers in North Staffordshire; [90241]

  (2) what facilities are in place in North Staffordshire to provide effective rehabilitation for those who have suffered a traumatic brain injury; [90242]

  (3) what steps he is taking to improve care for those who suffer from traumatic head injuries in North Staffordshire. [90243]

  Mr. Lammy
  Local commissioners are responsible for providing appropriate healthcare for their local communities, including the provision of brain injury services.

  The neuropsychiatry rehabilitation unit at the Haywood Hospital, part of North Staffordshire Hospital National Health Service Trust, provides care for people with some form of brain trauma, requiring supervision, assessment, treatment or rehabilitation. The unit also provides help with emotional or behavioural difficulties relating to brain trauma and has an associated community service.

  The neuropsychiatry unit at the Harplands Hospital caters for people with acute neuro-psychiatric problems following brain injury. Users of that facility are likely to require closer supervision or observation initially and may be detained under the Mental Health Act.
  806W
  A West Midlands regional group made up of service commissioners, including senior clinicians and managers, has been established to look at ways of improving the provision of neurosurgery across the West Midlands, including the North Staffordshire area.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total expenditure of the Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90521]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2001–02 was £72,700.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the distribution of the Lord Chancellor's Department's whole-time equivalent staff was, including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to him, in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90473]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 609W.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost to his Department was of the use of external consultants in 2002. [90502]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department also replies on behalf of its Associated Offices and the Court Service.

  The Department does not collect this information on a calendar year basis.

  However, I can confirm that the Department's net expenditure with external consultants in the financial year dated 2001–02 was £6.5 million.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Authority Housing
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday laid before Parliament an amendment to The Local Authority (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997 to allow local authorities to use up to 100 per cent, of the capital receipt they receive from the disposal of certain housing assets, excluding right to buy sales and large and small scale voluntary transfers, for the provision of affordable housing.

  Copies of the regulation have been placed in both House Libraries.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Small Arms Export Control Conference
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  HMG hosted a successful meeting on strengthening export controls on small arms and light weapons at Lancaster House on 14 and 15 January. Over fifty nations and representatives of international organisations and NGOs attended. The Secretary of State for International Development and I addressed the delegates.

  The meeting was an initiative of the Government's Global Conflict Prevention Pool. The Government's objective was to build on and develop consensus between small arms exporting nations, whether producers or stock-holders, on the need for effective export controls and controls on arms brokers. These were sensitive issues that the Government considered would benefit from further work following the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects in 2001.

  Recognising the central role for the UN, the meeting discussed ways of taking forward work on an international agreement to control the activities of arms brokers. There was also general agreement on the need for effective export controls on small arms.

  The UK will report the outcome of the meeting to the United Nations biennial review meeting in July 2003 and follow up on the common ground established at Lancaster House.

  The meeting demonstrates the strength of the international consensus to implement more effective controls on small arms exports and brokers. All who attended saw the meeting as a useful initiative to take forward key elements in the international effort to
  28WS
  control the spread of small arms, a major factor in instability and conflict, particularly in Africa and in human rights abuses and crime worldwide.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison DNA Sampling
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham)
  The DNA Expansion Programme is a major Government initiative that has been developed to enable the police to make maximum benefit of DNA in tackling crime. Home Office funding has been made available to enable the police to take DNA samples from all people cautioned or charged with a recordable offence and from as many crime scenes as possible. The database has already played a leading role in solving a large number of crimes.

  A number of prisoners and mentally disordered offenders do not have DNA on the database as they were convicted before the DNA expansion programme enabled every offender to be DNA sampled. An exercise is now underway to identify those offenders without DNA on the database and to ensure that a sample is taken before they are released from prison or hospital. This Prisoner DNA Sampling Programme is being run under the auspices of the existing DNA Expansion Programme.

  A dedicated programme management team has been recruited and is developing plans to ensure that the majority of those without DNA profiles on the database do provide them by Summer 2003. Centrally managed but regionally based teams of police officers working in close co-operation with prison and mental health establishments will ensure a speedy completion of the exercise with minimal impact on the establishments involved.

  The exercise will underpin the Home Office aims of reducing crime, increasing the efficiency of crime investigation and increasing successful prosecutions. If known offenders can be linked to their offences more often and more quickly then we will be able to detect and deter more crime in the future—and also improve victim reassurance and so contribute to reduction of the fear of crime.

  The Prisoner DNA Sampling Programme and the broader DNA Expansion Programme are clear examples of the use of science and technology to reduce crime and improve the effectiveness of the police. In the National Policing Plan, published recently, we state our commitment to ensure that the DNA database covers all known active offenders by 2004.

  Science and Technology Strategy
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham)
  Today sees the launch of the first ever science and technology strategy for the police.
  29WS
  Science and technology have been important tools in the fight against crime for many years. However, as criminals become more technologically aware, so it becomes vital that the police service is not only properly equipped to combat this new strain of criminals but also that the tools they use are as effective and efficient as possible. From early on in the police reform process the major stakeholders in policing identified the need for an overarching strategy for the police use of science and technology—a commitment which was made in the police reform white paper: "Policing a New Century: A Blue Print for Reform".1

  I established the Police Science and Technology Strategy Group to bring together the key stakeholders and commissioned them to identify and prioritise the police's requirements for science and technology. This work has formed the basis of the overarching strategy that we are launching today.

  The purpose of the S&T strategy is to ensure the police service is equipped to exploit the opportunities in science and technology to deliver effective policing as part of a modern and respected criminal justice system. To achieve this the strategy identifies three key aims:
  to establish priorities for current and future science and technology applications and research;
  to co-ordinate the development and implementation of technology between users and suppliers to ensure a coherent and effective process; and
  to implement processes for future scanning to ensure that the police service can exploit new technology at the earliest opportunity and is prepared for new technology-based threats.

  These activities will support the delivery of national priorities for policing as identified in the National Policing Plan. This strategy will inform local planning as forces, police authorities, and key providers draw up their individual plans for the use of science and technology. Hence, the role of this strategy is not to usurp or replace individual plans and strategies but to provide a framework for their successful development. This provides the opportunity for a more co-ordinated approach in those areas where that is appropriate.

  An important first step in this new process was the identification of the capabilities which science and technology can enhance to deliver more effective policing. The most important of these have already been outlined in the National Policing Plan: the effective use of intelligence gathering technology, secure exchange of data and mobile data input and retrieval, effective management of investigation and case handling, and maximising the value of evidence including the use of DNA.

  The process of prioritising, improving co-ordination and scanning for future threats and opportunities is not a static one, but will be developed and improved upon over the coming year. This strategy sets out how this process will be carried out.

  Despite being very different in their roles and status, the Forensic Science Service, Police Information Technology Organisation and Police Scientific Development Branch will all play important roles in delivering the strategy. The strategy, along with the priorities it has identified, will provide the framework
  30WS
  for their individual plans for 2003–04 and beyond to ensure a more co-ordinated approach to meeting the science and technology needs of the police service.

  This first overarching strategy, developed with both the key stakeholders and independent experts, marks a significant step but is not the culmination of our work. The next and perhaps most important step is that of implementation. This, with our partners in the Police Science and Technology Strategy Group, will be our main focus for the year ahead.

  1Home Office (2001), Policing New Century: A Blueprint for Reform, CM5326, Stationery Office

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Royal Mail
  The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  I would like to update the House on the implementation of the Royal Mail financing package.

  In her statement of 13 June 2002, Official Report, column 1016 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that the Government had agreed a package of measures to put the company on a stable financial footing. This draws on the £1.8 billion of gilts (the accumulated cash generated by the business) on the balance sheet of the Royal Mail to enable the mails business to implement its renewal plan, and to support the nationwide network of post offices. The individual elements of this package have now been agreed.

  MAILS

  The package for the mails business has been put together on commercial terms and provides an appropriate level of debt financing to allow Royal Mail management to finance their restructuring programmes, which aim to return the mails business to profitability in 2004–05. The Government is providing £1,044 million of debt, which comprises:
  £544 million of loans from the National Loans Fund (NLF), secured on cash deposits from Royal Mail; and
  Two DTI bonds, one of £200 million and one of £300 million, both secured against Royal Mail's assets.

  Both the loan and bonds will be provided on commercial terms, and will be repayable between 2007 and 2009. Before the Departmental bonds are issued, the Department will seek Parliamentary authority, in the form of a main or supplementary estimate, for the necessary funds to acquire the bonds from Royal Mail.

  POST OFFICE LIMITED

  I announced to the House on 2 December 2002, Official Report, column 518W, that £450 million from the gilts will be made available from 2003 to 2006 to help maintain the rural post office network over the next few years. In addition to this, and subject to state aid clearance, which we are currently seeking from the

  31WS
  European Commission, we intend to support the network business through its current period of transition by allowing the use of the gilts:
  to repay short term loans from the Royal Mail Group to Post Office Limited totalling £420 million; and
  to meet the net cash outflows of POL (up to £570million) over the next 5 years, based on the decreasing levels projected in its strategic plan.

TREASURY

  Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  I am today publishing a new edition of the Green Book, "Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government", guidance which the Treasury has for many years provided to other public sector bodies. Copies are being placed in the Vote Office and the Libraries of both Houses.

  The new edition incorporates revised guidance to encourage a more thorough, long-term and analytically robust approach to appraisal and evaluation. It has been prepared following extensive consultation, including a public consultation exercise that ended last October.

  Among the main changes are the following. First, there is a stronger emphasis on the identification, management and realisation of the benefits of proposals. Secondly, the new edition 'unbundles' the discount rate, introducing a rate of 3.5 per cent. in real terms, based on social time preference, while taking account of the other factors which were in practice often implicitly bundled up in the old 6 per cent. real figure. In particular, the new Green Book includes, for the first time, an explicit adjustment procedure to redress the systematic optimism ("optimism bias") that historically has afflicted the appraisal process. Finally, there is greater emphasis on assessing the differential impacts of proposals on the various groups in our society, where these are likely to be significant.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Greater Manchester Police Incident
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I said yesterday that I would report further to the House, when I was able to do so, about the operation in Greater Manchester on 14 January in which a police officer, DC Stephen Oake, died.

  The basic facts about this incident have now been confirmed by Greater Manchester Police. In the late afternoon of Tuesday 14 January, two immigration officers, with the support of Greater Manchester Police, entered premises in Crumpsall Lane, Manchester, for the purpose of detaining, pending deportation, an individual whom I had certified earlier in the day under
  32WS
  the provisions of Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. In addition, the officers of Greater Manchester Police had obtained a warrant to search the premises.

  Three men present at the premises were detained. Nine Tactical Aid Unit officers, who had entered the premises, assisted in securing these men and in making the scene safe. All these officers were wearing full protective equipment, including body armour, and remained in the premises. Fourteen Special Branch officers were there to undertake aspects of the operation involving investigation and intelligence gathering. These officers were not wearing body armour.

  The exact detail of what took place is still under investigation and will be the subject of an inquiry. But, as is already known, it is clear that a violent incident occurred during which DC Oake was fatally stabbed, three other officers were stabbed and a fourth officer sustained a broken ankle. One of these officers remains in hospital, suffering from stab wounds to the abdomen. His condition is stable and he is likely to leave hospital next week. The other three officers have now been released from hospital.

  Following the struggle, the situation was brought under control by the police and all three men were arrested under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Subsequently, one man was released from these provisions and immediately detained by the Immigration Service. He is currently detained in prison under Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. The second man has also been released from the provisions of the Terrorism Act and remains in the custody of Greater Manchester Police, pending investigation into the death of DC Oake and injuries to the other officers. The third man remains detained under the Terrorism Act and is now in the custody of the Metropolitan Police.

  Armed Response Vehicle resources were available throughout the operation for immediate deployment as required, but firearms officers were not deployed in specific support of this operation. The inquiry will obviously examine this. All the Tactical Aid Unit officers who entered the building were wearing full protective equipment, including body armour.

  The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, Michael Todd, has, with my agreement, established an inquiry which will be led by a senior police officer from outside the Greater Manchester Police Force. The inquiry will be held with the support of the Immigration Service. The senior investigator from Greater Manchester Police will be a Detective Superintendent and, from the Immigration Service, an Assistant Director.

  The inquiry will concentrate on all aspects of planning, briefings, communications and implementation of the operation. The key objective will be to learn the lessons from this tragic incident, as I made clear in my oral statement to the House yesterday. The preliminary findings will be available within four weeks.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIR MAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 22 [Grant or rejection of application]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 13, line 34, leave out "forthwith" and insert "as soon as is reasonably practicable"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 200, 224, 226, 311 and 313.
This is thought to be the final day in Committee on this Bill. The amendment—inserting,
"as soon as is reasonably practicable".
instead of "forthwith"—seems to be a good text for the day's debates. I shall be moving amendments in 19 other groupings, and, although it is not indicated on the Marshalled List, I have advised the Government Whips' Office that I intend to speak briefly on Clause 191 stand part. I give the Minister an assurance from the beginning that I shall seek to be as brief as possible. If in 20 groupings I err at least once, that will be the exception that proves the rule.
In subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 22, a requirement is made of the licensing authority that, once an application has been determined, it must issue the licence and a notice of reasons for granting it under subsection (1), or a notice of reasons for refusal under subsection (3); and this must be done "forthwith". These notices must go to the applicant, to,
"any person who made relevant representations",
and to the chief officer of police in the area.
"Forthwith" has an ordinary meaning—namely, "at once, without delay", to take the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary. It may not be practicable in all cases to issue the required notices immediately. The drafting of reasons will not necessarily be able to take place instantaneously. These amendments seek to insert the more sensible and reasonable requirement that the licensing authority shall carry out these duties,
"as soon as is reasonably practicable".
The other five amendments that I shall move in this group effectively say the same thing. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 198 and 201.
Throughout the Bill significant demands are placed on licensing authorities in respect of the time-scales with which they have to comply. The most demanding, perhaps, relates to the transitional arrangements proposed in the Bill, which will be dealt with later.
Clause 22 provides that, when granting a licence under Clause 18, a licensing authority must,
"forthwith … give a notice to that effect to … the applicant … any person who made relevant representations … and … to the chief officer of police for the police area",
and,
"issue the applicant with the licence and a summary of it".
"Forthwith" means "immediately". In some cases it will simply be impossible for licensing authorities to comply with the requirement. Let us take, for example, a contested application which is heard by a licensing sub-committee and—as is quite common when local authorities are dealing with public entertainment licences—the hearing goes on until late at night or even into the early hours of the morning. If the licensing sub-committee grants the licence, subject to conditions that arise as a result of objections raised during the hearing, it may not be practicable to draft the notice immediately together with the reasons and, most importantly, the licence itself.
The amendment would enable a local authority to have two working days in which to prepare the necessary documents—which in a complicated and controversial case may need special care and may take a great deal of time to prepare. The licensing authority should not feel that it is being rushed into drafting its reasons for granting a licence in such cases, particularly as there will now be a right of appeal against that decision. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for telling the Committee that he will attempt to be as brief as possible in moving all the amendments standing in his name. I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for being brief and to the point on this grouping.
Many noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—will know that some in the industry fear that the transfer of licensing functions to local authorities will mean a great deal of delay, and for obvious reasons the industry wants to avoid that.
The Government do not consider those concerns to be justified, although we can understand the reasons for them. That is why we have sought to build benefits into the Bill for the industry through "light touch" regulation to balance the additional safeguards that are put in place in the public interest.
We sought to reassure the industry that applications for licences will be dealt with promptly and efficiently. The use of the word "forthwith" in Clauses 22 and 35 reflects that aim. It is there to emphasise that there should be no delay in notifying applicants when a

303
matter has been determined. We should not interpret that to mean that, when there is a hearing late in the evening, the licensing authority then has to tell people in the middle of the night. That would be absurd, and I should like to give that reassurance.
One of the anxieties about local authorities that representatives of the industry have expressed to us is the propensity of some of them to use delay to frustrate applications. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, does not wish to make that possible by the insertion of the words,
"as soon as is reasonably practicable".
Our preference is to emphasise speed and to send a clear message, particularly as the effect of the determination will impact on the rights and obligations of the applicant for a premises licence and on the assumption of responsibilities by that person. In respect of a determination on an application for a variation, it will again have an important impact. The Committee should remember that an application for variation may have been unchallenged and no hearing involved. Certainly there can be no justification for delay in such circumstances.
In the light of the reassurances that I have given and the reasons behind the Government's belief that the word "forthwith" will be helpful, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I follow what the Minister said and I understand the logic behind the original wording—the apprehensions of the licensed trade that some local authorities have a record of not being as prompt as they might be—but the disadvantage of staying with "forthwith" is that it comes down totally on the side of the licensed trade. There may be circumstances where,
"as soon as is reasonably practicable",
provides a much better description of the speed at which a local authority can move.
It will be no good my asking the Minister whether, if the licensed trade came to the department to complain that decisions were not being delivered "forthwith", the local authority could say in response, "We did it as soon as reasonably practicable", but I hope the Minister will recognise that there is a genuine problem.
Although I am willing to withdraw the amendment on this occasion, I shall wish to take advice on how happy those on the other side of the equation—the local authorities—are about being stuck with the word "forthwith", which means "extremely prompt". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
11.15 a.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 13, line 41, at end insert—

"( ) A determination under this section does not have effect—

304

(a)until the end of the period given for appealing against the decision; or

(b) if the decision is appealed against, until the appeal is disposed of."

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 199, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 312, which repeats the wording of Amendment No. 199 and is effectively consequential upon it.
The existing clause requires the licensing authority to issue a licence to the applicant forthwith, as we confirmed during the debate on the previous group of amendments. That will raise a technical issue if there is an appeal because once the licence is granted a magistrate, on appeal, cannot quash the grant. The only remedy for an appellant would be to seek judicial review to quash the grant and then to pursue the appeal. That would be unjust and onerous on appellants.
The effect of the amendment is to require the licensing authority not to grant a licence until after all appeal procedures are exhausted. The wording mirrors the wording provided for appellants when licences are reviewed. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: The amendments would again introduce unacceptable delays into the process by attempting to prevent decisions of the licensing authority coming into effect until either the period for making an appeal comes to an end or until any appeal made is disposed of.
Let us examine the process for determining applications. An applicant submits an application with the number of documents needed to accompany it—including an operating schedule which sets out, among other things, which licensable activities he or she wishes to carry on at the premises, or the qualifying club activities that the club wishes to carry on and when, together with an explanation of the steps he or she or the club proposes to take to promote the licensing objectives.
The application is advertised so that interested parties can make relevant representations. It is notified to responsible authorities so that they can comment on the application. Where no representations are made on the application, the licensing authority must grant it, subject only to conditions consistent with the operating schedule.
So, as a simple example, where an operating schedule proposed that a local pub sell alcohol until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, and no representations were made, the premises licence would reflect the opening hours set out in the operating schedule. In such circumstances, any delay in the licence taking effect would be unnecessary.
Even where relevant representations were made and a hearing convened to consider them and the licence or certificate granted subject to conditions relating to the licensing objectives, it would be inappropriate to delay the coming into effect of the authorisation.
Clauses 22 and 75 concern the procedure following a determination, not the determination itself, and I wonder whether the amendments have a place in those

305
clauses. However, aside from that, the general position in law is that where an appeal against a decision is made, the decision stands and is effective until overturned.
The licensing system must be efficient and effective and provide certainty. The net effect of the delay which these amendments would impose on the industry would be considerable. No licence or certificate would come into effect for at least 21 days—the appeal period set out in Schedule 5—and some businesses could be shut down for weeks pending the hearing of appeals. It is not only an applicant who has a right of appeal against a decision of the licensing authority, but anyone who has made relevant representations. The applicant may be very happy with a decision and want to go about his business as quickly as possible. Why should he be denied that merely to ascertain whether someone may want to appeal? Why should we depart from the normal position in English law in relation to appeals?
I understand the sentiment behind the amendment—it is borne of a wish on the part of licensing authorities to offer even more protection to local residents than the Bill already provides—but I believe that it is misguided and would place an unnecessary regulatory burden on the industry. Given the existing protections in the Bill, which the Government consider are more than sufficient, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I thank the Minister for her extensive explanation of the rationale for the present position of the Bill. I think she will acknowledge that there is a concern among residents, which site might think unrealistic, that the scales are weighted against them throughout this process. The thought that they might have to go to judicial review for their appeal against a decision to succeed—because the magistrate could not take away a licence once it had been granted—would necessarily feed the psychosis that they are a beleaguered and besieged community.
Although I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I ask the Minister to consider the combined effect of all the provisions in this Bill on residential communities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 200 to 202 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Form of licence and summary]:
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Surrender of premises licence]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 15. line 32, leave out "may" and insert "must"
The noble Lord said: This clause deals with circumstances in which the licensee wishes to surrender his licence. As the Bill is drafted, if the holder of a premises licence wishes to surrender it, he may give the relevant licensing authority notice to that effect. That appears to leave open to the licence holder the option of not giving notice. As a consequence, the important records of the number and types of licence operating in any area will be inaccurate until the licensing authority discovers the change by another means. This amendment is designed to make it clear that the only way in which a premises licence can validly be surrendered is by giving the relevant licensing authority notice. If there is a single conduit, the statistics, by definition, will be up to date and comprehensive. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I support the gist of the amendment, but I will speak to it at greater length in debating the next group of amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: I accept entirely that it is important that we have proper, accurate, valid and reliable licensing statistics. However, the amendment is based on the mistaken assumption that a licence holder may surrender his or her licence without notifying the licensing authority. I assure the noble Lords, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and Lord Redesdale, that, if a licence holder wants to surrender the licence but does not notify the licensing authority, it is not surrendered and his or her obligations remain the same. For that reason, the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw it.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: A profound curiosity holds me in suspense until the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in speaking to the next group of amendments, says what he might have said about this one. But I am prepared to live with the Minister's response while continuing to look forward with anticipation to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 15, line 32, leave out from "he" to end of line 33 and insert "shall give the relevant licensing authority and any person who has registered an interest in the premises under section 32(5A) a notice to that effect, and the licensing authority shall not accept such surrender unless satisfied that the person so registered duly consents"
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 217 and 246, which follow This amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to provide that, where a licensee wishes to surrender his license,
"he shall give the relevant licensing authority and any person who has registered an interest in the premises under Section 32(5A) a notice to that effect, and the licensing authority shall not accept such surrender unless satisfied that the person so registered duly consents".
To sate the curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, these amendments deal with notifying the licensing authority. But they go one step further in that they would also ensure that those with a registered interest in a licensed premises would also be notified.
I declare an interest as the owner of the Redesdale Arms pub in Northumberland on the A68. It is a particularly fine hostelry of note and distinction, with fine food and fare. Having said that, I would be directly affected if the tenant decided to surrender the licence without notifying me as the landlord. I doubt that it would happen in my case, but it could do where, because of financial or social problems, the licensee disappears in the middle of the night. For example, the licensee of one local pub disappeared in the middle of the night with the dance floor. That would affect the provision of music and dance, which is dealt with in other parts of the Bill.
If, for malicious reasons, the licensee surrendered a licence without informing the landlord or company with a registered interest, and they were not made aware when the licensing authority accepted the surrender, they would have to reapply for the licence. That could lead to financial redress and consequences. There would be further implications if there were a problem in reapplying for the licence. A licence would not be granted without questions being asked.
I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment or give reasons why it could not be accepted. One of my concerns is that, if it is not accepted and the Bill becomes law in its present state, the licensing authority or the Government will be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights on grounds that someone with a registered interest would be financially disadvantaged by the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I support the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in this. I declare an interest: as noble Lords who have sat through previous proceedings will know, I am a director of a brewery and an operator of 1,500 pubs. Where one has tenants, one's interests will be affected if they exercise malice aforethought—and sometimes malice is aforethought, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, pointed out. There is an interest here which needs to be protected as the noble Lord suggests.
What is the Government's thinking on long leases, which now tend to run for 21 years? They provide greater security for the brewery and the tenant, which is in everyone's interest. Who will be the premises licence holder: the owner of the premises—the brewery—or the tenant with a 21-year licence? We
have not yet tackled that issue. I would be interested to hear the Government's thinking on it in replying to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
Baroness Buscombe: I support Amendments Nos. 205, 217 and 246, to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke have been added. I feel that I am at a distinct disadvantage as I am unable to say that
308
I own or manage a pub or that I am a director. Perhaps that shows that in supporting these amendments I am entirely impartial.
I refer to the surrender of premises licences. As has been said, Amendment No. 205 would provide protection for any party with a registered interest in the property against any unscrupulous behaviour on the part of the personal licensee, particularly with regard to managed or leased pubs.
I turn to Amendment No. 217. An owning company will often be able to be in a position to promote the licensing objectives through its contractual agreement with the tenant or lessee. Notification of breaches of the premises licence would allow the registered party to enforce the terms of such an agreement to the effect that the terms and conditions of the premises licence must be complied with. The registered interest would want to protect its rights in the property whose value is linked to the possession of the premises licence. That situation is particularly prevalent in the pub sector where many thousands of pubs are owned by pub companies or brewers, and leased to tenants.
A right to register such interests already exists in Section 32(2) of the Licensing Act 1964. This needs to be preserved in the proposed legislation and linked into all sections where the investment of the party with the superior interest is threatened by the actions of the designated premises supervisor, the premises owner or other circumstance. The ability to register an interest will enable the owning company to secure its reversionary interest in the event of the demise of the tenant. That can be useful to both parties in the event of death or incapacity. It is also beneficial where a tenant absconds leaving the business adrift. The owning company by virtue of its interest can step in, appoint a personal licence holder and maintain the business quickly and efficiently.
I turn to Amendment No. 246. The ability to register an interest will enable the owning company—subject to the contractual relationship between the parties—to protect its reversionary interest in the event of the demise of the tenant. That again can be useful to both parties in the event of death or incapacity. It is also beneficial where a tenant absconds leaving the business adrift. The owning company by virtue of its interest can step in, appoint a personal licence holder and maintain the business quickly and efficiently.
11.30 a.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I have no interest to declare. I do not own a pub or even a chain of pubs. I shall also try to be objective but I shall reach the opposite conclusion to the noble Baroness, which just shows that objectivity does not always lead to the same answers. I look forward to having half a pint at the Redesdale Arms at some stage with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
This Bill has been developed in close consultation with the industry as well as many other stakeholders. We are well aware of industry concerns, particularly about situations where premises are owned by one company but operated by another or by a tenant, but

309
I believe that the Bill contains adequate measures. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that it will, of course, be open to pub owning companies to hold the premises licence themselves, and designate tenants or other managers as the premises supervisor. Either the landlord or the tenant can hold the licence. The Bill does not include provisions for registered interests. It concerns licensable activities, not the relationship between landlords and their tenants. That relationship is set out in a tenancy agreement. That is the right way to deal with that matter.
The Bill provides that each licensing authority must keep a register recording all the authorisations it issues and notices and applications it receives. These are listed in Schedule 3. The information contained on the register will be available for inspection by anyone 'who wishes to see it. To require licensing authorities to inform anyone with an interest of any application or notice, as Amendment No. 217 suggests, would greatly increase both the costs and the complexity of the system. The Bill provides protection for those with a commercial interest and others employed there. For example, following the death, insolvency or mental incapacity of a premises licence holder, an interim authority notice can be given, within seven days, by a personal representative of the former holder or someone with power of attorney. The effect of such a notice would be to reinstate the licence for two months, during which time a transfer application could be made. Giving notice would be a simple matter of dropping a note to the licensing authority to let it know.
We must not forget that the underlying purpose of the Bill is to simplify and streamline the current system, which is too complex and unwieldy. To allow anyone with any interest in a premises to apply for an interim authority notice could open the door to long and possibly acrimonious contests, which we want to avoid. To require a premises licence holder to have the consent of anyone with a registered interest before he can surrender a licence, as Amendment No. 205 suggests. would reduce the flexibility the Bill seeks to achieve, and make the system unnecessarily complicated. Similar provisions are made under existing legislation which, apparently, work perfectly well.
The Bill also provides a simple and quick procedure for the transfer of licences. Applications can even be given immediate effect, pending police consideration, or, if the police object on the grounds of the crime prevention objective, pending the determination of the licensing authority. Applicants must show that they have the consent of the holder or that all reasonable steps have been taken to secure it. This would cover circumstances in which there may be a dispute between a pub-operating company and a tenant, for example. The Bill sets out a simple system for licensing premises which sell alcohol or provide public entertainment or late-night refreshment that is simpler and cheaper than the current system and is more transparent and more consistent. These amendments would undermine that.
310
A licence brings with it duties and responsibilities enforceable at law. An individual must have the right to give up that responsibility by giving appropriate notice to the licensing authority. The licence holder's responsibility to the owner is a matter for his or her contract with them, as I think I have made clear. If they require notice, it should be a provision of that contract. If a tenant is in dispute with the owner or lessee of the property, that is not a matter for licensing law. A licence holder's responsibility in respect of his licence is to the licensing authority. The industry cannot expect to have it both ways. By requiring a tenant to take out the premises licence, it can distance itself from the consequences of breaches. But at the same time it seems to want to preserve a degree of control over its interests. If it does this, it must accept that it must use non-licensing procedures to ensure its interests. In the light of that explanation, I very much hope that the amendments can be withdrawn.
Lord Redesdale: Before the Minister sits down, I seek some clarity. The purpose of the amendment we are discussing is to introduce a safeguard and some form of security. The Minister said that a pub company could be a designated premises supervisor. I have no difficulty with that and consider that it is a right and proper safeguard. However, tens of thousands of pubs throughout the country are run by small operators. In such cases a licensing company would not undertake the onerous role of premises supervisor. A landlord with one or two pubs probably would not have the knowledge to fulfil that function. Do the Government consider that this is simply a matter of a change in the lease arrangement? That might have financial consequences if the pub lease were sold on. If that is the case, is the Minister suggesting that the landlord—if he constitutes the landlord of a single pub rather than a company—should take on the role of premises supervisor? Do the Government believe that that would be the best way forward?
Baroness Blackstone: I believe that the answer to that question is "Yes", in the case of the Redesdale Arms, for example. However, I want to emphasise what I have already said. It is not for the Licensing Bill to plug deficiencies in contractual relationships between the owner and tenant of the premises, when licensable activities will be carried out. That is my main point.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Will the Minister clarify this matter? I understand that it is not for the Licensing Bill to plug deficiencies in the Landlord and Tenant Act. But what we are talking about here, and what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is talking about, is the additional responsibilities that the Bill imposes on landlords and tenants, which clearly cannot be covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act because it is not the Licensing Bill. I support the noble Lord's point about the potential gap between the two pieces of legislation. The Landlord and Tenant Act will not cover the gap because it does not deal with licensing

311
matters, and the Licensing Bill will not cover the gap because it does not deal with landlord and tenant matters. The Minister has not yet filled that hole.
Baroness Blackstone: I find it difficult to answer the question because I do not know enough about the Landlord and Tenant Act. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, could write to me on that matter, and I shall write to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for that response. The Bill creates some of the problems that the amendment is trying to solve. These difficulties do not exist under the present arrangements—so to say that the Bill will not create problems is somewhat disingenuous. However, I take on board what the Minister said and look forward to receiving a letter. Depending on that letter, we may return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Application for a provisional statement where premises being built, etc.]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 16, line 17, leave out "of works" and insert "indicating the work to be undertaken to meet any requirements of the licensing authority together with proof of the granting of any planning permission in respect of the work, if such permission is required under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)"
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 206, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 208 and 210. The amendments relate to Clause 28, on applications for a provisional statement where premises are being built. The clause also enables an applicant to obtain a conditional statement that would ultimately be turned into a full licence when certain conditions relating to the construction of works and other matters are met by the applicant. It is common for the procedure to be used so as to ensure that a developer does not spend an enormous amount of money on new licensed premises in the hope that he will be able to obtain a licence when he has completed them. It gives him the assurance that he will.
There is no objection to the idea of provisional statements in principle, as that is how local authorities operate already under their public entertainment licensing regime. They are concerned to ensure that they have enough detail to make a decision on whether the provisional statement should be issued. Under the clause, the applicant has to provide a "schedule of works", including,
"a statement made by or on behalf of the applicant including particulars of the premises to which the application relates and of the licensable activities for which the premises are to be used … plans of the work being or about to be done at the premises, and … such other information as may be prescribed"—
in other words, prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 206 would ensure that the licensing authority has much greater influence over the type of information that it needs to make its decision. It would also ensure that the package sent to the licensing authority included proof that any planning permission required for the work was provided. It should be pointed out that the requirement for proof of planning permission should extend not only to planning permission for any development proposed but also for change of use—from shop to food and drink use, for example.
I turn to Amendment No. 208. Clause 28(7) defines what is meant by "satisfactorily completed" in relation to works that are intended to be carried out in pursuance of a provisional statement. It provides that "satisfactorily completed" means,
"being completed in a manner which substantially complies with the schedule of works accompanying the application".
It is unclear what is meant by "substantially complies". It is akin to wording like, "to a significant degree", which is used in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 in the definition of a sex shop. Premises are a sex shop if they consist to a significant degree of the selling of sex articles. In a very helpful High Court judgment, it was decided that "significant" means "not insignificant". That is very helpful. Licensing authorities could find themselves at the end of a similar judgment in relation to what is meant by "substantial".
As an alternative, the amendment once again puts the ball firmly in the court of the licensing authority, as it currently lies in respect of public entertainment licensing, so that the works have to be completed to its satisfaction and the satisfaction of the fire authority and the local authority in so far as it deals with matters such as pollution of the environment.
Amendment No. 210 is a simple amendment to ensure that an application for a provisional statement is in the correct form before the substantive provisions of Clause 30 take effect. I beg to move.
11.45 a.m
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 207. The Bill sensibly provides that when premises need building work to be carried out before they can receive a full licence to operate, they may apply for a provisional licence. In the event that the licensing authority grants a provisional licence, it would allow the operator to carry out investment in the building in the certain knowledge that a full licence will subsequently be granted when the works have been carried out to the satisfaction of the relevant technical officer and the licensing authority.
The Bill makes no requirement for the application for the provisional licence to be accompanied by an operating schedule showing how the premises will operate. All applications for a full licence must be accompanied by an operating schedule, and the amendment simply makes the same requirement for an application for a provisional licence. When a

313
provisional licence has been issued under Clause 30, there is little scope for further representations—I refer to Clause 31.
In determining the application for a provisional statement, the licensing authority must consider whether, on the work being satisfactorily completed, it will grant a premises licence in the form prescribed upon a premises licence application. Accordingly, it must be when the applicant applies for a provisional statement that he is required to provide the operating schedule.
Lord Redesdale: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 213A, 213B and 213C, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond.
The amendments are simply probing. We question the Government on the need for including "the relevant person". Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 31(3) set out the conditions under which the "relevant person" obligations apply. We challenge the Government to say whether they really believe it necessary to include the "relevant person" in this part of the Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: I had better first declare an interest, in that I have a planning consent for a health and fitness club on my land. As Members of the Committee know, I shall personally never go near the club, but that is not the point.
It seems rather odd that when a planning authority gives planning consent for a pub to be built, its other arm can say that the pub cannot have a licence. Does not the fact that a planning authority gives consent for a new public house to be built mean that it will automatically get a licence?
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I can help the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. We are dealing with the very broad A3 class of use, which can embrace ordinary restaurants or cafés and extend all the way up to a 1,500 person nightclub. The subject of converting from one of those uses to another has come under intensive scrutiny, as the noble Baroness will be aware.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently published a report on planning for leisure and tourism, which featured eight case studies dealing extensively with the way in which planning permissions already granted under A3 for purposes not to do with entertainment and the sale of alcohol were extended automatically because of the breadth of use in that class. There is nothing in the Bill to deal with that problem. This clause, which deals with works that may have to be carried out to comply with licensing requirements, seems to be the only place in which it is possible to raise the issue.
Perhaps the noble Baroness will explain the thinking that the Government have developed as a result of the ODPM's leisure case studies and whether they believe that the A3 class of use should be retained so that an event such as that described by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, can occur. With the carrying out of works under this clause, an ordinary café or restaurant
314
could become a 1,500 person all-night drinking establishment without any change of the use of class. We are missing a fundamental point in the Bill, which the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has put his finger on.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Amendment No. 213D is in this group. The issue is hugely complex. I had the pleasure of spending Tuesday touring about seven pubs in the Derby and Burton area. When you meet the tenants, licensees or free house operators, you need the Minister's team of civil servants standing behind you to answer all their questions. There is a huge job of explaining and winning hearts and minds to be done. They have hundreds of questions that, even with the time that we have spent here, I could not answer. Those questions will need to be answered. The guidance is crucial and will need to be very detailed.
This is a probing amendment to Clause 31. It deals with what I call the second bite at the cherry—an ability to make representations following the grant of a provisional statement. This will be particularly serious where new pubs are being developed. I should like to detain the Committee briefly on the methodology. A developer who builds a housing estate will decide that he wishes to have a family pub on one corner. It will be a community pub, not one that is open 24 hours a clay. Arrangements will have to be made with the developer. Planning permission will have to be gained, which obviously requires architects and a great deal of negotiation with the local authority. The building will then have to be put up, fitted out and opened. That will amount to £2 million or £3 million for a good quality, modern pub that will be attractive on a modern housing estate.
The present position is that if a provisional licence is granted, an automatic final licence will subsequently be granted so long as the finished building is as planned and the licensee is fit and proper. Both those conditions are entirely fair. It is not clear to me that Clause 31 as it stands will give that certainty. It contains phrases such as "material change in circumstances" and,
"to the area in the vicinity of".
That gives rise to considerable opportunity for legal argument on interpretation.
The worry is not just that the application will be refused. That is probably unlikely. However, the conditions attached to it may be changed. The original development will have been planned on certain opening hours, but as a result of the second bite of the cherry they might be reduced, affecting the economic viability of the scheme. Equally importantly, bearing in mind that the operator has £2.5 million or £3 million of investment lying idle, there is a danger of considerable delay in the opening as the legal arguments are worked through.
I seek the Government's reassurance that my fears are groundless. The Explanatory Notes on Clause 31 give the example that,
"a person may have been confined to hospital during the period in which representations could have been made".

315
Such people will have a chance of what I call a second bite at the cherry. Would that apply to someone who had been on a prolonged holiday? These issues arouse strong feelings. I do not want to be paranoid, but those who feel that there should not be a pub—they are entitled to express those views and should do so—may find someone who would fulfil the conditions set out in the Explanatory Notes, someone who had been on holiday or in hospital, and use that person to open up the issue of the grant again. Of course residents' wishes must be taken into account, but that will already happen under the Bill. It cannot go on happening. There must be some point at which the potential operator of the pub can draw the line and say that the local authority has made the decision and the development must now happen. I emphasise that mine is a probing amendment. It would remove "without reasonable excuse" as a basis for us to have a debate and hear the Government's views.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may hope to tempt me to talk against my Front Bench on the lead amendment. Having considered the issue, I am not inclined to do so, but no doubt he will tell me why I should have done so.
The Earl of Onslow: My noble friend has brought something sharply into focus in my mind. If a planning consent is given to the pub in the residential area to which my noble friend alludes, presumably the local authority could put on a 106 agreement, which says that the pub will not be open after 11 o'clock, because that is what the residents require. Will a 106 agreement be overridden by the licensing laws? If so, should it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, did not want to intervene against his Front Bench, but he did so very effectively; he is just too modest to say so. Many of the amendments in the group would introduce not just additional bureaucracy but additional uncertainty for those who are thinking of opening pubs or building, developing or altering premises to be used for licensable activities.
Let me explain what Clauses 28, 30 and 31 do. Clause 28 provides that where a premises is being or is about to be constructed, extended or altered for use for licensable activities, a person interested in the premises may apply to the licensing authority for a provisional statement. He has to be 18 or over. A provisional statement is issued under Clause 30 and provides those engaged in, or about to be engaged in, construction or development work at premises to be used for licensable activities with some assurance about the potential trading conditions. I hope that that is what everyone wants. Clearly, developers or property owners who want to alter or extend premises may be reluctant to invest their money—the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, explained that the amounts could be substantial—without an assurance that they can carry out their intended business. An application for a provisional statement must be accompanied by a schedule of works, which includes a statement of the particulars of
316
the premises and the licensable activities for which the premises are to be used. It must also include plans of the work being carried out and such other information as may be prescribed.
Amendment No. 206 would provide that instead of a schedule of works, the application for a provisional statement would indicate the work to be undertaken to meet the requirements of the licensing authority and would have to prove that, where appropriate, planning permission had been obtained. That would merely duplicate the provisions of the planning system. The licensing authority is concerned only with licensing activities. Of course, local authorities have other functions, including planning, but we must restrict the Bill to the needs of licensing activities. It is too long already, and would get much longer and more complicated, because it would intermesh with planning and other law.
There is the same sort of duplication in Amendment No. 208. It would require an applicant for a provisional statement to complete the works for which the statement was made to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, the fire authority and the local authority in respect of preventing the risk of pollution of the environment and harm to human health. Those issues are all dealt with separately under building regulations. The amendment would duplicate work not only for the applicant, but for the authorities concerned. Also, the amendment would introduce a subjective test where there is currently an objective test.
Noon
Lord Avebury: Is the noble Lord aware that one reason for anxiety about the Bill is that it does not intermesh with the planning legislation? I thought that we had joined-up government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I withdraw the word "intermesh". I am saying that there is perfectly good planning legislation. Where it is necessary for planning law to be taken into account in order to provide a proper regime for licensing, the Bill is concerned with that. It is concerned in a way that such matters were not related before. To duplicate the planning regime is simply unnecessary. It is a burden on applicants, on those who undertake what is agreed to be a legal and necessary activity, and on local authorities.
The issue of representations is very important. The schedule of works must contain information about the licensable activities to be carried out at the premises, so that interested parties and responsible authorities—that includes local residents—can make representations if they wish to. We are discussing cases where work is being or will be carried out. In many cases, the person carrying out the work will not be the same person who will carry out the licensable activities. Therefore, it is not possible at that stage to provide the level of detail required for the operating schedule that must accompany an application for a premises licence. That is why we resist the idea of having an operating schedule at this stage.

317
There may be a concern that licensable activities that would eventually be carried out would not be the same as those described in the schedule of works. I can assure the Committee that that would not happen without further representations being heard by the licensing authority on the application for a premises licence by interested parties and responsible authorities. Again, that includes local residents.
Under Clause 31, representations about applications for premises licences where a provisional statement has been issued are excluded if the application is in the same form as the licence described in the application for the provisional statement and the work described in the schedule of works has been satisfactorily completed. That covers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about the second bite at the cherry. However, to come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, which also relates to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for representations to be excluded, the relevant person must have been able to make the same or substantially the same representations when the provisional statement was applied for and failed to do so without reasonable excuse.
It will always be difficult to define what is a reasonable excuse. In the end, the courts will have to define it, but I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made about being in hospital or on holiday. The important factor is that there must have been no material change in the circumstances relating to the premises or the vicinity of the premises since the statement was issued. It is only if something has changed that the situation arises.
There is a typographical error in Clause 31(2). The reference to Section 18(6)(c) should be to Section 18(6)(d). The intention is that all relevant representations are excluded, not only those about the identity of the premises supervisor. If the Public Bill Office tells us that that has to be corrected by an amendment, we will table one on Report.
The effect of all the provisions is that further representations can be made if the premises licence application is not in the same form as that in the provisional statement, the work has not been satisfactorily completed, or there has been material change in the circumstances relating to the premises or their vicinity.
Let us take an example involving the argument. A builder may wish to construct a new nightclub and applies for a provisional statement setting out that the club will be open between eight o'clock and two o'clock for six days a week and provide music and dancing. The operator who takes a lease on the club may decide that he wants to stay open until four o'clock on Saturday nights and provide hot food between eleven and one. The builder could not have predicted that, but the information in the premises licence application would be different from that in the provisional statement application. Therefore, further representations could be made by responsible authorities or interested parties. Everyone, including applicants, would agree that that was fair.
318
Other amendments in the group would exclude all representations when a premises licence application was made following the granting of a provisional licence. I do not think that that is fair.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: What the Minister is saying is interesting. In the example that he gave, which was very helpful, he said that there was no change between the builder and the nightclub operator and no chance of further representations. I do not read the Explanatory Notes to Clause 31 as saying that. I am delighted to have his assurance, but the Explanatory Notes do not say that a change is required to trigger the second bite at the cherry so far as I read them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is what the Bill says. There is the correction to be made because of the typographical error, which may be relevant, in which case we will almost certainly have to table an amendment on Report.
Behind all the provisions, the provisional statement arrangements exist to allow the industry a degree of certainty when building or developing premises. We all agree that that is reasonable. However, providing that certainty should not prevent representations being made where the information in the application is substantially different from that in the provisional statement, or where there has been material change in the circumstances. It must, for instance, be open to the police to object to the identity of a particular premises supervisor if they have some history of involvement with illegal drugs and, since the provisional statement was made, the area around the premise has become known for drug dealing.
Amendment No. 210 would provide that the provisions of Clause 30 applied only where the provisional statement application was made in accordance with Clause 28. However, subsection (8) already states clearly that for the purpose of the clause an application is only a "provisional statement application" if it is made in accordance with Clause 28. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
I shall deal with the specific points that have been made. The issue of whether something substantially complies will be for the guidance. Guidance to the licensing authorities will assist them in interpretation of the terms used in the Bill. Again, one cannot be totally precise. If there is dispute about something, the courts might have to decide on it.
I thought that my noble friend Lady Blackstone had already answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. In any case, nightclubs are in the D2 class and cannot be converted from the A3 class. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is reviewing the A3 use class and will address the points that he raised. I think that the noble Lord has already been told that.
Lord Avebury: I particularly refer the Minister to the case study on Ealing. It found that landlords or proprietors could very easily convert from other uses to intensive drinking, and that the planning law did not allow for objections to be made in those

319
circumstances. With regard to this clause, when someone applies to convert premises for intensive drinking from some other use, the person concerned will be able to say, "We have already got planning permission—we have A3 use—and intensive drinking should therefore be allowed". That is what happened in Ealing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: First, as I said, the A3 class is being reviewed. Secondly, the point raised perfectly validly by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is an issue for licensing law and involves the Bill; it is not for the Deputy Prime Minister. I believe that we have got the balance right and provided the assurance that developers and people spending money on premises need; that is, that provided that they stick to what they said at the beginning so far as they can, they will get their premises licence. At the same time, we have provided for representations when there are significant changes or good reasons to do so.
The Earl of Onslow: Will the noble Lord answer the question: does planning for a public house or entertainment area automatically mean that one is getting licensing approval? Secondly, can a 106 agreement obviate the need through the planning system to keep something open for 24 hours?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Just as the licensing regime that we are setting up in the Bill does not duplicate the work of the planning system, although it takes account of it, the planning system does not rule out the application of the licensing regime. Planning permission does not bring with it the certainty of a licence. A licence has to be applied for; that is what the whole Bill is about. I do not know offhand what a Section 106 agreement is, but I shall write to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about it.
The Earl of Onslow: The 106 agreement is extremely important. It adds a condition to a planning consent—for example, in my case, that a golf course is liable to be a pay-and-play golf course, not a membership golf course. Several golf clubs in the South of England are not allowed, through their 106 agreements, to use their club premises for outside entertainment; in other words, they cannot have functions there because local people objected. That involves a planning consent restraint. If that restraint is kept, that is all well and good, but if it is not, it could be used to drive a hole through the entire Bill. It is important that the issue is addressed in the Chamber rather than merely in a letter to me. I accept that the issue has tumbled into my mind only this afternoon, but I genuinely believe that it is important.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me set out the position as best I can. No planning permission, either positive or negative in the sense of a restraint, gives licensing permission to anything. In order to carry out licensable activities, one has to have a licence. If one has a planning permission that states that one cannot
320
put on licensable activities such as entertainments, one must appeal against the planning regime and obtain a licence for it.
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his full response to an extremely worthwhile debate. As he said, the debate amplifies the difficult balance that we must strike between the interests of the local community and those of the entertainment industry. Frankly, I do not believe that there is an inconsistency between the amendments that I moved on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition and that in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson. On behalf of the industry, and if I may interpret my noble friend, I point out that there is a need for a cut-off point at which the operator can, as he put it, draw the line and proceed with confidence. Local authorities are asking for mechanisms to allow them to feel comfortable about that cut-off point. They seek an assurance that they can give that provisional statement, comfortable in the knowledge that they have as much information as possible in front of them on which to base their decision at the relevant time. I want to revisit a number of issues when I have read in Hansard what the Minister said.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, once again alluded—if I may put it that way—quite rightly to the difficulty that we all share; that is, that much of what we have discussed in relation to the Bill impinges on planning. I have continually referred to the concern that if local authorities are not given sufficient assurances to make them feel comfortable about acceding to applications such as those for a provisional statement, they may feel less inclined—notwithstanding the fact that they may not be on both the planning committee and the licensing committee, although they are all part and parcel of the same authority—to be positive at the planning stage. We appreciate that we are not supposed to become caught up in planning matters, but we cannot help it because planning and licensing are important to each other. The point that concerns the industry, local authorities and us in the local community is the end product; the two go together.
The Minister said that planning law is perfectly good. We understand that there will be a planning Bill, so we are rather in the dark. I accept what he said. Having had some experience on a planning committee in local government, and notwithstanding the Minister's full reply to my noble friend Lord Onslow about Section 106 conditions, it is worth while the Government considering the question a little further just to make sure that what the Minister said is absolutely the case. I recall from my experience that such applications have had quite an impact on what a building or some form of operation has or has not been able to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am conscious that I was speaking rather elliptically in response to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I should like to write to him

321
more fully, although I believe that what I said was right and answers his point. I shall send a copy of the letter to other Members of the Committee.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for raising the issue in Committee. That is one of the many reasons why we take time in Committee to consider such matters in detail. It is always helpful when Members of the Committee offer a different perspective and focus on areas that others may have missed.
We are grateful to the Minister for his full reply. I have a feeling that my noble friend Lord Hodgson is not entirely content with that reply. We shall read carefully in Hansard what the Minister said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 207 and 208 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Advertisement of application for provisional statement]:
[Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Determination of application for provisional statement]:
[Amendment No. 210 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 17, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

"( ) In determining any such application the authority shall have regard to its licensing statement and to any other material considerations.

( ) A determination under this section does not have effect—

(a) until the end of the period given for appealing the decision, or

(b) if the decision is appealed against, until the appeal is disposed of."

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 211, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 220, 236, 244, 306 and 315. The last two are consequential and, therefore, I am speaking to them simply to say that that is what they are. My record for brevity may be mildly blemished on this grouping because there are several amendments on which I need to speak.
Amendment No. 211 might have been treated as consequential, but it is larger than my Amendment No. 199 on which the Minister has already spoken. However, I want to speak to Amendment No. 211 at large. I return to Clause 18. Subsection (2) would require the licensing authority to grant licences in accordance with the operating plan of the applicant in the absence of "relevant representations" from an interested party or responsible person, irrespective of whether it believes that granting the licence will promote the licensing objectives or whether it will interfere in the rights of individuals in its area. I put it that that is unreasonable.
The licensing authority has duties: to promote the licensing objectives; to refrain from taking decisions that contravene the European Convention on Human Rights under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998; to have regard to its own licensing statement prepared after consultation; and to do everything in its powers to reduce crime and disorder in its area in accordance with Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act. It cannot possibly discharge those duties without the powers to do so. I am conscious that I am, to some extent, going over ground that we have already covered, but this is the lead amendment in the group.
The amendment ensures that the licensing authority has the powers to discharge those duties. The fact that no relevant representations have been made is not always a decisive indicator of the lack of problems. That is because the licensing authority may know of reasons why relevant representations have not been made—for example, the fear of harassment or the sheer volume of applications that the police and interested parties have to deal with.
Licensing authorities obtain their knowledge of those issues from a wider range of sources than relevant representations. I shall not go through the totality of them. But, in such circumstances, it would be entirely inappropriate for the council simply to grant the application. Doing so may, in any case, require the licensing authority to act in violation of its obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. That is a matter on which I have tabled a later amendment. The situation would be far happier if licensing authorities could be given powers to promote the licensing objectives at all times and to act in accordance with their obligations under the Human Rights Act.
I turn to Amendment No. 220. This section of the Bill deals with applications to vary a premises licence. Such variations may be relatively minor—for example, to improve facilities at the premises—or they may involve an extension of the hours of operation to an hour late into the night. These amendments would amend the provisions relating to applications to vary licences in the same way and for the same reasons as the provisions relating to applications for new licences.
Clause 18(2), to which I have already referred, requires the authority to grant the licence unless "relevant representations" have been made. This requirement is inconsistent with the overarching obligation imposed by the Bill to promote the licensing objectives and to have regard to licensing policy and to central government guidance.
Amendment No. 236 is largely consequential but I specifically want to add a few words to it. The amendment seeks to remove the requirement that the,
"licensing authority must grant the application",
when an application is made to vary a premises licence so as to specify a new premises supervisor. It inserts a requirement to determine the application with regard to its licensing statement and any other material considerations.
I turn to Amendment No. 244. The Bill, as drafted, requires that the licensing authority must transfer a licence in accordance with the application. That requirement removes any discretion to refuse a licence unless an objection is received from the chief officer of police. As such, it is unnecessarily restrictive. Other people may have relevant information which could be considered by the authority.
The amendment seeks to allow the authority to have regard to any material considerations and to its licensing statements. I acknowledge that this is a consequential amendment applying to the provisions on the determination of transfer applications the approach proposed in relation to the determination of new applications. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: One of our themes in these debates has been to strike a balance between three broad sets of interests: first, the general public interest; secondly, the interests of the industry; and, finally—this is a point that perhaps gets lost in this kind of debate—the rights of the responsible consumer to enjoy his or her leisure time with the minimum amount of interference from local or central government.
The amendments strike at the very heart of that package. The Bill gives a clear voice to interested parties—local residents, businesses and their representatives—and responsible authorities, such as the police, fire and environmental health authorities and so on. All applications are required to be brought to the attention of these groups, either through notification or advertisement, so that they have ample opportunity to comment.
Where they have a problem with an application, it is open to them to make representations. Indeed, in the case of the responsible authorities—the statutory consultees under the Bill—we would consider them bound to make representations whenever it is necessary in the interests of promoting the licensing objectives. Where such representations are received, the licensing authority must hold a hearing to consider them. As a result of the hearing, the licensing authority may take any one of four steps, including refusing to grant the licence, to modify the conditions attached to it or to exclude licensable activities from its scope.
That represents a fair, open and transparent system. These amendments seek to give the licensing authority the power to make its own pronouncements on applications, even where no representations have been received. While I understand the sentiments behind the amendments, surely local residents and businesses and responsible authorities are the appropriate parties to assess the impact of the application on their interests and responsibilities. Surely where those living nearby or those with responsibility for ensuring public safety, preventing public nuisance and crime and disorder are all satisfied with an application, the licensing authority would be acting beyond its mandate to impose its own view.
The job of the licensing authority is not to act as the final arbiter of taste or morality. It is not there to impose a raft of arbitrary conditions with little or no
324
relevance to the premises concerned. It is there to ensure that the four clear licensing objectives, which have been subject to widespread consultation and enjoy widespread support, are promoted when a licensing application is being considered. The system that the Bill sets out is fair, open and transparent and will look after the interests of all concerned. On that basis, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I believe that there remains between these Benches and the Government the feeling that local authorities are being given responsibility for running the system but are not being given any degree of discretion in terms of exercising it. It will be interesting to see how far local authorities up and down the country are able to persuade their electorates that, in fact, the reason that they could not prevent something happening was that the power had been taken away from them by the Bill and that they were therefore not allowed to provide that protection. However, it casts some doubt on how far it is fair to say that responsibility has been transferred to local authorities. Therefore, I believe that the issue will remain with us as long as we discuss the Bill. However, I am conscious of a desire to make progress in terms of today's proceedings.
12.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: It appears to me that the Government are saying that the local authority has no power to say, "We do not want a lap-dancing club next door to a nunnery". If we are to have local democracy I believe that local authorities should have such a power and should be able to make those kinds of decisions. Local authorities should take into account matters of morality and taste.
Baroness Blackstone: The nunnery can make representations to the local authority, as can any business in the vicinity or any resident in the vicinity if they consider that a particular place is inappropriate for a pub or a night club. That is how the system will work. Moreover, the local authority, through its fire department or through its environmental health department, for example, can also decide that it would be inappropriate for a licence to be granted to any particular applicant.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for intervening and, in the process, soliciting a response from the Minister. I am genuinely grateful for his support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 17, line 6, after "them" insert "within 28 days"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 212 deals with timing in relation to determining applications for provisional statements. Under Amendment No. 174, we discussed the need to impose some kind of time restriction on licensing authorities within which they

325
must respond to applications made to them. I recall that the Minister gave a positive reply. Undue delays can be particularly damaging to businesses especially if they are waiting for a favourable response before carrying out building or other such work. Our proposal for a 28-day period is a suggestion only. It is imperative that a limit is imposed in the interests of efficiency. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Baroness indicated, we have discussed this matter already in Committee. We are at one with her on the need for a reasonable time limit. The only difference is whether it should be on the face of the Bill. We do not believe that it should be because we need the flexibility to be able to alter a time limit in the light of experience. The noble Baroness will recognise that in our White Paper we indicated a time limit along the lines she has suggested. So in terms of the objectives we are at one.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform agreed with us that this matter should be subject to secondary legislation. Purely for the purpose of flexibility, we would not want the figure on the face of the Bill, but we agree that the noble Baroness puts forward a reasonable proposition.
The Earl of Onslow: Will the Minister put a figure somewhere? It is all very fine to say that it is hoped that it will be 28 days. When I misbehaved as a little boy I used to say to my mother, "I didn't mean to do that", to which she would reply, quite justifiably, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Unless a figure is put in the Bill, as night follows day, it will not be applied and there will be a flock of Ministers travelling down that road to hell. It is as simple as that.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I assure the noble Earl that it would be necessary for us to issue guidance that indicated our requirements and expectations on time limits. We are seeking to avoid the rigidity of placing time limits on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his positive response. I am smiling to myself—I am sure that he will forgive me for saying so—because when we get into government, as we surely shall, every time we do not want something put on the face of the Bill we shall say that it is because we want to test the matter in the light of experience. That is a good phrase and I blame him not for using it. I thank the Minister for assuring the Committee that at least the time limit will appear in the guidance. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 213 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Restriction on representations following provisional statement]:
[Amendments Nos. 213A to 213C not moved.]
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 213D
Page 18, line 16, leave out ", without reasonable excuse,"
The noble Lord said: Having re-read the Explanatory Notes, I have seldom seen a case where what the Minister says at the Dispatch Box is exactly contrary to what is stated there. The Explanatory Notes state:
"Subsection (3)"
that is the right to make representations following a provisional statement—
"provides that this restriction will not apply if a person who wishes to make those representations has a reasonable excuse for not having made those representations at the time of the application … or if there has been a material change in the circumstances".
The word used is "or", not "and". If the "or" was an "and" the Minister would be absolutely right. But "or" means that a person could be in hospital or somewhere else. However, for the time being I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Notification of change of mane or address]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 18, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 214, 215 and 216 are consequential to those discussed on Monday in Committee concerning the designated premises supervisor. They remove the references to the designated premises supervisor from Clause 32 in relation to notification of change of name or address. I have no wish to plunge your Lordships back into a heated debate about the desirability of such a role. I made it clear on Monday that the functions of the designated premises supervisor seemed illusory to me and the role itself unnecessary. For a similar reason I gave notice of my intention to oppose the quest ion that Clauses 36 and 45 stand part of the Bill.
We heard what the Minister had to say in response to my wish and that of a number of noble Lords that the Government reconsider the role of supervisor and return to the original suggestion proposed in the White Paper. I intend to read thoroughly those comments in Hansard. There seemed to be inconsistencies and some confusion over the matter of the designated premises supervisor on both sides of the Committee. I hope that I shall not be alone in giving the matter much thought before we return to it on Report. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the way in which the amendment has been moved. I am not conscious that there is confusion but if there is, would the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and any other noble Lord like to meet with us to discuss the matter between now and Report stage? I am sure that that could be helpful.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for that welcome suggestion. We would certainly like to take the opportunity to discuss this very important point

327
which has exercised, particularly, the entertainment industry. There may be other noble Lords—I am looking, for example, at the Cross Benches and at the Liberal Democrats—who may wish to take part in such a meeting. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 215 to 217 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Application to vary premises licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Determination of application under section 33]:
[Amendments Nos. 220 to 223 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Supplementary provision about determinations under section 34]:
[Amendment No. 224 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 20, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

"( ) A determination under this section does not have effect

(a) until the end of the period for appealing is given, or

(b) if the decision is appealed against, until the appeal is disposed of."

The noble Lord said: I was tempted not to move Amendment No. 225, which would have improved my record for brevity and mitigated my having taken a little longer on the previous group. The Minister has already spoken on Amendment No. 199, which uses similar words. I am not sure whether this case is sufficiently different to necessitate the Minister responding again. I err in favour of caution in moving the amendment, especially as it stands alone. But I shall understand entirely should the Minister's answer be fairly brief. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall be brief. I do not think that the Government gave the amendment a standalone grouping but that it was degrouped from another group.
The amendment would deny the licensing authority the power to determine when the variation of the premises licence should come into effect. The time in this case would be when the change is proposed by the applicant, or, if that time has passed before the application is determined, such time as is specified in the determination. The amendment substitutes a different approach. The provisions would state that the variation could not come into effect until the time for appealing has passed, whether or not the application has been granted in the terms sought by the applicant or, if an appeal is lodged, the time when the appeal is determined.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, clearly has in mind a favourable determination only by the licensing authority, despite police or local residents'
328
representations. These parties would be entitled to appeal against the licensing authority's decision. The effect of the variation—perhaps a change of trading hours—would then be held in abeyance until either the time for appealing has passed, or until the appeal has been determined, whichever is the longer period of time. The appeal process could, of course, be much longer.
The Bill empowers the licensing authority and not the magistrates' courts to make these decisions. It is not a two-tier application process where the licensing authority has determined the matter and its decision should stand until overturned on appeal. If a decision is made on appeal to deny the variation, the premises licence would have to revert to its original form. But the variation should stand in the interim period.
The amendment would slow the decision-making process, and we do not think it can be justified. Everyone involved in licensing must have certainty, and at the earliest possible time. So I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, as I believe he will from his remarks at the outset.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am extremely grateful for the fullness of the Minister's reply. I would have been entirely content if she had been briefer. The fact that her reply was as full as it was enhances my appreciation of her and adds to my anxiety to be of assistance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 226 to 228 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Application to vary licence to specify individual as premises supervisor]:
[Amendments Nos. 229 to 235 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Determination of section 36 application]:
[Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Request to be removed as designated premises supervisor]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 237:
Page 22, line 42, leave out "may give the relevant licensing authority" and insert "must give the relevant licensing authority, chief officer of police for the said area and the owner of the premises licence (if that is a different person)"
The noble Baroness said: I shall not delay the Committee unnecessarily by speaking at length to Amendment No. 237. The Committee will recall that the subject of designated premises supervisors has already been discussed extensively. The amendment seeks to make clear whom a designated premises supervisor must inform if he or she wishes to abdicate his or her position.
The amendment's emphasis is on the change from "may" to "must". It is surely imperative that the relevant licensing authority should be notified if the designated premises supervisor intends to leave. It might also be sensible, if not vital, for the owner of the premises—-if a different person—to be informed, and perhaps also the chief of police.
Before the Committee responds by accusing me of introducing more paperwork, it seems only fair that if the designated premises supervisor intends to leave he or she has a responsibility to inform the necessary bodies. If the Minister is adamant that that role is necessary, then the extra burden on the holder of that position must be accepted as unavoidable. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I love the first part of the amendment because I like the change from "may" to "must". It enables me to say that a wish, if it is to have any effect, must be embodied in action. In other words, simply having the vague idea that at the end of a shift one has had enough and will become a big game warden is not enough: one has to do something about it. Therefore "must" is not necessary.
As to the more substantive issue of whether the chief officer of police and the owner of the premises licence should be notified as well as the licensing authority, I ask only a question: what is the chief officer of police going to do with the information? A chief officer of police is obviously concerned if a person is to become a designated premises supervisor, but if that person is disappearing off the face of the earth, what does it matter to him? I do not see the point.
Finally, as to the point about notifying the holder of the premises licence—
Baroness Buscombe: Perhaps I may quickly intervene. With all due respect to the police and other such authorities, I think that it is often the case that in such organisations no one feels comfortable unless they can tick all the boxes. We have obviously made reference to that here.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That sounds deplorable to me. I am thoroughly against ticking boxes when that is not necessary As a survey researcher I am even more against ticking boxes when that is not necessary. As to the requirement to notify the holder of the premises licence, that is clearly sensible. It is not much fun for the holder of the premises licence if someone walks out without telling them. The person stops getting paid, of course.
Lord Avebury: If the person has walked out because of trouble on the premises, would it not be important for the police to be aware of that, because they might want to close the place down?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What would they do with that information? Would that be trouble that had not been notified since the person decided to resign as designated premises supervisor? What would the
330
police do with that information? The person would not be there—he may have gone off to be a big game warden, as I said.
Lord Avebury: But the premises may still be operating.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, and there will be a premises licence holder who can and should be held accountable.
My answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about notifying the premises licence holder is that that is covered in Clause 40(4).
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. Given that I interpret him as agreeing with our view that the Bill's reference to the fact that the designated premises supervisor "may" give the relevant notice is rather a casual approach to walking out, I am sorry that he is not inclined to accept our amendment. Forgive me, but the reference to being a big game warden has caused me to think of more exciting things—having just returned from Africa, I think that it would be wonderful to be a game warden. I shall read the Minister's words in Hansard, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 238 to 242 not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Application for transfer of premises licence]:
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 23, line 41, leave out subsections (5) to (7).
The noble Viscount said: I have no intention of pressing the amendment, but seek enlightenment from the Minister. The powers given to the police during applications for transfers of premises licences are hardly appropriate in 99 out of 100 cases. They interfere with what is essentially a commercial transaction between two businesses. In the spirit of cutting red tape and bureaucracy—in which, we have been told many times, the Bill has been drafted—they are superfluous. That is why we are pressing for their removal.
In the event that a new premises licence holder does not meet the obligations, surely the police have powers to tackle him as soon as necessary. As I said, the vast majority of commercial transfers will not cause problems, so the process outlined in Clause 41(5), (6) and (7) seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. It will cause a great deal of uncertainty about commercial decisions that must be made—either an individual sale of premises or the transfer of an undertaking that may involve many premises, even thousands of them. I look forward to the Minister's help on the matter, because I seek clarity. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland—my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke are attached to it. The subsections provide a power of

331
objection for the police during applications for transfer of premises licences. We feel that such a power is inappropriate, because it interferes with what is essentially a commercial transaction between two businesses, which may be independent units of large companies.
In the event that a new premises licence holder does not meet his obligations, the police have sufficient powers under the Bill to tackle him as soon as is necessary. The vast majority of ownership transfers will not cause problems, so the process outlined in subsections (5), (6) and (7) is, as the noble Viscount said, unnecessarily bureaucratic and, as he also said, creates a great deal of uncertainty for businesses in their commercial decisions about either an individual sale of a premises or the transfer of an undertaking, sometimes involving many thousands of premises.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that I can assure the Committee that the clause contains the absolute minimum of bureaucracy—as it is being described. The Bill requires only that when a person applies to a licensing authority for a premises licence to be transferred to him, he must give notice of the application to the police. No further notification is required. I should imagine that a photocopy of the application to the licensing authority would do the trick. The police can object to an application only in exceptional circumstances, on the grounds that to grant it would undermine the crime prevention objective.
We have discussed this several times before. It involves not just the designated premises supervisor but the premises licence holder—which need not necessarily be a business, it could easily be an individual. In the case of a small pub, it will be the same person, who may under certain circumstances be worthy of investigation by the police. If someone had previously been considered inappropriate to be a premises licence holder, there had been problems with drugs, violence, noise or whatever, or the police knew something else about him relevant to whether he was a suitable person, surely the protection of local residents requires that the police should know about that and, in exceptional circumstances, be able to do something about it.
In any case, even if the licence holder is a business, the fact that a business buys a property does not mean that it is an appropriate person to hold a premises licence. Nothing in the Bill prevents such a sale or purchase, it is just that if a new purchaser—it could be a business—comes along, in exceptional circumstances the police ought to have the power to say and do something about that. That is the minimum protection for local residents that is called for.
Lord Avebury: Does the Minister consider that the premises licence holder should be someone with a clean criminal record? Will there be any uniformity in these matters? If it is proposed to transfer a premises licence to someone who has a criminal record, will the same attitude be taken by police forces across the
332
country? If not, may not the policy of allowing the local police discretion to object in exceptional circumstances lead to a lack of uniformity in provision around the country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The whole point about the guidance is that it will seek as much consistency—I shall not say uniformity—as possible, subject to the need for a degree of flexibility, which is expressed in the licensing authority's licensing statement. Businesses do not have criminal records. They can and will frequently be premises licence holders, but they cannot have criminal records. Perhaps they can, in certain circumstances, but I doubt that they would be relevant criminal records.
Viscount Falkland: I made my remarks with as much humility as I could muster. I did not really know the answer, and I sought enlightenment from the Minister. I think that, to some extent, I got it. I shall read Hansard to see whether I am correct in coming to that conclusion.
It was my impression that the main concern of the industry was that the Bill gave an unnecessary opportunity for police powers to be used, as they could sometimes be used, without proper understanding of the transaction that transferred the premises. There was a fear that there would be an enormous bureaucratic hindrance to the commercial activity of large groups doing a major transaction involving complicated procedures and a large number of outlets. Having said that in all humility, I shall examine what the noble Lord said and seek advice as to whether to proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 41 agreed to.
1 p.m.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Determination of transfer application]:
[Amendment No. 244 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Notification of determination under section 43]:
[Amendment No. 245 not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Interim authority notice following death etc. of licence holder]:
[Amendment No. 246 not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Cancellation of interim authority notice following police objections]:
On Question, Whether Clause 47 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Redesdale: I shall not press the matter, but I shall ask the Minister for clarification. As we read the clause, it appears that an interim authority notice can be cancelled because of police objections. If the police

333
object to the person taking over the premises and that person is the holder of a personal licence, on what grounds would the police object? If the person qualifies for a personal licence to run premises, on what grounds could the police say that he is not a fit and proper person?
The clause seems to reintroduce the "fit and proper person" criterion. The Minister will give us reasons why we should support the clause, but I would be grateful for an answer to that question.
Baroness Buscombe: The loss of a licence should not affect the premises licence. As the premises are still fit to trade, it should be possible to install another personal licence holder to keep the business running, at least for the period of the interim authority notice. If a person possesses a valid personal licence, there is no reason why he should be prevented from working. It does not happen with driving licences, and it should not be the case here either.
The new licensee can simply register with the police. The introduction of additional police powers of objection into the interim authority procedure is, once again, unnecessary and bureaucratic.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are, of course, provisions for a transfer of licence to take effect immediately, so that there is no gap and the business need not close in the mean time. Clause 47 applies when an interim authority notice has been given, in accordance with Clause 46, and the police have been properly notified.
The police would intervene when the chief officer believed that, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, a failure to cancel the notice would undermine the crime prevention objective. The chief officer must then notify the licensing authority. When he does that, the licensing authority must hold a hearing, unless the police and the person who gave the interim notice agree that it is not necessary to hold one. The licensing authority decides the matter. If it agrees with the police, it is empowered to cancel the interim authority, but it must give reasons.
The clause relates to the unusual circumstances that arise when the holder of a premises licence dies, is made bankrupt or becomes incapacitated. Other people with an interest in the premises may be greatly affected by any period in which trade stops. For example, the clause will ensure that, if the premises licence holder is a tenant and the freeholder has been supplying him with beer, the premises cannot be run for up to two months—which would otherwise be the case—by a person who has an interest but turns out to be an unscrupulous criminal. For example, if the laundering of drugs money were to carry on for two months—that is what could happen otherwise—serious damage would be done. It is important that we give the police the powers to intervene in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Redesdale: That does not really answer our fundamental question about whether powers should be introduced to review personal licences in that way. However, we will not press the matter.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Reinstatement of licence on transfer following death etc. of holder]:
[Amendment No. 247 not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Application for review of premises licence]:
[Amendment No. 247A not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 29, line 27, at end insert—
"(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1), the chief officer of police for the police area in which any premises are situated must apply for a review of the premises licence for those premises if he is aware that there is being, or had been, carried on at those premises the sale, letting for hire, playing or exhibition of sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes in circumstances which amount to an infringement of copyright for the purpose of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48).
(1B) In subsection (1A) "sound recordings', "films", "broadcasts" and "cable programmes" have the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 48) (copyright)."
The noble Baroness said: The piracy of record music and films and the theft of signals cause great harm to businesses that play copyright material with the permission of the rights holders. After permission is obtained, fees are paid either directly or via collecting societies, which remunerate the distributors and producers of the copyright material.
It is understood that the producers of pirated material use the proceeds of crime to fund the production of illegal copies. The process is also a vehicle for money laundering. Many people who buy pirated material or who permit the use of their premises for the sale or use of such material do not consider that the theft of intellectual property seriously harms businesses that legitimately use copyright material or the rights holders. There is, however, a loss of tax revenue to the slate. People using pirated material are encouraging criminal contact such as for the drugs trade and money laundering.
We believe it would strengthen the Bill if there were a clause directing that the premises licence should be reviewed, if the police know of copyright misuse. Thus, the holder of a personal licence or the designated premises supervisor will ensure that the correct permissions are obtained for the use of copyright materials and, by doing so, avoid criminality. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: I support everything the noble Baroness said. Piracy of intellectual material and breaching of copyright are massive problems. They cause the loss internationally of millions, perhaps billions, of pounds to industries. Under the present regime, pirated DVDs and video cassettes are easily obtained in outlets of the kind we are discussing. At one end they are sophisticated; at the other they are very crude. I imagine that a pub or club involved in such illegal activity would use products from the top end. With regard to films, much of the pirated material

335
originates from California, from Hollywood. In the Far East and Middle East countries, one has less high-quality pirated recordings. They are recorded from public film shows by people with video cameras on their laps. Noble Lords may be surprised to hear that such activity is extraordinarily profitable for the criminal organisations involved. It is a huge problem.
I support the noble Baroness's amendment. The Bill should make it difficult for licence holders to be tempted to use pirated material in any shape or form and to use Sky top boxes, for example, in order to show sporting events and so on without paying the appropriate fees. Sky is concerned about that possible development. It is another door which should not be left ajar in terms of risk to companies. It should be made plain to licensees that such activity will not be tolerated.
Lord Monson: Despite those two powerful arguments, I wish to put a dissenting view. The essential purpose of the Bill is to strike the right balance between liberalisation on the one hand and public order and safety on the other. Much of the argument during the many Committee days has been on exactly where to strike the right balance.
To extend the Bill to strengthen copyright laws which are not entirely uncontroversial seems to take the scope of the Bill too far. Therefore, I am unable to support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government support the 1988 copyright Act and wish to see it enforced. However, I wish to make two points about it so far as it relates to this Bill.
First, where infringement of the 1988 Act is a criminal offence as opposed to one that would result in civil action, it is open to interested parties and responsible authorities to apply for a review in the way the amendment proposes. So, for example, a cinema could make an application if licensed premises were showing films for which they did not have the necessary permission. Secondly, the amendment would make it compulsory for the chief officer of police to apply for a review if the sale, letting for hire, playing or exhibition of sound recordings, films, broadcast or cable programmes had taken place in infringement of copyright.
In this Bill, we do not compel either interested parties or responsible authorities such as the police to apply for a review because a particular offence has been committed at the premises. We provide for discretion for those authorities to decide for themselves when to apply for review. If we were to make this compulsory and there were, for example, fights at a pub, the police would have discretion to apply for a review, but if a licensee played a single musical track to his customers for which he did not have the necessary permission, the premise's licence would automatically be reviewed. I think that that would be out of keeping with the discretion provided for in the Bill.
336
Of course the concern is genuine. Officials are in discussion with the trade associations, in particular with the Cinema Exhibitor's Association. We shall be exploring with it whether its concerns can be more fully addressed in the guidance which will be issued.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sorry that the Government feel disinclined to accept the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke of the right balance which has to be struck. We do not want to add to bureaucracy. However, we believe that it is a serious concern. We have been lobbied by a number of outside organisations which are concerned that the piracy of records, music, films and theft of signals is causing great harm to them and those they represent.
The proliferation and use in thousands of licensed premises of counterfeit technologies such as counterfeit smart cards to circumvent entertainment restrictions is a deep concern. The sale of pirate ITV Digital smartcards, for example, contributed significantly to that company's downfall. We understand that signal theft is currently depriving the Premier League of revenue as well as many other TV channels.
The temptation for public showing, for entertainment without permission of the rights holders, is an infringement of copyright under the 1988 Act. At present the enforcement of those crimes is low on the list of priorities for local authorities. The addition of the amendment would raise awareness of the importance of intellectual property to the economy and the changing nature of entertainment offered by licensed premises.
I do not exaggerate the situation when saying that at present it is all too easy for people to ignore copyright laws. We believe strongly that the amendment is sensible. It seeks to deflect temptation from those who think that they can get away with infringing copyright.
We have heard the Minister. We appreciate that the Government are holding meetings with interested parties. However, we believe strongly that there is a growing problem. If the 1988 Act is not serving its purpose, the Bill provides a useful opportunity to strengthen copyright issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 249 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
1.15 p.m.
Clause 51 [Determination of application for review]:
[Amendment No. 250 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 31, line 2, leave out "three" and insert "six"
The noble Lord said: I acknowledge that these matters are subjective but I aver that the limit of three months is too short to act as a real penalty or deterrent.
A change to six months, especially when taken with the proposal in Amendment No. 252 to give the licensing authority greater flexibility to decide what sanctions would be appropriate, seems more the right balance. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: The ability to seek a review of premises licences and club premises certificates set out in the Bill is new. At present, the licensing justices have two routes open to them. They can either revoke the licence altogether or do nothing. The nuclear nature of the first option often means that they are reluctant to take action, particularly for minor transgressions. There is no opportunity to consider a justices' licence in the absence of a breach of obligation, which undermines the ability to regulate the licensed trade.
The review process is a significant and powerful one. The steps that the licensing authority may take following a review provides it with all the levers needed for monitoring and regulating the licensed trade effectively in the absence of non-compliance with obligations. At the same time, they ensure fair treatment for the industry.
Amendments Nos. 251 and 321 would extend the maximum duration of suspension of a licence or certificate from three months to six. The amendments are draconian and unnecessary for the same reason. It is just about conceivable that a business might survive a suspension of its ability to trade for three months, but any longer than that and the overwhelming likelihood is that it would go out of business. That would have exactly the same effect as a revocation, which is already provided for in the Bill. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Amendments Nos. 253 and 323 are similarly draconian. As the noble Lord said, the proposals would extend from three months to six the period for which a licensable activity or qualifying club activity could be excluded from the scope of the licence or certificate. That tips the balance too far away from the careful equilibrium we have achieved through negotiation.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 252 and 322 would allow the licensing authority to impose its own bespoke outcome to a review process. That would completely undermine the openness and transparency that we have sought. It must be remembered that the system of review is just that—a review. It is not an alternative to the taking of proceedings in respect of breaches of authorisations. It is designed to allow the continuation of an authorisation to be considered in the light of an application which sets out grounds that are relevant to licensing objectives. The steps available to the licensing authority in determining the review must be proportionate and consistent. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I must apologise to the Committee. Although I spoke to Amendment No. 252 and implicitly to Amendment No. 253, I failed
338
to point out that Amendments Nos. 321 to 323 are consequential in Clause 86. I am grateful to the Minister for having replied to them notwithstanding.
The Minister said that substituting six months for three months is draconian. I have always thought that King Draco has had rather a rough time in terms of world history since he performed his original acts. We now know from archaeology that the Philistines were nothing like as disagreeable as they have always been thought to be. I hope that in due course King Draco's reputation may be resuscitated too I mention him because, if my six months are draconian, then the Minister's three months are semi-draconian. In the circumstances, it would be possible for us to argue, taking the alternative point of view, that the Government are being, although not draconian, semi-draconian, which is a step in the same wrong direction.
My amendment is subjective; in that sense, it was probing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 252 to 255 not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Fees]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 256:
Page 32, line 9, leave out "Regulations" and insert "The relevant licensing authority"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 256, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 265 to 267, 269, 328, and 330 to 333. Although there are a number of amendments listed, I speak to the generality of them—certainly to the generality of the first five. The amendments to Clause 90 are consequential.
Clause 54 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations under which the fees payable for licence applications are prescribed nationally. The Committee is familiar with the fact that I represented Westminster in another place. In common with most local authorities, Westminster considers that a licensing authority must be able to set fees which reflect the costs of providing and enforcing the licensing regime and which are appropriate to the local area.
As drafted, the Bill will prevent the council and local authorities from setting a realistic licensing fee. Costs will inevitably vary significantly from region to region within the United Kingdom. Costs to Westminster for additional administration, inspection and enforcement—I believe that I quoted the figure in an earlier debate—are estimated to be £1.6 million and £2.1 million. Even those figures do not take into account additional costs associated with street cleansing and policing that will be incurred in the event of substantial increases in late-night drinking.
The Committee will recall Stanley Baldwin's remark at the Westminster by-election during the 1929–31 Parliament that the press barons were exercising power without responsibility. He described it in a phrase provided to him by his cousin, Kipling, as "the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages". In

339
parenthesis, I should add that, at that point, the Duke of Devonshire, who was sitting on the platform with an eye to the West End and Soho ward, said:
"Bang goes the tarts' vote"!
Inflexibility in that area will increase the sense that local authorities are being given, by neat antithesis, responsibility without power. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I speak to Amendments Nos. 261 and 271 in the names also of my noble friend Lord Falkland and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who is ill today. The noble Baroness will be unable to speak to the amendments. I speak to Amendment No. 261 possibly for different reasons than those of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
The issue of fees—which I believe will be prescribed in the guidance—needs to be debated. A balance is required between the ability of local authorities to meet their obligations as set out in the Bill and their need to be self-financing without the fee being so onerous as to tax the industry, as has happened in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has indicated that fee amounts may change dramatically. I may be putting words into the mouth of the noble Lord; he perhaps did not say dramatically, but simply indicated that different fees would be charged in different areas. That appears to contradict the situation we were led to expect in the White Paper; namely, that fees would be at a reasonable level and not vary much between local authorities.
Obviously that will have consequences throughout the country. I should like the Minister to give some indication of whether fees will be allowed to be set at reasonably different levels between local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is concerned about the ability of local authorities to meet their obligations. However, the industry is rightly worried that the White Paper indicates that a single figure would be uniform throughout the country. From what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that may not be the position.
Amendment No. 270 seeks to place an obligation on the industry to pay fees on time. If it fails to do so, this could leave licensing authorities with liabilities. It is a probing amendment to ascertain the Government's views.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Amendments Nos. 263 and 264 stand in my name. I agree with the force of the argument advanced by my noble friend Lord Brooke in introducing this group of amendments. But equally, we must find a way to prevent capricious behaviour on the part of local authorities which may see this provision as a means to earn revenue. This is a licensing Bill, not a street-cleaning or policing Bill.
The view from the pubs in Derbyshire is that a great deal of the Bill has to do with areas inside the M25 and that much of the debate has related to a Westminster urban environment and has had less relevance to their
340
area. They would be very concerned if local authorities were free to cross-charge or to cross-load activities that they carry out which are perceived to be connected to licensing activities.
The provision must not become open-ended, because there is the potential for unfair and discriminatory activity. The industry is already a big taxpayer. Many of these businesses are small concerns; therefore, a high fee would be very damaging. We tend to forget that although Westminster incurs costs in terms of policing, street-cleaning and so on, it also receives great benefits from the economic activity that public houses bring: tourism, for example, and the fact that people are attracted to the area. To single out licensing activity as requiring special treatment is not fair. Therefore, where fees are being set, my Amendment No. 263 requires the Government to have regard,
"to the cost of providing the licensing function",
and nothing else.
Amendment No. 264 is a probing amendment in the interests of clarity. The idea of an annual fee opens up a series of concerns: how it will be set; how often it will be reviewed; and the possible relationship between the original fee for obtaining a licence and the annual fee payable thereafter—bearing in mind that some 30,000 licensed premises in this country are free-houses; that is, they are essentially small businesses for which these kinds of charges could be significant.
Viscount Falkland: Further to the points so clearly set out by my noble friend Lord Redesdale, will the Minister enlighten us, as we do not have the guidance in front of us? A tension must arise between the requirements of local authorities to carry out their duties under the Bill and the difficulty in which certain businesses will find themselves; namely, having to worry about whether their current costs will escalate. I know that discussions have taken place and that the Minister has already expressed a view, but I refer specifically to cinemas and small theatres. For such organisations to be looking at an uncertain period in which they might be required to put aside substantial funds which they would find it hard to acquire in order to meet surprisingly high costs in this area is undesirable. One would wish that they would remain in roughly the same position as under the present regime, but there is a danger here and there will be a tension in this area.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 262, 268 and 271 relating to fees and their regulation. Many of the fears voiced at Second Reading concerned what fees should be charged by the licensing authority and whether they should be set centrally or be subject to local variation; and how the system could possibly be cost-recoverable for the licensing authorities.
The Government have assured us that the system will be fair both to local authorities—whose administrative costs will be covered by the fees—and

341
to the licensed premises, which will not be overly burdened financially. That is certainly how we understand the matter from our reading of Hansard.
I fear that the Government's assurances have failed to satisfy either party. Licensed premises may fear the kind of extortion that they have faced in the past in order to procure public entertainment licences. They may also question whether the three-tier system of fees charged will be a fair one.
Although I sympathise with those concerns, I believe that the local authorities, which will take on the role of licensing authorities, have more grounds for alarm. We have spoken of the costs in terms of administration, working hours and the setting up of computer software programmes that the new licensing system requires. Aside from this, there is the extra burden that will accrue to local authorities in other spheres—for example, street cleaning and transport.
I simply do not see how the system can be self-financing unless there is scope for some local variation in the fees set. I stress my firm belief that there must be a capped maximum limit, as emphasised in Amendment No. 271. Fees should not by any means be allowed to rocket sky high at the whim of a local authority, which should be using funds other than the proceeds of licensing to pay for street cleaning, for example.
The issue is controversial. Why should one venue pay more for its licence than another, similar, venue simply because it is situated in an urban area, where cost recovery is likely to be higher? It could be argued that the costs for a premises in an urban area will be lower because of the number of premises in a small area all contributing to those costs. Is it enough to say that this discrepancy in the fee should be the price to pay for a self-financing and efficient licensing system?
These are probing amendments at this stage. We look forward to the publication of the draft guidance. We hope that, in addition to the Minister's response to our amendments today, the draft guidance will be clear as to exactly how this system will work and how the fees will be set.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, is not in his place, and notwithstanding the fact that my name has not been added to his amendments, perhaps I may speak briefly to them. He, too, is concerned about fees. His Amendment No. 259 suggests that the amount of the fee for applications under this part of the Bill should be,
"determined by the licensing authority on the basis of cost recovery".
It would be interesting to hear the Minister's response to that point. The noble Lord's Amendment No. 260 proposes the removal of the proposal that,
"Regulations may … prescribe the amount of the fee".
Perhaps there is a fear of inflexibility and the idea is that local authorities would be better placed to set the fee.
342
My noble friend Lord Hodgson said that many of the concerns relate to what happens within the M25, but much of the debate is what I would call "pub centric". We are talking about the entertainment industry as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, is concerned about extremely large events which sometimes have enormous fees placed upon them. Certainly in the area where I live the local authority demands extraordinarily high fees for occasional events involving entertainment on a large scale.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in relation to our amendments and to seeing the proposals in the draft guidance.
Baroness Blackstone: Licensing fees will be set centrally and fairly. They will be set at a level which will allow licensing authorities to recover the full costs of exercising the licensing functions, including administration, inspection and enforcement. Amendment No. 263 is therefore unnecessary. As to Amendment No. 264, removing the requirement for an annual fee to be paid to a licensing authority would deprive it of the revenue stream necessary to fund its inspection and enforcement activities. For that reason, I cannot agree to that amendment.
Fee levels will be set following full consultation with local authorities and the industry. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that most of the other amendments are probing amendments, I shall not deal with each of them in turn. I shall attempt to set out for the Committee how the system will work but, before I do so, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the guidance will not set the fees. The fees will be set by regulation under statutory instrument and noble Lords will therefore be able to debate them when the time comes.
Annual fees that are not paid on time will become debts recoverable by the licensing authorities. Local authorities already have powers to recover debts and we consider that to be an appropriate arrangement. To suspend the licence or club premises certificate where a fee is paid late, or where a licensee or club official forgets to pay, as Amendments Nos. 270 and 334 suggest, would be disproportionate. The livelihoods of many people, not only the licence holders, could be at stake for what may be an administrative oversight.
The exact level of fees is yet to be decided. The Secretary of State is still considering representations on the levels and the figures are not therefore etched in stone. We currently estimate that the one-off fee for a premises licence will be set in bands between £100 and £500, with annual charges for the purpose of providing revenue for the licensing authority set in bands between £50 and £150. These estimates are based on information from local authorities, industry and professional organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).
The levels of fees for particular premises will depend on the size of the premises. There is concern about the higher costs associated with running a licensing system

343
in London and the South East compared with elsewhere in England and Wales. The Government acknowledge that that part of the country may be a special case and we are considering whether there should be a geographical element in the formula that assigns premises to bands. That does not mean that fees will vary from local authority to local authority outside that banding. It is important to establish that principle.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, there is considerable inconsistency at present in the level of fees charged for public entertainment licences, which are set locally, where local charges for similar premises can vary from £50 to £20,000. Many local authorities charge a flat rate fee of, say, £500, and then add a per capita fee. This leads to excessively high charges, with some venues—night clubs, for example—which have a capacity of 2,000 being charged more than £20,000.
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimated that approximately 46,000 public entertainment licences were issued in 2000–01 by local authorities and that the cost of administering these, including inspection and enforcement, was £7.1 million. CIPFA also estimated that the total income for fees charged for these licences was £16 million—a net profit of £8.9 million. Securing income from fees charged for a particular purpose is unlawful and the disparity in the income and expenditure figures is obviously a cause of considerable concern.
Three years ago, the Local Government Association and the Home Office jointly issued a circular to local authorities expressing concern that particularly high fees and associated costs were deterring some organisers from staging entertainment. It also pointed out that it is unlawful to seek to use such fees to raise revenue. I am afraid that the response of some local authorities was simply to increase their fees. Some local authorities—perhaps a minority—have not acted responsibly. That is why we have concluded that fees must be controlled centrally.
Local authorities have had their chance and they have failed. The view that some authorities are charging excessive fees is not only ours but is shared by the LGA, as the joint circular shows. We have received many complaints about the current system from those who stage public entertainment. Some of the most vehement complaints have come from touring companies which, by their very nature, perform in many different parts of the country and experience this inconsistency at first hand.
Not surprisingly, given this kind of behaviour, those parts of the industry which currently deal only with licensing justices and not with local authorities have expressed a great deal of concern ever since we announced our intention to unify the licensing systems under local authorities. We need to provide everyone involved with an assurance that local authorities may not use the licensing system as a method of raising revenue for other purposes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, rightly pointed out.
344
The Committee may be interested to know—this relates to a question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland—that there are precedents for licensing fees being set centrally. Under the Cinemas Act 1985, no local authority may charge more than £600 a year for an annual cinema licence.
The noble Viscount also asked about theatres and whether any will be worse off. It will depend. If a theatre is paying only a tiny licence fee, it may be worse off; but, for the most part, many theatres will be better off under this more regulated system than under the current system.
So fees will be set at a level which will allow all licensing authorities to cover their costs. The system will be self-financing and there will be no potential for a deficit which council tax payers will have to pick up.
I hope that I have responded to most of the questions that have been asked. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Redesdale: The Minister's reply was extremely comprehensive. It is one of the most welcome we have received so far during the passage of the Bill. Is it the Government's intention to outlaw the practice of charging for an entertainment licence and then charging per capita for individuals, as has happened in the past?
Baroness Blackstone: When we set out in regulations what is to be charged, it will almost certainly be the case that there cannot be per capita charges because they lead to the hugely excessive charges being made, particularly for public entertainment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Our new sitting arrangements have the effect that some of us regularly go without our lunch on Thursdays. I shall not add insult to injury by making a long speech at this stage. I am grateful, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was, to the Minister for the comprehensiveness of her reply. However, there were moments when I would not necessarily have given her the same tribute for realism. But that matter is for another day.
The slight problem that I predict is that, although the guidance will be available to us by Report stage, the regulations to set the fees will not necessarily be with us so early. Since the Government make much of the fact that the Bill is a package that strikes a balance between the interests of all concerned, it would be unfortunate if we were asked to make a judgment without having the answer to what is a severe, serious matter from the point of view of local authorities.
I do not disagree with anything that the Minister said in her speech. We have had a good debate. This is a good moment at which to break. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, this is a convenient

345
moment for the Committee to adjourn until after Starred Questions. Therefore, I beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.51 until 3 p.m.]

Property Prices
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to make information available to the public about the prices for which properties are sold.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Land Register for England and Wales has been open to public inspection since December 1990 and anyone may, for a small fee, view the entries on the register. Since 1st April 2000 the register has, where appropriate, included the price paid for a property. The Government believe that the Land Register should be as comprehensive as is practical and as widely available as possible.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most encouraging Answer. Does she agree that if the Australian system were adopted whereby prices achieved for properties are readily available to the public, for example, on the Internet, we would avoid situations such as arose in the recent landmark Horbury Mews legal case and the data error in the Halifax house price index? That index was launched 20 years ago but seems to have gone very wrong.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that it is of great benefit to the public to know the prices achieved for properties. The noble Baroness will know that much has changed in the past two years. The Land Registration Act 2002 will help to bring in e-registration. That will increase the availability of appropriate information to members of the public.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, is not the problem with the Land Register that the prices recorded in it do not reflect the money that has been invested in any particular property? Surely, if people want to pay what some others may regard as a silly price for a property, that is their business and theirs alone.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that it is for each individual to decide the price he or she wishes to pay.
346
However, it is vitally important that the register's information should be as up-to-date and as correct as possible. I am glad to say that that is the case.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, is the Minister aware that following Gordon Brown's fourth separate increase in stamp duty since the previous election, on top of the purchase price, average buyers of properties have had to pay four times as much stamp duty—nearly £2,000 compared with £500 after the previous election? How much of that money has vanished into the Chancellor's coffers and how much is being put back into desperately needed affordable housing?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that matter is truly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. As tempted as I am to reply to the noble Lord, I shall decline to do so.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will my noble friend consider ways in which the information could be made more readily available than through people having to pay money to access it, the argument being that when people bid for a house they normally do so in ignorance of the going rate in that area? Easy access to the Land Register would help prospective buyers to make more realistic bids and would therefore be a good move in terms of consumer protection. Easy access to the information is required.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that efforts are being made. Officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are leading a working group comprising a representative from that office, the Office for National Statistics, Her Majesty's Treasury, the Bank of England and Her Majesty's Land Registry. By the summer the group hope to have produced a definitive monthly national house price index that will meet user needs by being timely, reliable and representative of all house purchases whether cash or mortgage based.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister familiar with the New South Wales system? I do not know whether it applies in the whole of Australia. In the past we have held long discussions on commonhold and leasehold. Therefore, I believe that the Minister is well informed on the matter. But is she aware that if I wanted to buy a flat in a particular block, I would be able to find out the price paid and the date of purchase of every flat in the block? That would not prevent me making my own assessment of whether improvements had been carried out, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Buscombe. Each property is individual. In the Horbury Mews case that I mentioned the estate agents were fined for not telling the vendor that another property in the same road was on the market at a higher price.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am aware of the excellent example of the New South Wales system. The Land Registry already offers an online

347
service to business customers allowing them direct access to the computerised Land Registry. From spring of this year the Land Registry intends to pilot an online service in which individual land registers may be viewed and downloaded by members of the public in return for a small credit card payment. We believe that that will greatly assist members of the public and business in a way that I am sure the noble Baroness would endorse.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Valuation Office Agency in the Inland Revenue is about to undertake a revaluation of all properties, both domestic and commercial—certainly domestic—in the fairly near future? If it does so, we shall have up-to-date information on the valuations of domestic properties. Will that list be available to the public? Will there also be e-access to that information?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to tell my noble friend whether it will all be available, but I am sure that the group that I mentioned which has been involved with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will take that information forward. We hope that we shall have reliable data upon which everyone will be able to rely with confidence.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the Government consider legislation to make gazumping illegal as it is in France?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I regret to say that that matter too is somewhat wide of the Question. However, I should be delighted to answer my noble friend in full should he table his question on the Order Paper on another occasion.

Palestinian Reform: London Meeting
3.7 p.m.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Israel's settlements will be on the agenda of the Prime Minister's conference on Palestine.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the specific aim of the Prime Minister's meeting was to help the Palestinians make progress on reform, preparing their institutions for statehood. So Israeli settlements were not on the agenda. But they were raised. Her Majesty's Government have made it clear on many occasions that a settlement freeze is essential. Her Majesty's Government remain committed to working with the parties and international partners to revitalise the peace process.
Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the success of the
348
London conference despite Mr Sharon's attempt to wreck it. But surely it is, indeed, the settlements which are the key to this matter. Cannot the Prime Minister persuade President Bush that to go on allowing this continuous robbery with violence of Palestinian lands not only makes peace impossible but also makes the American Administration reviled and despised throughout the Middle East?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his congratulations. We are pleased with the progress made at the London meeting despite the difficulties that we faced as regards being able to have everyone present that we would have wished. Of course, the issue of settlements is an enormously serious one. I hope that it will be addressed when the quartet route map is published. That process involves the United States as well. Delegates who discussed the matter are due to meet again in London at the beginning of February. We hope that we shall then have a date for the publication of the route map.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, did the conference agenda include a recognition that since 1967 successive Israeli governments have attempted to withdraw from areas of the West Bank as part of an overall peace agreement with the Arabs? Was the offer made by Ehud Barak some three years ago raised? I refer to the offer not only to concede 95 to 97 per cent of the Occupied Territories, as they are described, but also to help the Palestinian people and the authority achieve a sensible administration of their lands. As the record shows, sadly, it was rejected by the Palestinians at that time.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that matter was not on the agenda, because the meeting was specifically about internal reform within the Palestinian Authority. The issue of settlements was raised by the Palestinians because they felt that the recent surge in settlements—there have been 34 in the past year or so—has seriously curtailed their ability to move towards a reform agenda as they would wish. Sadly, the offer put forward by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, is no longer on the agenda.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I add the congratulations of these Benches on the advances made in moving towards a Palestinian constitution. That is welcome. Do the Government intend to develop an EU policy towards the Middle East crisis, especially in the light of the fact that an additional role for the EU might be very much welcomed at present? With regard to the settlements, must any solution be found on the basis of the evacuation of some, but the resettlement of Arab refugees involving the cooperation of Arab governments? Would the Minister agree that building a fence on the West Bank that now comprises some 7 per cent of West Bank territory will

349
create a new line between the two states, and raises the issue of compensation for Palestinians for land involved in the erection of the fence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the points that she raised and for her congratulations. The conference had several outcomes. Among them were not only the commitment to draw up a constitution, but issues relating to commitments on violence and preparing for free and open elections, and other issues of enormous importance. It is important that the EU develops a policy, but it is also important that it does so in the context of the discussions taking place in the quartet. We believe that that offers the best way forward, and we hope that we shall have some dates for publication.
As for Arab refugees, that is one issue that will have to be addressed. On previous occasions, we have addressed the problems that have arisen as a result of the security fence and taking land for that purpose.
Lord Judd: My Lords—
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Hurd.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have plenty of time. Let us hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, first.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, despite what the Minister said about revitalising the peace process, is it not a grave mistake, in these particularly tense and dangerous weeks, for the United States effectively to put on hold any serious early initiative for an evenhanded peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians? Is there not a real danger that, unless this policy is changed—as of course it could be, since there is still time—any other decisions that the Americans and ourselves take on the Middle East will be regarded as being taken not by campaigners against injustice and terror but by people who are essentially protecting the policies of Prime Minister Sharon?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe that it is very important to revitalise the peace process, because of the repercussive effects that not doing so will have on a broader basis in the region and because it is right to do so. The United States is an active part of the quartet along with the UN, the EU and Russia, and has been playing its full part in that forum. I hope that the part that the United States has played will be seen to have been a vigorous one on publication of the route map.
Lord Judd: My Lords—
Lord Bramall: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if we have two short questions and two short answers, we can do them both.
Lord Judd: My Lords, following the important initiative by the Government in their conference, do
350
they foresee any role for an international presence as a way forward both in the peace process and in bringing the Palestinian state fully into operation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, any fresh thinking on the issue is to be welcomed. However, as I hope I made clear, our efforts are concentrated on the route map from the quartet, which we hope will be forthcoming early next month.
Lord Bramall: My Lords—
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the turn of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, will the Minister go further? Does she agree that any invasion of Iraq that has not meanwhile ensured a withdrawal of those illegal settlements, or at least meaningful negotiations towards it, risks incurring intense odium throughout the Middle East, which could invalidate any benefit that military action may bring?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the two issues are entirely separate. However, there is no doubt that the settlements are a touchstone issue in the Middle East, with repercussions well beyond Israel and Palestine. It is an issue that inflames public feeling, not only in the countries of the region but elsewhere in the world. That is one of the reasons why my right honourable friend has put so much effort into trying to take forward the peace process—that and because my right honourable friend believes that it is right to do so.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we, too, welcome the discussions on Palestine going forward, and hope that they are helpful. Does the Minister accept that there must be agreement with my noble friend Lord Gilmour when he points to the aggravating nature of the settlements—a policy by which the Israelis are doing themselves no good at all? Would she and other Ministers also spare a word of sympathy for the innocent Israeli women and children who are slaughtered by the continuing suicide bombs? Does she agree that the biggest victim of the suicide attacks is the cause of Palestine itself? Until they stop, the chances of really going forward are bound to be limited.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I made it clear in my answer to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that the Government fully understand the aggravating nature of the settlement. Of course, the Government have never held back for a single moment on condemnation of terrorist activity that results in the death of innocent women and children.
It is important to take every opportunity open to us to take the process forward. We concentrated on one particular issue in the meeting earlier this week, but

351
opportunities that arise should be taken by all people of good will around the world. We hope to pursue that, not only through the means that my right honourable friend has already espoused but through the quartet meetings.

Deer Hunting
3.17 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a board member of the Countryside Alliance.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government following the statement by the Minister for Rural Affairs (HC Deb, col. 756, 3rd December), when the "incontrovertible" evidence that justifies the proposed ban on deer hunting and coursing will be published and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, all the evidence has been published. The Burns report was the starting point, and related documents were published in 2000. The wide-ranging consultations undertaken by my right honourable friend Alun Michael have been praised from both sides of the debate as uniquely open, transparent and fair. My right honourable friend met a range of organisations. Letters from organisations are available in the Library, as are transcripts of the hearings and evidence submitted by the witnesses at those hearings, several of which cover deer hunting.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his Answer. It will not surprise him to know that I am reasonably familiar with the contents of the Burns report. I took great note of the hearings, and I congratulated, and do again, his right honourable friend on his courage in holding them. That was an interesting experiment in open democracy.
Will the noble Lord help me further, however? The evidence is immensely important, because it is on the evidence that the principles of the Bill before Parliament are based. He told the House a moment ago that there is an enormous amount of evidence. My friends and I have looked at it carefully and cannot find the evidence that points to the need to ban stag hunting. Will he tell the House precisely what the evidence is, where it is to be found and whose evidence it is, bearing in mind the fact that his right honourable friend admitted the other day that stag hunting could fulfil the criterion of utility? Where is the evidence that stag hunting cannot fulfil the criterion of "least suffering"?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Bill is based on the principles of assessing cruelty and utility, as the noble
352
Lord rightly said. It is clear from many studies that deer suffer in the course of being hunted by dogs. The issue of cruelty has to be judged on whether deer hunting is a less or more cruel method of achieving the utility. Certainly, deer hunting can meet a utility in some circumstances, but the evidence indicates that other forms of controlling deer herds are less cruel.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the Porchester report on the future of Exmoor, commissioned in the 1970s by the late Harold Wilson, concluded categorically that stag hunting was essential for the future welfare of the deer on Exmoor. Where is that evidence weighed in the balance? Is it found wanting? I think it is not.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, not only the Porchester report, but also the Burns report recognised the special situation in Exmoor and parts of Somerset and Devon, where hunting helped control the deer. However, it still remains the case that there are less cruel methods of managing deer herds, on Exmoor as elsewhere.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that only about 16 per cent of the deer culling in Exmoor is as a result of hunting? The Burns report is also clear that most scientific opinion agrees that the deer are very likely to suffer in the final stages of hunting.
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. That is why I conclude—I think this is incontrovertible—that chasing deer over several miles, in some cases, and cornering them is a more cruel method of control of deer herds than other methods.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I declare an interest, having represented a large part of Exmoor for 30 years in another place. I entirely agree with the conclusion of the Burns report that hunting makes a significant contribution to the management of the deer. That view is endorsed by the Exmoor National Park Authority, the Exmoor Society and the Exmoor and District Deer Management Society. In the light of that endorsement and because the Government claim that there is incontrovertible evidence, will the Minister come with me to the Library, where I have been for the past hour, trying to find out where in all the submissions, in which many different views were expressed, that incontrovertible evidence lies? This is a very serious step to take.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the principles are cruelty and utility. As my noble friend Lord Hoyle has said, the medical evidence indicates that there is serious cruelty in deer hunting as a method of control of herds and that other methods are available on Exmoor as elsewhere. Exmoor has chosen to rely more than elsewhere on hunting, but, as my noble friend also points out, even there only 15 or 16 per cent of the culling of the herds is down to hunting.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, despite the length of

353
time the legislation has taken to come before the House in any form that is likely to be agreed, the wording found by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is unlikely to be improved on? The noble Lord found that hunting "seriously compromises the welfare" of hares and deer.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one can argue about the wording, but that is the essential position of the Bill. We recognise that in some cases hunting has a utility. That then has to be judged against the level of cruelty involved. If there are less cruel methods of achieving anything, we should choose the less cruel method.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords—
Baroness Golding: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am afraid we are out of time.

Gun Crime
3.23 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Forsyth of Drumlean asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many prosecutions have been made under legislation banning hand guns of all calibres.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, it is not possible to identify from central records those prosecutions that have arisen directly as a result of the 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Acts. The legislation included hand guns in the category of weapons subject to general prohibition, as set out in Section 5(1) of the main Firearms Act 1968. The only figures available relate to proceedings for possessing or distributing any prohibited weapon covered by Section 5(1). They show that in 1997 there were 960 cases proceeded against and in 1998—the year after the hand gun ban was introduced—there were 1,245 cases. In 2001 the total was 979. These figures all relate to the principal offences for which persons are dealt with.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, as the figures published recently by the Government show that gun crime has doubled since their legislation banning hand guns and introducing tougher sentences, why does the Minister think that introducing mandatory sentences will make our country a safer place? Surely we need measures to enforce the law on the illegal use of weapons and to secure the arrest and imprisonment of those criminals who are apparently now firing guns in pursuit of their criminal ends on average seven times a day, seven days a week, in England and Wales alone.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that there is no one measure that will combat the increase in gun crime, which noble Lords on all sides of
354
the House have referred to. We propose to introduce a mandatory minimum sentence because that sends the strongest possible message that the possession of such a gun is not acceptable and will be met with severe punishment by the courts. Of course enforcing existing law is an important part of our approach as well.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in the context of getting hand guns off the street, will the noble and learned Lord pay particular regard to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford yesterday?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we had a debate yesterday about sentencing across the board, but focusing in particular on burglary and guns, in which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford delivered a powerful speech. Of course we will pay regard to it, as we will pay regard to all the speeches that were made during that debate.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I invite the Minister to renew the pledge that the Government gave in 1999 to introduce swiftly a national database of those who apply for and are granted shotgun licences. It is now five years since that was made possible by the 1997 legislation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to that. Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 requires the establishment of a central register of all persons who have applied for a firearm or shotgun certificate or persons to whom such a certificate has been granted. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, raised that in yesterday's debate. My noble friend Lord Corbett and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, have raised the issue with some effect over a number of months. Planning to deliver the register as part of PHOENIX has been badly delayed for a number of reasons, most recently because the procurement exercise did not succeed. A re-tender is currently being considered. In yesterday's debate, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, chided me for describing that process in a Written Answer. It is an important issue. It has been badly delayed. We are getting on with it.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, from what evidence of our criminal law or that of other jurisdictions do the Government draw their belief that mandatory minimum sentences have the deterrent effect that the noble and learned Lord claims?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is a debate in practically every jurisdiction in the world about the effect of sentencing. The importance and the reasoning behind the minimum mandatory sentence for gun crime is that it sends out the clearest possible message with a view to deterring and with a view to punishing.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, what action do the Government propose to take to counter what I

355
understand to be the large number of so-called deactivated weapons? That number should be included in the firearms statistics.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, when the noble Lord refers to deactivated firearms, I am not sure whether he is referring to those that are not replicas but cannot be used. We need to look closely at whether they are illegal under existing law. It is part of enforcing existing law, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned, and looking to see whether further law changes are required.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recently published figures emphasise the importance of the police being encouraged to continue to exercise their lawful powers of stop and search?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the police can focus on a range of issues, including using the power of stop and search, to address the problems of gun crime. The police are doing that in many areas, particularly in the Metropolitan Police area. Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, has made clear the importance that he attaches to fighting gun crime.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say what percentage of gun crime is committed by owners of current firearms or shotgun licences? Does he have to wait until the register is complete to give those statistics?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have the specific figure in relation to those with a certificate under Sections 1 or 2 of the relevant legislation. Can I come back to the noble Lord on that?

Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 54.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 256A:
Page 32, line 10, after "applications" insert "other than by a church hall, village hall, parish hall, community centre or similar community building"
The noble Baroness said: Many church halls and similar premises operate with very low budgets, and the cost of applying for a premises licence could well be prohibitive. In a small village, the turnover from a village hall is extremely modest in comparison to the turnover from, for example, the village pub. The two concerns are completely different animals. The village hall is a non-profit-making organisation with perhaps
356
as many as two or three events a week. In contrast, the village pub is a profit-making enterprise open seven days a week.
The financial burden of applying for a premises licence in respect of a village hall is much greater than in the case of a village pub. It could well mean that the village hall would have to stop holding any events involving licensable activities, with a possibly crippling effect on its already modest finances. It is therefore essential that such organisations do not have to pay a fee as regards any application for a licence under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Williamson of Horton: We shall no doubt come back on Report to the broader question of what we are doing about various entertainments or other performances in church halls, village halls and so on. The amendment refers simply to the question of fees.
It is a good idea for the Government occasionally to take a measure that would be popular. On that basis I support the amendment, which I am sure would be popular in many villages and small towns that put on entertainments from time to time. They would welcome not having to pay a fee under the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I entirely support the points that have been made. The Government have already generously made clear their concerns about using churches, and the provisions are now being looked at again. In the same way, I hope that this issue on village halls and church halls will be shown the same or a greater generosity of spirit. That would enable village life not to die but to live, which we most certainly need.
Lord Borrie: I might feel sympathy with the amendment, but I am not sure that it is necessary. Surely we can all agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, but Clause 54 refers to what regulations "may" do in terms of imposing a fee for applications. If the Government are generously disposed towards the amendment in the process of argument here and no doubt elsewhere, when the regulations come to be made they may well do what she wants. Rather than having the provision inflexibly in the Bill, those particular places might in all circumstances be completely exempt.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, puts his finger on a point that has preoccupied the Committee since we started our proceedings, which is that without the benefit of knowing what is in the regulations, we have to try to put provisions into the main body of the Bill. Those who tabled the amendment need make no apology to the Committee for having put the idea forward. However, they could be satisfied, as he hinted, if the Minister gave an undertaking that when the regulations were published they would contain provisions of the kind asked for in the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: When a government are allowed to make regulations, the idea that they will not

357
do so is beyond the wit of human understanding, given the temptation that Ministers would face to meddle. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe says, when we come to power I am sure that we will have as much difficulty in resisting that totally delicious temptation, so surely we should not put temptation in the way of Ministers. If we do not want regulations, we should not give people the power to make them because undoubtedly they will. I speak from 30 years' experience in this House.
Baroness Blackstone: We already license events at premises of the type covered in the amendment, but the Bill should make the application process simpler. Further, the new system of temporary event notices should make it even easier to organise small community events. I tell the right reverend Prelate that we are already taking action that will help to make the sort of events that enhance village life rather easier.
We license the premises now and have done so for many years because they can be a source of nuisance for local residents when, for instance, discos are put on for young people in the area. They sometimes give rise to issues of crime and disorder and may have implications for public safety and the protection of children from harm.
The Bill continues the current scope of the licensing regime, but should make obtaining a licence easier. The real issue is the level of any licensing fee that is to be paid As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, the, Bill provides for the level of the fee to be set in regulations. It would be a very common occurrence in such Bills for regulation to deal with that sort of detail.
I hope that I can reassure the Committee that we are considering the issue, not only because we want to be popular, although that is always a nice bonus, but because we want to respond to some concerns.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: Does the Minister envisage that the regulations will allow different fees for different types of village halls in different areas? Communities vary a great deal, certainly in the part of rural Wales where I live and which I represented for a number of years in another place. Some village halls cater for minute communities, and raising substantial sums of money simply to pay the fee for such an occasion could well cripple them.
Baroness Blackstone: If the noble Lord had been in his place earlier, he would have heard me set out in great detail what the Government intend to do about fees. I will not repeat all that I said on what the different fees might be. If he hangs on a moment, I might give him the answer for which he hopes.
The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to set a reduced or, indeed, nil fee for categories of premises in the regulations. We are looking at the position of all the premises types covered by the amendment, with a view to trying to minimise the financial burden so far as we can. That may well involve waiving the fee altogether, although various issues obviously need to be considered.
358
The Government are committed to minimising the burden on such premises. We will make our position clear in due course. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her reply. I was particularly interested in her reference to the possibility of there being a nil fee in certain circumstances. I will suggest a perfect example in which a nil fee could be appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly emphasised the fact that there are different types of village halls in different areas, and some are more able to fund their activities than others. We must bear in mind that in many of our villages today, the village hall is all that is left in terms of a place in the community in which people can meet. The fact that so many pubs are closing in villages means that village halls are of paramount importance for sustaining community rural life.
I am grateful to Members of the Committee who supported the amendment, including the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I hear exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said: that perhaps it is not entirely necessary to raise this matter in terms of the amount of the fee, in view of the Minister's response to the previous amendment. However, this helpful debate has shown support among Members of the Committee for the importance of considering different types of premises that will attract a fee. The village hall is a classic and extremely important example of the type of premises that must surely come within that nil fee category. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 257:
Page 32, line 10, leave out "(other than section 50)"
The noble Baroness said: I put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, who is unfortunately unable to attend the House today, and I have agreed to speak on his behalf.
The amendment probes an interesting point. All applications in the Bill require a fee for which regulations will, we understand, provide. However, there appears to be one exception: that is, applications under Clause 50 for the review of premises licences. Will the Minister explain why that exception has been made?
I believe that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, in the amendment was to draw attention to the fact that an exception has been made that might encourage interested parties to call for a review on any pretext. That is only a suggestion; I should not want to accuse anyone of maliciously applying for a review on anything other than a valid basis. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for drawing our attention to the point. When an exception is made, it is only fair to ask for some illumination of the reasons that lie behind it. The review of an application will result in some expense, and that expense must be met. Is it so unfair to ask those who demanded the review to meet that expense? I am only probing the issue and look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: As I said earlier, fees will be set at a level that will allow licensing authorities to recover the costs of the licensing functions. However, we would not want fees to be extended to apply to applications for review, as the amendment would provide, because that may act as a disincentive to local residents to apply for a review where they feel that that is necessary on the grounds of the licensing objectives. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question. Also, it would not be reasonable to make the responsible authorities that ask for a review pay a fee essentially to fulfil their statutory duties. Applications for review, and any representations made on those applications, would be subject to the same requirements of relevance as other applications under the Bill.
Let me reassure the Committee that fees will be set at a level which will allow all licensing authorities to recover their costs, including the cost of a review. The system will be self-financing and there will be no potential for deficit for council tax payers to pick up. I hope that with that explanation, the amendment will be withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow: Have I understood the situation correctly? If the local pub down the road applies, I can ask for a review of that licence, however irresponsible that request may be. That need not necessarily be vexatious; that is pretty hard to prove. I could ensure that the pub owner ran to considerable expense to counter a situation that may turn out to be not vexatious but on the verge of being a vexatious objection. Why should he be forced to run to expense without any possibility of getting that back? I ask the Government to consider that. I thought of that point during the Minister's answer and I am trying to be helpful.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sure that the noble Earl is trying to be helpful. I said that any request for a review has to be relevant. If it were not relevant, the review would not be allowed. I believe that that answers the noble Earl's question.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her reply and appreciate that on a couple of occasions we have gone over the issues relating to fees. This is an important area and it is certainly worth exploring, as we have done. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Onslow for his intervention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 258 to 271 not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Duty to keep and produce licence]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 33, line 6, leave out "at the premises"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 276.
The amendments are intended to make life easier for the holder of the premises licence. As it stands, the Bill makes it obligatory for a copy of the original premises licence to be kept at the premises and to be produced on request. It must be appreciated that for many companies operating multiple sites, the original premises licences will be kept at head office, not at unit level. It appears very onerous for companies to have to obtain copies of the full licence for keeping at all sites. In the case of pub companies, that can mean thousands of outlets. In addition, the summary of the licence must in any case be displayed in each unit, just in case a constable or an authorised person asks to see it. A copy of the licence will always be available to the police and anyone else in the local authority through the registration process. Introducing a seven-day period in which to produce the full licence or a copy of it appears reasonable and is in line with the situation relating to driving licences. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I rise to speak to these amendments, to which I have added my name. I want to raise two issues with the Government. First—this issue has been raised in relation to earlier parts of the Bill—a premises supervisor can be responsible for more than one premises. The link between the premises supervisor and the premises itself therefore appears less important than it once was.
My second point is that, as the licences will in any event be on-line and thus available to the police for perusal, I cannot necessarily see the need for a document to be physically present at the premises, especially as that will cause an enormous amount of paperwork which has to be kept up to date. Of course, I am not saying that the premises licence would not be kept up to date, but it seems that we are moving away from a paper-based to a more on-line-based system. In the light of that, it would be as easy for the police to check the licence on-line as it would be to scrutinise the document.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The provisions in Clause 56 are designed to allow a constable or authorised person to check on the spot and on an ad hoc basis, when appropriate, whether the activities carried on at the premises are carried out in accordance with the premises licence. I fully recognise that a policeman might be checking whether a licence provides for the selling of alcohol beyond midnight. The summary document that is likely to be available at the public house would suffice and would meet that requirement.
However, I believe that the Committee will recognise that the licences which it is proposed will be issued under the legislation will, in many cases, be far more extensive than that. A policeman may go along to check whether particular rooms in an inn are being used according to the licence or whether children should be there at certain times. The question of whether the conditions of the licence, reflecting the extension of the opportunities we are providing to licensed premises, were being complied with would not be evident from the summary document but only from the main premises licence. We maintain that a

361
policeman would need to be able to check that at the time. If an abuse were occurring, he would need to put a stop to it immediately.
Lord Avebury: Presumably the police officer who was visiting the premises would have ascertained that beforehand by looking at the licence on-line so that he would know what he was coming to inspect.
Lord Davies of Oldham: That presumes that the policeman set out to do precisely that and had full knowledge of the potential offence. However, we are looking at circumstances in which, as part of their normal duties, the police inspect premises when a concern is raised. For example, they may just have received a complaint from local householders that the music in a pub is loud and offensive and causing great aggravation. The question is whether the pub has the appropriate licence to engage in that form of entertainment. If it has, it is possible that the policeman will ask for the windows to be closed or that he will make some other simple request. However, if the licensee is offending against the licence and has no right to engage in such an activity, the policeman must put a stop to the abuse. He can do so only if he is able to check the full text of the licence.
Members of the Committee are suggesting that every policeman has easy and immediate access to all on-line information. I am well aware that such access is used with regard to certain motoring offences at present, and I understand that it is not always used without distress because weaknesses appear in the records. But, in this case, a policeman may be acting precipitously to enforce the law, as he would be obliged to do, and he must operate on proper grounds. The only way that he can be assured of being on proper grounds is to check what the full licence of the premises contains. We maintain that comparing such a licence to a driving licence, which may be required to be submitted within seven days, would not enable immediate police enforcement to take place.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord reminds me of pre-war war Ministers defending the use of horsed cavalry. The licence is on-line. "Plod" is asked to check. He will check the licence before he checks the premises, otherwise he will say, "We think you might be doing something wrong. Can we see if you are by what your licence says?". The on-line facility is supposed to make life easier both for individuals and for enforcement authorities. Surely it is far more sensible to allow these matters to function with access to the on-line licence.
Presumably, when the policeman presses a button, up will come the line on his laptop computer carried in the police car—the police do have access to such equipment. If someone rings up and complains about noise, the police will say, for example, that it is a matter for the environmental health people or that the place where the noise is coming from does not have a licence. The alternative is to look for the licence, which will
362
have to be duplicated all over the place. I believe that it is possible for such work to be carried out electronically and not by horsed-cavalry means.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply. I listened carefully to what he said. Indeed, his response appeared to be entirely reasonable, although clearly Members of the Committee a re not completely satisfied with it. I shall take care to read what he said in Hansard and, for the moment, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 273:
Page 33, line 8, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) the premises supervisor"
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 273, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 274 and 275. These amendments are straightforward. Clause 56 deals with the duty to keep and produce the premises licence. As the Bill stands, the situation is confused. It introduces a person at the premises who has been nominated specifically to keep and produce the licence if required. That position seems to be superfluous. A specific designated premises supervisor has already been nominated; now we have a person whose only role is to produce the premises licence if required. There must even be a notice at the premises specifying the position of the latter individual.
Our amendment would simply remove the requirement for that individual and insert instead "the premises supervisor". Every premises already has someone in charge. Surely the easiest solution is if the individual—that is, the manager of the premises—holds the personal licence and has the job of producing the premises licence on demand. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that the Committee would not wish me to make my "designated premises supervisor" speech again. I do not believe that any new issues are raised by these amendments, other than those that we have already discussed. However, there is a new misunderstanding. The amendments would require all premises to designate a designated premises supervisor. Of course, designated premises supervisors are required only in the case of alcohol licences. Therefore, the amendments would be inappropriate for places of public entertainment or late-night refreshment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. Clearly this is another good reason why we should, as the Minister kindly suggested earlier, agree to have a meeting to discuss the whole issue of designated premises supervision. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 274 to 276 not moved.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
4 p.m.
Clauses 57 to 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [The general conditions]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 35, line 18, leave out "two days" and insert "48 hours"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 61 sets out the conditions that need to be complied with before premises can be counted as a club for the purposes of Part 4 of the Bill. One of the conditions is that the members of the club may not be admitted as members without an interval of at least two days between their nomination or application for membership and their admission. The reason for the two-day break is to ensure that the system is not abused by people simply turning up at the door of a club and being granted membership there and then. It thus enables the premises to be able to qualify as a club under Part 4. The clause reflects the existing legislation in relation to clubs.
The amendment proposes altering the words "two days" to "48 hours" so that the spirit of the legislation is met, namely by ensuring that there is a full two day break between the application for membership and the admission to membership. Otherwise, someone who applies for membership at 11.30 p.m. on a Tuesday and is admitted as a member just 25 hours later, at half past midnight on the Thursday, would qualify as a member for the purposes of Part 4. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My amendment, No. 309A, is grouped with Amendment No. 277. It relates to clubs and door supervision under Clause 72. Concern has been expressed about Clause 72(1) which refers to club premises certificates inevitably including a condition for door supervision. It states that each individual undertaking door supervision must be licensed by the Security Industry Authority. I do not believe that there is a problem with that latter part, but there is a concern that local authorities and the licensing requirements will increasingly require door supervision for all clubs. At present a club registration certificate does not include an equivalent requirement.
A number of clubs would argue that they are essentially private members' clubs, most of which are community social centres and have a restricted membership, for the reasons that have just been mentioned. Therefore, there is the risk that zealous local authorities will, over time, insist on door supervisors as a condition of maintaining a licence. That will impose on modest institutions, a number of which are under great competitive pressure from alternative leisure outlets, the expense and the complication of providing door supervisors. As I understand it, to date registered private members' clubs have been exempt from such requirements. I believe that it is worth teasing out an argument that in this limited area exemption should be and could be justifiably maintained.
Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, indicated in introducing her amendment, Clause 61 sets out the five conditions that
364
a club must satisfy to be a qualifying club and to be eligible for club premises certificates. The first of the five tests that a club has to pass is set out in subsection (2). That requires the minimum of two days between an application or nomination for membership and the commencement of such membership. She rightly identified why that is an important consideration. We have always insisted, and want to continue to insist, that club membership is not granted as instantaneous entry into premises, but that there is a decent interval between the application and the benefits of club membership.
The difference between us is marginal. Although the difference between two days and 48 hours does not appear to be much mathematically, there is a slight difference. The difference would be that someone who applied at 3 p.m. on a Monday afternoon would receive membership by Wednesday afternoon at 3 p.m. under the amendment of the noble Baroness, whereas under our proposal in the Bill the membership would not be granted until the next day, the Thursday.
We maintain that we should continue with arrangements to protect club membership that has operated satisfactorily for many years. The two-day requirement has lasted for many years. It is well attested to and it works without difficulty. We have not had substantial representations that it should be changed. The change proposed is on the margin. We believe that we are better advised to stay with the tried and tested formula, that people wait that extra time before they enjoy full membership. I have no great objection to the amendment but I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it because I do not see that it significantly advances the position.
With regard to Amendment No. 309A, Clause 72 is not the easiest clause in the Bill to understand. I acknowledge at once that the department's Explanatory Notes on it are less than accurate. The notes suggest that, in cases where premises are being used exclusively for the purposes of a qualifying club, and where the club premises certificate includes a condition that someone acts as a door supervisor or carries out some other specified security activity, the person appointed by the club does not have to be licensed by the Security Industry Authority. The amendment would make the Bill have just that effect. Therefore, I willingly concede that it appears only reasonable for the Government to accept it. However, I hope to persuade the Committee that on this occasion the Bill should stay as it is and that it is the Explanatory Notes that need amendment.
Under the Bill as drafted, it will be for the licensing authority to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a club premises certificate needs to include a door supervisor or other security activity condition. In many cases such a condition will plainly be unnecessary and the provisions of Clause 72 will never arise in the first place. However, in those cases where a security activity condition is judged to be necessary, it will be important that the person selected by the club is up to the job and can be relied upon to carry it out in a responsible way.

365
In general, it will be for the club to exercise its own judgment about whom to use, and rightly so. The club may want to ask one of its own members to supervise admission, even if that member does not hold an SIA licence. We see no problem with that. But where a club provides music and dancing, the door supervisor has to be licensed on the rationale that those are activities carrying the highest risk of certain matters going wrong.
It is important to be clear that the Bill is not saying that any club running a disco, however small or mild, must employ a door supervisor, let alone a door supervisor licensed by the SIA. The issue of SIA licensing will arise only if the club's premises certificate includes a condition requiring the club to use a door supervisor. If there is no such condition, or the club chooses to employ a door supervisor voluntarily, it will be free to make whatever arrangements it thinks best.
In that respect the Bill does no more than maintain the position established in the Private Security Industry Act 2001. I have sought to clear up what may be a misunderstanding based on our guidance notes. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment on the basis that what is in the Bill is reasonable and correct.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response to the amendment. I hear what he says about there not being necessarily a big difference between two days and 48 hours. In fact there is a difference. For example, Monday at 3 p.m. or 4 p.m. gives us only until Wednesday after midnight as a two-day period rather than a proper 48-hour period within which to have an opportunity to vet an application for club membership. Recently, that point was illustrated to me when I was a guest at a gaming club. It was interesting that so many of those entering that club and wishing to become members were not resident in this country. The club needed the time in order to vet the applicants properly.
So I hear what the Minister has said, but I shall consult the local authority which suggested the amendment to hear its view. On that basis, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 35, line 28, at end insert—
"(7) Nothing in the following condition applies to a club which restricts membership to persons of one sex.
(8) Condition 6 is that the club does not—

(a) in the case of a woman who is not a member, discriminate against her—

(i) in the terms on which it is prepared to admit her to membership; or

(ii) by refusing or deliberately omitting to accept her application for membership;

366

(b) in the case of a woman who is a member or associate of the club, discriminate against her—

(i) in the way it affords her access to any benefits, facilities or services, or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford her access to them;

(ii) in the case of a member, by depriving her of membership, or varying the terms on which she is a member;

(iii) in the case of a member, by offering her rights of participation in the governance of the club of lesser efficacy than a male member of the club;

(iv) in the case of an associate, by depriving her of her rights as an associate, or varying those rights;

(v) in the case of an associate, by offering her rights of participation in the governance of the club of lesser efficacy than a male associate of the club; or

(vi) in either case, by subjecting her to any other form of detriment; or

(c) in offering (whether for payment or not) goods, facilities or services to persons who are not members or associates of the club, discriminate against a woman who is not a member or associate of the club and who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services—

(i) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide her with any of them;

(ii) by refusing or deliberately omitting to provide her with goods, facilities or services of the like quality, in the like manner and on the like terms as are normal in this case in relation to a man who is not a member or associate of the club.

(9) The following are examples of the facilities and services mentioned in condition 6—

(a) access to and any use of any place where persons who are not members or associates of the club are permitted to enter;

(b) accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or other similar establishment;

(c) facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment;

(d) facilities for transport or travel.

(10) For the purposes of condition 6(a)—

(a) a person is a member of a club if he belongs to it by virtue of his admission to any sort of membership provided for by any constitution, rule, policy or practice of the club (and is not merely a person with certain rights by virtue of his membership of some other club) and reference; to membership of a club shall be construed accordingly;

(b) a person is an associate of a club if, not being a member of it, he has under or by its constitution, rule, policy or practice some or all of the rights enjoyed by members (or would have apart from any constitution, rule, policy or practice thereof authorising the refusal of those rights in particular cases).

367
(11) Nothing in condition 6 shall affect—

(a) the provision of separate facilities or services, or the separate use of facilities or services, for men and women, if the facilities or services are provided for, or are likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time and—

(i) the facilities or services are such, or those persons are such, that male users are likely to suffer serious embarrassment at the presence of a woman;

(ii) the facilities or services are such that a user is likely to be in a state of undress and a male user might reasonably object to the presence of a female user; or

(iii) the facilities or services are such that physical contact between the user and any other person is likely, and that other person might reasonably object if the user were a woman; or

(b) the provision of facilities or services restricted to men, or of separate facilities or services for men and women, if—

(i) the club exists for the purposes of an organised religion; and

(ii) such restrictions or use are maintained so as to comply with the doctrines of that religion or avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a substantial number of its followers."

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 278, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 279 and 280 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He sadly cannot be with us today, but I greatly look forward to the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, who will be speaking more than adequately on his behalf.
Those Members of the Committee who followed the progress of my Private Members' Bill in the previous Session will recognise the wording of the amendment. It follows the text of my Bill, which passed all stages in this House and went to another place. It is appropriate for the issue of sex discrimination in private members' clubs to be discussed in that context because it repeals Schedule 7 to the Licensing Act 1964, which deals with the governance of these clubs. That schedule states that the affairs of the club must be managed by one or more elective committees, and that there must be a general meeting of the club at least once in every year, for which the voting must be confined to members.
The Act goes on to say that all members entitled to use the club premises must be entitled to vote and must have equal voting rights. However, the rules may exclude from voting women if the club is primarily a men's club and men if the club is primarily a women's club.
Prior to the Second Reading debate I was advised by the Cabinet Office's Women and Equality Unit that the repeal of the Licensing Act 1964 would remove the discrimination contained in Schedule 7 to that Act, stemming from the use of the word "primarily". It told me that the Bill therefore represented a step forward.
I spoke to that effect at Second Reading and it was on that basis that I tabled my amendment for consideration today.
The amendment also seeks to address the issue of club facilities, dealing with matters such as women being barred from the snooker room or being made to play golf only at times when the men do not want to.
However, it now appears that the situation is not as straightforward as I or the Women and Equality Unit believed. The Bill, by repealing Schedule 7 of the Licensing Act 1964, removes the permitted discrimination by the use of the word "primarily", but it puts nothing whatever in its place. So I should apologise to the Committee for inadvertently misleading the Chamber at Second Reading.
However, I was not alone in not appreciating that instead of representing a modest step forward in providing a better deal for women as to how they are treated in private members' clubs, the Bill makes possible a step backwards to a worse situation where women are discriminated against to a greater extent than at present in the governance of clubs. I cannot believe that that is what my noble friend Lady Blackstone wishes. She has a distinguished record in combating sex discrimination in private members' clubs, as indeed does the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on the Benches opposite, who supported my Private Members' Bill on the subject in the previous Session, and who, I am pleased to see has put her name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
While obviously I have no intention of pressing my amendment to a vote today, I hope to hear from my noble friend that the Government will agree to amendments at a later stage that will do what I, and I believe most noble Lords, seek to achieve. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Lester, who, as the Committee has already heard, regrettably cannot be in the Chamber today and offers his abject apologies.
The amendments are reasonable and progressive. They are similar to those passed in the Equal Status Act by the Irish Parliament. There is no difference in principle between the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and our amendments.
Amendment No. 279 seeks to ensure that, where a club offers membership to women, it must do so on equal terms with men as a condition of receiving a licence. That includes women taking an equal part in the governance of the club. It also includes women not being excluded from certain parts of the club or any facilities that are available to men.
The amendment allows for the continuance of single-sex clubs as it applies only to clubs offering membership or associate membership to both men and women. A club can choose to maintain its status as a single-sex club, but where it chooses to permit both

369
sexes it should do so on equal terms. This issue is not just about voting rights. Amendment No. 279 inserts the condition of giving fair notice that a club does not discriminate, but it does not apply to single-sex clubs. It does nothing to violate the privacy of all-male or all-female clubs.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may say a few words on the amendment, having spoken on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on a previous occasion. The noble Lord rightly flagged up this amendment when he spoke at Second Reading. He somewhat—dare I say—misleadingly suggested that he had support from all sides of the Chamber and that there had not been much in the way of objection to his measure at that time. He will remember that in fact there was considerable objection to his measure. There was objection from his own Benches, from the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. There were objections from some elements on the Liberal Democrat Benches—the few Liberals who remain, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and possibly the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. There were objections from people such as myself and my noble friend—
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I have been a Liberal all my life and intend to remain one until I die.
Lord Henley: On a previous occasion I accused the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, of being illiberal. He asked me on that occasion what I knew about the Liberal Party. I pointed out that I had been a Member of the Liberal Party and that my father had been president of that great party. I was somewhat doubtful whether the Liberal Democrat Party still adhered to the same liberal traditions that the old Liberal Party used to stick to. I make that point merely as an aside. The point I wanted to make was that not everyone was thoroughly behind the views of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
I want only to make a few brief points at this stage because I am very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has no intention of pressing the amendment to a vote at this stage. Perhaps we can discuss the matter at some later stage following what we hear from the Government.
I ought to make two or three points. As this is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill I ought to declare an interest as a member of various clubs, some of which might be affected by such a measure. First, I understand that the Bill is designed to be a deregulatory Bill. As I understand the amendment it is very much regulatory and therefore it would not be appropriate to include it in the Bill. I would hope therefore that the Minister can assure us that the Government, whatever their views of the merits or otherwise of the amendment, will say that this is not the appropriate place to insert such a provision in the legislation.
The second simple point I make is that, though a member of the Conservative Party, as one who still deeply believes in all good liberal principles, I believe
370
that this a matter that should be left to the clubs themselves. They can decide who should be members of their clubs and how they run themselves. There are strong rules about freedom of association. It is a matter for the clubs to decide how they deal with these matters themselves.
The last point I wish to put to the Minister concerns the current licensing law. Recently, there was a case of a Conservative club—I believe it was, although it may have been a golf club—that was affected by re-licensing when the licensing author ties—the magistrates, I assume—insisted that it refrain from some allegedly discriminatory activities. Were those magistrates acting within the law—I understand that the club in the end complied—or did they exceed their powers under the 1964 Act? Would it have been more proper for the Crown—again, this is a matter for the Crown—to have challenged that in the courts, or do the Government have a view about whether the licensing authorities had power to behave in that manner?
Lord Borrie: My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester is to be congratulated on his ingenuity in framing not only these amendments but earlier ones in which he has sought to amend the Bill with the objectives—worthy, no doubt—of protecting employees and children from the passive effects of smoking or of reducing unjustified discrimination against women, which, to my mind, are beyond the purpose of the Bill.
When responding to the amendment concerning smoking many weeks ago—whenever it was that the Committee began—my noble friend Lady Blackstone emphasised that the purposes of the licensing regime should be clearly focused on public safety and the prevention of disturbance or disorder. The focus of Part 4 is clearly the same. Hence the requirement for clubs to be established and conducted in good faith, the need for various rules about people being members before they are allowed in and restrictions on the supply of alcohol. Adding conditions forbidding any discrimination against women would be wholly extraneous.
Amendment No. 278, tabled by my noble friend Lord Faulkner, makes clear in ways that the other amendment does not that it does not apply to single-sex clubs, such as the Garrick Club —I declare an interest as a member—or other St James' clubs, some of which are still men-only, or working men's clubs up and down the country, a few of which still do not allow any form of membership to women. Under Amendment No. 278, they could continue to discriminate against women. Indeed, another club, to which some of my lady friends belong, the Sloane Club, could continue to restrict membership to women.
We all know that many clubs in all those categories—and golf clubs, to which my noble friend briefly referred—allow some form of membership, sometimes called associate membership, to women. Often, women receive the quid pro quo of a lower subscription for reduced facilities and, one may say, a

371
reduced role in the governance of the club. What I shall say about the amendment—which shows that I thoroughly dislike it in principle, even if it were not struggling to get within a Bill in which it does not really belong—is that it interferes with private relationships in private clubs and the governance of those clubs in a way that has nothing to do with good order or public safety and, in any case, has a dubious basis in principle.
For example, if a bar in a club is open to male members only, under the amendment it would have to be opened to women members at all times and on exactly the same terms. If women guests are admitted to those clubs at all, condition 6 at subsection (8)(c) of my noble friend's amendment provides that if women are not admitted to all facilities, they must be admitted to the same facilities as are male guests. If we consider working men's clubs—I owe a debt to my noble friend Lord Faulkner, who, during debates last year on the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill supplied many interesting facts and figures about them—60 per cent of them now have some form of membership for women, be it called associate membership or whatever. If the amendment were carried, they would be forced to return to being men-only, because they simply do not have the facilities and number of rooms that would be required under it.
The only exemptions allowed by the noble Lord's amendment are for lavatories and changing rooms, which would continue to be separate. I admit that there is a broader exemption if clubs exist for the purpose of a religion whose doctrines require that men and women should be separate. However, a mere inclination on the part of men to drink only with other men, not in the presence of women, would be absolutely forbidden. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, spoke, is basically as objectionable, although it may not cover mere guests—I am not too clear about that.
Under Amendment No. 280, instead of allowing male-only clubs such as the Garrick to continue as they are, as would the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would introduce a much more subtle test that will be great for lawyers, because it mentions the objectives of the club and,
"the essential character of the association".
I shall not read out now, as I did during debate on the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill promoted by my noble friend Lord Faulkner, the objectives of the Garrick Club, which were set out in 1831. As one would imagine, they concerned promoting the appreciation of drama and the arts in general and said absolutely nothing about it being for men only. Of course, the assumption of the club's founders was that it would be for men only: they did not need to state that. But how that would be interpreted by the courts today if—an awful prospect—the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, Amendment No. 279, were carried, I do not know.
372
I end simply by saying that freedom of association is one of the great freedoms of which we are surely all in favour. That must include the notion of mixing with those people that we want to on this or that occasion—for drinking or playing snooker. If that excludes women on the one hand or men on the other, so be it. In private clubs, that freedom should continue.
Lord Monson: As on previous occasions, I support the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his advocacy of genuine liberalism. It therefore follows that I support what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said. Moreover, perhaps I may point out that Amendment No. 278, as distinct from the other two amendments in the group, is positively sexist. It would hit mainly male clubs that treat women differently in one or more ways, but would not touch mainly female clubs that treat men differently in one or more ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, may argue that such clubs do not exist, to which I would say, first, "How can he be so sure?" and, secondly, even if they do not, "What is to prevent them coming into existence in future?". I suggest that the amendment is defective on those grounds alone.
Viscount Falkland: I had not intended to speak on this subject, but as my name has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I broadly agree with the views expressed by him, my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, especially with regard to single-sex clubs. That matter has been satisfactorily resolved, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I do not want his remarks to leave the Committee with the suspicion that I am, in any way, a chauvinist pig, in taking that line.
For the guidance of the Committee, I must amplify some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. There would be practical difficulties for golf clubs, were the amendment to be incorporated. I am in favour of golf clubs treating men and women entirely equally, as they do in France, Belgium and many other European countries.
The Earl of Onslow: Nonsense!
Viscount Falkland: The noble Earl shouts, "Nonsense!". I am not sure why.
The Earl of Onslow: It has something to do with English culture, in which we have men-only clubs. The idea that the French should have men-only clubs would be laughed out of court.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: I thank the noble Earl for that. I was going to lead on to the cultural point.
Golf clubs have some practical difficulties. I belong to a leading golf club, which hosts the Women's Open championship. The men and women members of the club get on well, although the women are all associate

373
members. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, they pay a significantly reduced subscription for that membership. When the subject was introduced in the club, women members were asked to vote on whether they wanted any change in the situation that prevailed, in which they paid a lower subscription and enjoyed fewer— not significantly fewer—rights than men. Between 95 and 97 per cent voted against change. Noble Lords may say that they had their eye on the lower subscription. I do not take that cynical view.
The men's changing room in a golf club often adjoins a bar. The position of the changing room requires the bar to be a men's bar. There will be a separate mixed bar, where men and women members meet. That may not be a satisfactory situation, but if we were to change it, the expense to golf clubs of doing the necessary restructuring work could put many of them out of business. Everybody would be worse off.
Although I have great sympathy with what, I think, lies behind the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, that we will, in the future, have a fairer system for the sexes, there are practical difficulties. Making the amendment would create enormous alarm among golf clubs.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the intentions behind all three amendments. I have listened to the debate with considerable amusement, as well as interest. However, what has been said reflects the debate that we had on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, which has since been passed. Like others, I thought that that debate took fully into consideration the question of single-sex clubs allowing certain things to happen.
There is an obvious ambivalence—even hostility, in some respects—to any debate about single-sex clubs. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made some fascinating comments about the difficulties for golf clubs, but I have heard such comments about almost every other proposition. With regard to employment law, people said that women could not be allowed in because of where the men's loos were. I am not impressed by such arguments.
I am sad to say that I support the intention behind the amendments because of that ambivalence. It is important that the Minister consider the intention of the amendments and bring us back something that we can all accept in the Bill. We still have a long way to go on the subject. To most fair-minded people—I do not deny the intellectual rigour of those who have spoken on the other side—it is sad that we go on arguing in this way about single-sex clubs.
The Earl of Onslow: I am a member of the Garrick and of the Beefsteak, and I am seriously old-fashioned on this subject. Today, I am wearing a Household Brigade tie. It would entitle me to be a member of the Cavalry and Guards Club, which I am not. The condition for membership of the Cavalry and Guards Club is that one must have served in one of the Brigade of Guards regiments, the Household Cavalry or the line cavalry regiments. However, someone such as Vanessa Lloyd-Johns, who was doctor to the
374
Household Cavalry Regiment in London, should be entitled to membership of the Cavalry and Guards Club. The point is that the condition for membership of that club is that one has achieved a certain thing.
I know that there was a frightful row in the Oxford and Cambridge Club, although I am too stupid to have gone to university. They said that women could not join the Oxford and Cambridge Club. That is silly, if the condition for membership of a club is that one must have a degree from Oxford or have served in a cavalry regiment. A woman who has served in a cavalry regiment—an Amazon—or a woman who holds a degree from Oxford or Cambridge should be entitled to be a member of the relevant club.
If we boring fellows want to get together to go on being Neanderthal and doing all the things that uncultured northern Anglo-Saxon Protestants like doing in the Garrick—including meeting the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—we should be allowed to do so, without outside let or hindrance. After all, it is possible for there to be bodies such as the Black Police Officers Association or the Black Lawyers Association. I know that it is outside the scope of this Bill, but it would be fun to think what might happen if someone were to say that there should be a White Lawyers Association or a White Police Federation. All Hell would break loose. We old-fashioned, Neanderthal male chauvinist piggies should be allowed occasionally to get together and enjoy the company of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Baroness Buscombe: I have added my name to two of the amendments. Before I speak to them, however, I must correct the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. The Sloane Club admits men and women. My husband is an ex-member of the Sloane Club, and—believe me—he is all man. Secondly, I welcome any opportunity in any Bill to confront all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex, but, on these Benches, we are not interested in supporting any amendment that interferes with single-sex clubs. That is not what this is about.
The Committee will notice that I have not added my name to Amendment No. 278. That is because, like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I agree with the spirit behind the amendment, but it appears to me, having read it closely, that the amendment discriminates against men. That is why my name is not attached to it. None the less, I understand entirely the spirit in which the noble Lord tabled the amendment.
The other amendments—those in my name and the name of the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond—make it clear that the preferential treatment for qualifying clubs does not apply to single-sex clubs. If a club wants to have preferential treatment, there must be no sex discrimination. If a club wishes to practise sex discrimination, it should not be entitled to be treated as a qualifying club and must apply for a premises licence like the proprietor of any proprietary club. Parliament is not interfering with how such clubs operate. It will merely deny them preferential

375
treatment if they give preferential treatment to one sex or another. Surely there can be nothing objectionable in that.
With all due respect to noble Lords who have raised the question of associate membership, to suggest that there should be some form of discrimination is feeble. I was proud to resign my membership of the Carlton Club. I was admitted as an associate member on the ground of gender. My husband was not a member but had access to many parts of the club to which I did not on the ground that he was a man. If members wish to retain the associate membership, why not offer associate membership to men as well as women?
Lord Burnham: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. Is she prepared to agree that the male associate member would pay one tenth of a full membership subscription?
Baroness Buscombe: I accept that entirely. If a lady is offered associate membership at a reduced fee, it is right that the male associate member should pay, therefore, a reduced fee. That would probably be the purpose of the associate membership rather than on the ground of gender.
The debate revisits the numerous debates on the Private Member's Bill introduced during the last Session by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. In some ways it is amusing but in other respects somewhat depressing. We are in the 21st century. To hear noble Lords saying that it is acceptable slowly to introduce women into a male environment is deeply depressing. I hope that the Government will take this sensible opportunity to outlaw, if I may put it that strongly, in a way which is not regulatory, these ridiculous forms of discrimination.
The Earl of Onslow: I believe that the noble Baroness was right to resign from the Carlton Club. A condition for becoming a member of the club is that one is a loyal supporter of the Conservative Party. That should now count practically everyone out of membership. But that is another story altogether; it is nothing to do with gender.
When we old codgers want to get together, it has nothing to do with achievement. It is just men wanting to get together and being boring, but some of us like that. My noble friend makes a very different point. She may be surprised and, I hope, gratified that on that issue I completely agree with her.
Lord Burnham: I am very interested in what my noble friend says. However, perhaps she will take this opportunity to correct her remark during debate on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that it was Conservative Party policy to be in favour of that Bill and of this amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: In response to my noble friend Lord Onslow, I said at the outset that we are not against single-sex clubs. Whether they are all male or
376
all female is fine. I stated that during debate on the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
Speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, what I have said today to the best of my knowledge remains Conservative Party policy.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Quite a chasm has opened up in Committee with regard to this series of amendments. In responding, perhaps I may seek to build a bridge to the other side.
I have enormous sympathy for the thinking which lies behind the amendments. The noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Faulkner, will recall that on behalf of the Government my noble friend Lady Scotland welcomed a Private Member's Bill introduced in the last Session. The Government will continue to keep the matter under positive review.
I have no time for those clubs which do not offer their members, whether men or women, good facilities on a fair and equal basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, indicated that that was her view. I know that some clubs continue to operate what can be described only as a second-class membership for women, or do not allow women to use some parts of the premises or to use them only at certain times. I agree with the noble Baroness. This is no way to operate in the 21st century. I am a keen golfer and the golfing world has to adjust to the changing circumstances. Many golf clubs are doing so. I hope that that will be recognised as an important step forward.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and my noble friend Lord Borrie in their contentions that the Bill is neither the proper place to tackle these issues nor the best way to do so. If I have understood the logic of the amendments, it is that we should not allow clubs which discriminate between the sexes to benefit from the club premises certificate regime. They should instead be subject to the normal premises licensing regime. This might encourage them to think again about their membership and other policies. I think that that is a rather oblique way of going about the matter.
I am not persuaded that we should accept the amendments for three specific reasons. First, the proposed amendments would not make sex discrimination in clubs unlawful but would introduce an additional requirement for the grant of a club premises certificate. The result of discrimination by the club will be that all the club members, including the person discriminated against, are deprived of the advantages of the club's certificate while no appropriate remedy will have been given to the person discriminated against. It would be a gesture rather than an effective remedy to discrimination.
Secondly, because the amendments are aimed at the wrong target—the grant of a certificate rather than a remedy for the discrimination—they do not make sufficiently clear the precise circumstances in which discrimination will lead to a refusal. For example,

377
would a single past incident of discrimination, perhaps perpetrated by one particular member of staff at the club, override the future intentions of the club management who might express themselves in different terms? We should be faced with uncertainty and inconsistency. That would not be right in law.
Thirdly, the proposed provisions would not apply to the many thousands of clubs which do not have or seek to obtain a certificate to sell alcohol or to provide regulated entertainment. It is simply a licensing Bill with regard to alcohol and entertainment. Yet exactly the same considerations apply, quite properly, to discrimination in all clubs, wherever it occurs apart from single-sex clubs. Here we are only talking about clubs involved in alcohol sale or entertainment.
I make clear that I am not saying that discrimination in the provision of services or in the rules of admission to clubs does not need attention. I argue that it needs to be considered as part of legislation on sex discrimination or on clubs and not in a Bill about licensing. That would be an ineffectual way of addressing the matter as a club could simply evade the issue by applying for a normal premises licence.
I should like it to be clear that I appreciate that the amendments have been carefully thought through and crafted. I pay due regard to that fact and pay tribute to the skills with which the amendments have been presented. They do not therefore give rise to the normal objections and considerations of religious sensitivities. That is all included in the amendments.
However, this is not the Bill in which these skilful amendments ought to be addressed. The issues need to be discussed and debated. I think that my noble friend Lord Faulkner recognises that. He clearly set out to create a Bill that received the assent of the House, and which dealt with the issue of discrimination in the necessary breadth. The problem with regard to a Licensing Bill is that there is a very narrow focus for dealing with the issue of discrimination.
To sum up, I appreciate the thinking behind the amendments. I am ready to accept that discrimination in clubs is something which needs further attention. The Bill provides for club membership certificates. Clause 61 sets about defining the principal characteristics of a club to prevent abuse of the system. Whatever we may think of them, the type of clubs which have been described today are nevertheless clubs. They have not been set up deliberately to evade licensing laws. We are talking of bona fide clubs which have, in the past, enjoyed the benefits of licenses. Certainly, some clubs could do with some prompting to change their ways. Perhaps this debate will assist in those terms. This is not the legislation which needs to be changed in order to force the issues on the clubs.
However, I hope that some aspects of real concern will be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, as well as other noble Lords speaking to the amendment, said that we may be in danger of taking a step backwards because Schedule 7 to the 1964 Licensing Act is subject to repeal under this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to a case. As he did not specify which case I am unable to form a judgment,
378
except to say that I recognise that there has been at least one case where the magistrates, under Schedule 7 to the 1964 Licensing Act, made a judgment of refusing a licence because they regarded the rules of the club as not meeting the requirements consistent with no discrimination.
I say to my noble friend who proposed the amendment that we shall look at this issue further. We shall be prepared to meet with him and his colleagues who wish to make representations on these matters to see whether we can, at a later stage, introduce an amendment in order to guarantee that the one thing we do not do is step backwards rather than make further progress. On that basis, I hope that we have enjoyed a vigorous and interesting debate, but largely out with the provisions of the Licensing Bill. I hope that the noble Lords proposing the amendments will feel free to withdraw them.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: The Committee will be relieved to know that I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments which we debated at some length during the passage of the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill in the last Session. However, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. even though some arguments were rather familiar.
I am particularly grateful for the final comments of the Minister who has accepted that the Bill, as it stands at present, removes the element of the 1964 Act which deals with the governance of private members clubs. I accept with gratitude his offer to discuss possible amendments that can be brought forward at a later stage to ensure that the Bill does not drive us further back to the dark ages. I suspect that one or two of your Lordships may wish to do that in the case of private members clubs, although I am sure not the great majority. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 279 not moved.]
Clause 61 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 280 not moved.]
Clauses 62 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 281 to 299 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Other definitions relating to clubs]:
[Amendments Nos. 299A and 299B not moved.]
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Application for club premises certificate]:
[Amendments Nos. 300 to 303 not moved.]
Lord Clarke of Hampstead Lord Clarke of Hampstead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 304:
Page 41, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) the maximum capacity of the premises,"
The noble Lord said: I apologise for rushing into the Chamber late. I was attending the Select Committee on Religious Offences. I need a couple of seconds to

379
gather the relevant papers on this amendment, which I believe deals with the number of days for the application. Is that correct?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood): For the assistance of the noble Lord, this amendment has already been debated.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: In that case, I humbly apologise to the Committee. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 304 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 305 not moved.]
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Determination of application for club premises certificate]:
[Amendments Nos. 306 to 309 not moved.]
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Mandatory conditions: door supervision]:
[Amendment No. 309A not moved.]
Clause 72 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 310 not moved.]
Clauses 73 and 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Grant or rejection of application for club premises certificate]:
[Amendments Nos. 311 to 313 not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clauses 76 to 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Application to vary club premises certificate]:
[Amendment No. 314 not moved.]
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Determination of application under section 82]:
[Amendments Nos. 315 to 317 not moved.]
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Supplementary provision about applications under section 82]:
[Amendment No. 318 not moved.]
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Application for review of club premises certificate]:
[Amendments Nos. 319 and 320 not moved.]
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 [Determination of application for review]:
[Amendments Nos. 321 to 326 not moved.]
Clause 86 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 87 [Supplementary provision about review]:
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 327:
Page 50, line 23, leave out "premises licence" and insert club premises certificate"
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend. It is a minor amendment seeking to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. It will amend Clause 87 so that it applies, as it should, to a "club premises certificate" and not to a "premises licence". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Fees]:
[Amendments Nos. 328 to 334 not moved.]
Clause 90 agreed to.
Clauses 91 to 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [The relevant licensing authority]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 335:
Page 55, line 6, leave out "each of those authorities" and insert "whichever of the authorities is agreed by those authorities unanimously to be the relevant authority, or if no such agreement is reached—

(i) the licensing authority in whose area the greater or greatest part of the premises is situated, or

(ii) if there is no authority to which paragraph (a) applies, such one of those authorities as is nominated in accordance with subsection (2)"

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 336.
Clause 97 makes provision in regard to the terms under which licensing authorities would be responsible for the granting of a licence if premises straddle the border of two or more licensing authorities.
As it stands, the Bill provides that the licensing authority in which the greater part of the premises are situated would be the "relevant licensing authority". If it is impossible to establish which of the licensing authorities is the relevant one under that criterion, the applicant would be able to choose which authority he preferred.
This provision does not reflect current arrangements in respect of public entertainment licensing. There is a shining example in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in respect of Earls Court, which straddles the boundary with Hammersmith and Fulham. At present, there is an agreement between the two boroughs that Kensington and Chelsea should deal with public entertainment licensing in Earls Court. The amendment would enable similar arrangements between councils to continue. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is true that there is a change here between what we are proposing and what happens now. The reason for that is that the existing requirements for having a licence are fairly onerous; therefore, it would be onerous for the applicant to have to go to more than one local authority. In the Bill we reduce the temporary notice to an absolute minimum. It is merely a notification. Under those circumstances it seems to be virtually no burden for it to go to more

381
than one authority at the same time. In that way there is the minimum level of protection which is required for local people and yet no significant burden on the applicant. I hope that under those circumstances the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I hear what he says. His response seems adequate in relation to the proposal in the amendment. However, I should like to take the opportunity to ensure that local authorities are content with his response. On that basis, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 336 not moved.]
Clause 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Temporary event notice]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 337:
Page 55, line 10, leave out "72" and insert "168"
The noble Baroness said: We now come to an important subject; namely, temporary event notices.
The Bill currently limits the period of any licensable temporary event to 72 hours. By this rationale, an event— for example, a music festival—lasting longer than the envisaged three days were to be organised, a full premises licence would be required.
My objection is that there are many such music festivals, most of which happen only once a year. One thinks of the Glastonbury festival, or the perhaps more savoury music and jazz festivals in many towns throughout Britain. Examples would be the Ludlow festival in Shropshire. or the Aldeburgh festival in Suffolk. It seems perverse to state that these temporary events do not fall into the "temporary event" category because they last longer than the requisite 72 hours. Surely this is hardly proof of the flexibility of the Bill or of the concern that the Government vow they have for the fostering of cultural and musical entertainment.
The Committee will note that Amendment No. 338 stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, who unfortunately is unable to be in his place today. I agreed to add my name to the amendment. In referring to the amendment, I should state the noble Lord's interest—as I should probably have done in relation to previous amendments standing in his name. I believe that he is an organiser of large events at Knebworth House. I beg to move.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: In the spirit of trying to finish this long Committee stage as quickly as possible, I shall be brief. Amendment No. 339 is straightforward and seeks to extend the number of working days required for a temporary event notice to be considered from 10 to 28.
Anyone who has had any dealings with local authorities will know the pressure they are under when people go on leave or are sick. Ten days is unreasonable. There are 30 separate requirements under the clause and it is totally unreasonable to require a local authority officer or his department to
382
deal with temporary event notices within 10 working days. I commend Amendment No. 339 to the Committee.
Lord Crickhowell: I should not be here at all. The consultant who was looking after me in the London Clinic earlier today told me that I was to go straight home because I have been anaesthetised for some investigatory processes. But I wanted to come to the House and speak to this matter and I hope that I am not so incoherent that I cannot make my points.
The only previous occasion on which I have taken part in debates on the Bill was when we discussed the issue of events taking place in churches and schools. That seems quite a long time ago. I know that the Government are reconsidering their position on churches. I spoke then, as I speak today, because of my interest in musical and charitable events.
After the debate on churches, I received a letter from Lady Digby, who, for something like 30 years, has organised the Dorset Music Festival—an event of enormous importance and of the very highest standard—which takes place largely, although not entirely, in country houses. She expressed her great concern about the legislation with which we are confronted because she feels that it will make it extremely difficult in future to hold such an event.
Many of the concerts are held at Mintern, the home of Lord and Lady Digby, but also at other country houses in Dorset. The whole business of having to go to people and say, "We want you to hold a music event in your house but, by the way, you will have to go through a licensing procedure and perhaps have people looking at the premises and deciding that this and that is not suitable", will not make the holding of such events easier.
When I drew this aspect of the matter—which we did not debate on the previous occasion—to the attention of my noble friend who is moving the amendment, she pointed out that this particular clause in the Bill is highly relevant because, in many cases, such events would be subject to a temporary events licence. On looking at the clause, however, some of my concerns still exist for the reasons my noble friend has outlined.
It is true in the case of the Dorset Music Festival that, as it is spread over the summer, 72 hours may be enough to cover a couple of concerts held at a weekend. But I can think of music festivals, charitable events and other events arranged by a number of organisations in country houses and places of that kind which may last a week. The main locations at the Aldeburgh Festival, which has been referred to by my noble friend, will no doubt be licensed anyway, but many of its performances are held in churches and some in private premises.
I know of one individual in the West Country who is most generous in making his house available for charity events, but I am not sure what will happen to events of this kind when the Bill comes back at Report stage. I am unlikely to be in the country at that time to deal with the amendments in regard to the churches

383
and any thoughts which come forward on that issue, but I strongly support the amendment which seeks to extend the duration from 72 hours.
We should be encouraging events of this kind; certainly we should not be discouraging them. At a time when the Government have expressed an interest in supporting the upkeep of country houses—huge burdens of expense are incurred in keeping them open—they may well be holding events themselves which are entirely appropriate in order to strengthen the financial position of such houses.
We should not support legislation which makes the holding of such highly desirable events much more difficult or even impossible. I have only recently turned my attention to these amendments—indeed, I have spoken to my noble friend about them only within the past 48 hours—and it may be that, on their own, they are not quite enough and that we will need to come back and look again at the issue. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say. I am sure that they do not want to obstruct the holding of important musical and charitable events of this kind and will want to give them the maximum flexibility. I warmly support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Colwyn: I congratulate my noble friend Lord Crickhowell on being so steady on his feet. We should give credit to his anaesthetist. Having worked at events such as these over many years, I also support the amendment. It seems sensible that when a lot of money is spent putting up temporary structures the licence should last for longer than three days; it should be extended to a week. That would be sensible and the Government should give the matter serious thought.
Lord Monson: I, too, support these liberalising amendments, in particular Amendment No. 363A, bearing in mind that they are to some extent counterbalanced by Amendment No. 341 in this group and Amendment No. 340 in the next group. If these amendments are agreed, they would be a necessary counter-balance.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I hope the Committee will forgive me for speaking again. I have been dilatory in looking at the grouping—I did not speak to all the amendments in the group—and perhaps I may take a little time to refer to them.
In addition to our concern about the time period for a temporary event, we are also concerned about the reference in the clause to the number of people allowed to attend such an event being less than 500. Amendment No. 338, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, seeks to address that concern.
It is not unlikely that a temporary event may be organised which would expect to attract more than 500 people. We should like to know why the figure of 500
384
has been picked as a cut-off point. We realise that the attendance of a large crowd of people may cause additional concern in regard to public safety. We appreciate that it was felt that there should be some upper limit. But we wish to probe the Government on their choice of 500, which we believe may constrain the organisation of many temporary events in the future.
Amendments Nos. 363 and 366 are very important. We believe that the restrictions and conditions in Clause 98 will have a decidedly negative effect on the performance and organisation of temporary events which are a focus of community life in this country.
As to Amendment No. 363, sites such as community halls host temporary events more frequently than five times a year. I recall saying at Second Reading that my local village hall in Goring and Streatley would come to a standstill by February because we have events there every night. In circumstances where it would not be proportionate to require a full premises licence, there may be exceptions where one is required. However, allowing only five events a year would be very restrictive for many premises. It seems a very low limit. Our proposed extension to 30 a year is sensible, reasonable and reflects our desire to encourage and facilitate temporary events.
Amendment No. 366 is desirable in a different way. It concentrates on subsection (7), which addresses the minimum time limit before the beginning of a temporary event within which a counter notice may be issued by the licensing authority. The Bill states that, until 24 hours before an event is due to begin, a counter notice may be issued prohibiting that event from taking place. That would be not only disruptive but a potential disaster for event organisers. It would leave only a day to cancel arrangements which may have been made a long time in advance and to notify those who had planned to perform at, or attend, the event. Temporary events may be organised at short notice, which is probably why the period of 24 hours was chosen. Amendment No. 366 proposes an extension of the 24-hour minimum period to 72 hours as, we believe, a fair compromise between event organisers and attendees, and the licensing authority.
Amendment No. 363A is also included in this group. I apologise for returning to these points. Clause 105 imposes a limit as regards temporary event notices. It provides that a licensing authority must issue a counter notice: first, if the premises user is a personal licence holder who has already given 50 temporary event notices in the same calendar year; secondly, if the premises user does not hold a personal licence but has already given five temporary events in the same calendar year; or, thirdly, if five temporary event notices have been given in respect of the same premises in that year.
We take issue with the third restriction. It would create enormous difficulties for village halls, whose income depends on the hiring out of the premises for events that might include licensable activities. Noble Lords will also note that I have another amendment to this subsection. It would permit village halls to have 30 events involving licensable activities a year. On

385
reflection, that modest amendment is not sufficient for village halls and similar buildings. Thirty events a year is simply not enough for village halls, so we urge this amendment on your Lordships also.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendments in this group would have a mutually contradictory effect. That is not the fault of those who moved them, but the result of how the grouping was done. Let me repeat our aim as regards temporary event notices. We are trying to identify those applicants and events that are so rare or modest as not to be licensable activities. Many events will benefit because they are licensable activities already, and therefore the requirement to provide a temporary notice is a good deal lighter than what happens now. That is the intention of the Bill. The "light touch" system is to benefit those who do not generally engage in the business of carrying on licensable activities—that is to say, those who do not have a personal licence—by allowing them, for example, to hold a fundraising event in a hall without a premises licence.
When we discussed the early part of the Bill, noble Lords expressed a huge number of fears about new events coming into the scope of licensing. We are now making it clear that many of those fears were unjustified. In other words, the temporary event notice is a simple way of providing the minimum notification, if you like, for events of this kind, which ought not to concern bureaucracy. But there must be a certain number of safeguards, and we need to protect the system from abuse by unscrupulous people who might seek to evade the licensing system. So, we have set limits.
First, as referred to in Amendment No. 338, we have set a limit of 500 people. In our consultation, some people wanted the limit to be higher; others wanted it to be lower. I do not think that anyone suggested that it be taken away entirely, because events of more than 500 people—particularly those with significantly more—are of a size close to events that cause disturbance; for example, raves. I do not know how many of Lord and Lady Digby's concerts or performances involve more than 500 people. I suspect that few houses in Britain could accommodate more than 500 people.
Lord Crickhowell: I dealt with the point about duration, which is much more important. However, as someone who has suffered from raves, I accept that there must be a limit, and that a limit may be useful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Then, I can divide and rule among the proponents of these amendments. We must find a figure. Five hundred may not be exactly the right one, but the police and others have suggested that it is a reasonable figure. Additional protection in Clause 158 gives the police the power to close down for up to 24 hours premises for which a temporary event notice has been given and a temporary licence granted, where they are a source of noise, nuisance or disorder likely to threaten public safety. We hope that that will
386
not happen often, but it is a tool in controlling events such as raves. There are other more administrative limits to prevent abuse of the scheme.
However, we think that temporary licences should be just that: temporary. We stipulate 72 hours. That covers, for example, a whole bank holiday weekend. If we made it a whole week, as Amendment No. 337 proposes, personal licence holders, who can hold 50 events a year, could hold events, admittedly in different premises, without any licence other than a temporary event notice. That does not make very good sense.
The temporary event notice covers the sale of alcohol. Surely, it is not unreasonable in those circumstance to say that in any one premises there should be only five temporary events a year. The neighbours of those premises would not be sympathetic to the idea of such events happening 30 times a year as proposed. Village halls are a different matter. They already require both licences to sell alcohol and public entertainment allowances. The Bill would not increase the burden on them. I gave the example previously of the school sports club situated opposite my house. Not more than live times a year, it holds a rave-up, with hugely noisy music until four o'clock in the morning. We either try to go away or we grit our teeth and bear it. If it were 30 times a year, we would get much more stroppy about it. Amendment No. 363 goes over the top.
On fees, the Secretary of State can set a nil or reduced fee for these categories of premises. He can do that in regulations. But, even if there were no waiver or reduction of fees, halls such as village halls could be expected to pay fees of around £100 for a premises licence application. That is not much if it covers 30 events a year. There is also an annual fee of £50 for the licence. We think that a temporary event notice will involve a fee of about £20, which is minimal.
As for notice, the arguments work in the other direction. I say to my noble friend Lord Clarke, who seeks to restrict the use of temporary event notices, that we do not see why a local authority should require more than 10 days' notice of an event. We are not talking about a licence application but a simple document. Of course, there is some pressure on resources. We have recognised that by extending the notice period from the five days, which we set out in the White Paper, to the 10 days in the Bill. However, we consider that 10 days is the limit. The notice given to the police and coming from the police and any counter notice fits in with the 10-day period.
As it stands, this is a very deregulatory measure. It goes as far as we think it is safe and reasonable to go in view of the protection of local people. We do not think that it can conceivably cause any detriment to those organising music festivals of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, described. The Aldeburgh festival would require a licence as it is a big event. But, surely to have in any one premises an event lasting up to 72 hours, five days a year, is generous.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, he has made some not unreasonable arguments against some of the amendments in the group. But I think he will agree that he has not succeeded in demolishing the powerful case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for Amendment No. 366. In fact, I do not believe that he referred to it at all. It concerns the giving of a notice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that I said that once you have accepted the 10-day period as being more reasonable than the 28 days which have been proposed, the other time periods for notices to and from the police, and from the local authority as a counter notice, fit in with that.
Lord Crickhowell: I agree with that last point. It is unreasonable to have a short notice period for a major event to which people may come from all over the country. That matter needs to be pursued. I accept some of the arguments about raves from which I have suffered in the valley in which I live. I do not feel strongly as regards the exact number of people one stipulates. I refer to the figure of 500. But the point that seems to me does need to be pursued is that of the 72-hour period. Many festivals that take place up and down the country last a week. Of course, a festival can take place over a long weekend or a bank holiday weekend, but it seems to me wholly unreasonable that the kind of important music festivals which now occur in large numbers and are of great importance to the people who attend them and the musicians who take part in them should be restricted in the way that is proposed. I hope that the Government will think hard about the amendment, which ought to be supported, that seeks to extend the period from 72 hours so that at least events can take place that cover a whole week.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to prolong the discussion and I do not know whether I should make helpful suggestions of this kind, but one is not going to have a week-long festival five times a year in the same premises. One could use up three of one's five licences by making the period nine days.
Baroness Buscombe: Before the Minister sits down, I ask a question following on from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I am not convinced that the Minister gave a full reply to Amendment No. 366. The Bill states that a counter notice may be issued prohibiting an event from taking place up to 24 hours before it is due to begin. Event organisers would have to respond to a counter notice within that very short time frame. They would have to warn people coming to the event and cancel all the entertainers and performers taking part. The necessary expense would probably already have been incurred in terms of setting up the event. We are asking for an extension of
388
that time under Amendment No. 366 from 24 hours to 72 hours. Does not the Minister agree that that is entirely reasonable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What happens when, two days before, the mobile homes and the motor caravans start rolling into the field?
Baroness Buscombe: We understand that the Bill seeks to liberalise laws with regard to entertainment and alcohol. The Minister expects the worse scenario. I consider that a period of 72 hours is more reasonable. I am grateful to noble Lords, in particular to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to my noble friend Lord Colwyn and others who have contributed to the debate. This is an important aspect of the Bill. It is an area which has caused considerable concern. We have been absolutely inundated by lobbying from all kinds of organisations, associations, those who organise festivals and by people who are deeply concerned that events will be constrained in a way that they consider unreasonable. We on these Benches will consider what the Minister said in relation to our request for 30 events a year. We may reconsider that number and come back on Report with a reduced number. However, I feel strongly that five events a year is mean.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When the noble Baroness talks to the people who have expressed their concerns to her, will she remind them that an occasional permission to sell alcohol is limited to 24 hours maximum under the present law? Will she remind them that there is no such thing as a temporary public entertainment licence under the present law? One has to apply for a full licence with all that that entails. Is not that a lot more onerous than what is proposed in the Bill? Before I sit down, I should say that I have been too helpful. One cannot run three licences back to back. There must be 24 hours between them.
Lord Crickhowell: I have to say so, having reread the clause.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall take note of what the noble Lord said in relation to current law. But here we are repealing current laws and looking at new legislation. Areas in the new legislation are causing concern. We are all doing our job of scrutinising the Bill carefully and closely to ensure that as many of those beyond the Chamber as possible are assured that the Bill will prove reasonable and will not impose too much expense and prescription on their future events. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 338 and 339 not moved.]
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Objection to notice by the police]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 340:
Page 57, line 20, leave out "crime prevention objective" and insert "licensing objectives"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 340 is consequential on Amendment No. 190, which I would have moved on Monday if I had been here and which was not moved in my absence. I recall an earlier debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, replied, which embraced this concept and subject, so the principle has already been discussed.
The amendment asked for wider consideration beyond merely crime prevention, considering that wider licensing objectives had been set out in Clause 4. I appreciate that the police may not be qualified to make the wider judgment, but that could be resolved by the police taking advice from the local authorities as well. The logic is contained in Amendment No. 343 likewise, which is the only one to which I shall speak. My other amendments in the group are all consequential.
Amendment No. 343 and its consequential amendments would introduce the right for an interested party or responsible authority to object to a temporary event notice. The temporary event might involve large numbers of people engaging in licensable activities in the open air, or otherwise, over what could be a three-day period. Such an event is as likely, in principle, to give rise to crime and disorder, threats to public safety, disturbance, public nuisance and potential harm to children, as a permanent licensed event. In principle, therefore, there should be the same right for interested parties to object. I beg to move.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: I speak to Amendment No. 342 and my other amendments in the group, which are consequential.
The amendment would widen the scope of this clause from the police authorities to the relevant authorities. The title of the clause would be,
"Objection to notice by the relevant authorities".
The intention is to widen the consideration. After all, we are passing on the responsibility for granting licences to local authorities. The right to object should be widened to include such people as the fire officer, the licensing authority and the other relevant authorities that we have discussed recently.
The consequential amendments are all in the same vein. They would widen the rights of objection, without debarring objections. Every amendment includes the reference to the police as part of the consideration.
Baroness Buscombe: The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, referred to matters that we have debated previously and which we all agree are important objectives. When a premises user wants to hold a temporary event, he has to serve a copy of the notice only on the relevant chief officer of police, who can then give an objection notice if he believes that allowing the premises to be
390
used for the temporary event would undermine the crime prevention objective. That notice is then considered by the relevant licensing authority, which can serve a counter-notice.
The procedure ignores the other licensing objectives. It seems as if public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm is irrelevant as regards temporary events. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, would correct what appears to be a clear error, and we very much support them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I knew that, having defended my left flank on the last group of amendments, I would have to defend my right flank on this group, but I am a little taken aback to find myself being attacked by the same people on both the left and the right flank. The last group of amendments was intended to extend the scope of temporary notices. I hope that I gave a reasonable series of reasons why it would not be wise to do so. This group of amendments would in large part nullify the temporary notice procedure. If all these other people were required to be notified and had the power to intervene, we would not have the light touch procedure for temporary notices which everybody has talked about. On Second Reading the Liberals were full of it, talking about the protection of the arts and music in this country and the arguments for not imposing a stifling bureaucracy on all these worthwhile local activities. Yet here we have the noble Lords, Lord Brooke and Lord Clarke, trying to make it much more difficult for those things to happen.
The Bill's proposal is designed to be a light touch reflecting the temporary nature of the events and the use of the premises for a temporary period. The amendments would make life difficult for a large number of people who might be running ad hoc events for charities, schools or churches. We expect them to take advantage of the simple temporary event notice system that we have designed.
Where is the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury? Why is he not here answering on my behalf? The amendments would provide for the police to consider all the licensing objectives. They would allow the fire authority to issue objection notices and would allow a licensing authority to issue counter-notices following consideration of all the licence's objectives, not just the crime prevention objectives. Is that what we want for school fetes, weddings, church fundraisers and discos in the village hall? Why should people be asked to jump through these additional hoops? There is no need to expand the number of bodies needed to scrutinise temporary event notices. There is no reason to widen the grounds. As long as the police are satisfied with the proposals and they meet the appropriate conditions on permitted limits, there should be no additional bureaucracy. I thought that that was the thrust of a large part of the argument in the early stages of our consideration in Committee.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My noble friend mentioned objections within the limits. The Committee has already rejected any limits on people attending such events. Is he really saying that the fire authority and the authority charged under the Bill to grant the licences are all and sundry? The licensing authority and the fire authority are essential if the comments made earlier in our Committee proceedings about public safety are to be taken seriously.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did the opposite. I opposed an amendment that would have removed the limit of 500. I was defending a limit. I was defending the fact that temporary event notices should be available only five times in any one year in any one premises. I was defending the limit to three days. I was restricting temporary event notices to what I thought was reasonable against amendments that would have opened them up. It is only right now that I should defend temporary event notices from amendments that would make life enormously more difficult for school fetes, church events and all the other events so dear to the hearts of those who took part in the early stages of the Committee. Anybody who is concerned about the restriction to prevention of crime should bear in mind that that is a wide definition. If there were any suggestion that there was a threat to children from under-age drinking or grooming by paedophiles, that would be covered by prevention of crime. The police could intervene on those grounds. That is wide enough.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am in no way seeking to provide myself with a defence against the Minister's initial charge, but I seconded the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, in the previous grouping and I have moved the lead amendment in this group. My position has been consistent throughout. I am not sure how comfortable I have been about being consistent, but I have been consistent.
To some extent we are back to the issue of one size fits all. I hope we do not have a tragedy in one of the larger events contained within these provisions as a result of not having had tighter regulation. I am aware of the remarkable British capacity for thinking of reasons for not doing things. On the whole it is a characteristic that does us a disservice as a nation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 341 and 342 not moved.]
Clause 102 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 343 not moved.]
Clause 103 [Counter notice following police objection]:
[Amendments Nos. 344 to 353 not moved.]
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Modification of notice following police objection]:
[Amendments Nos. 354 to 361 not moved.]
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Counter notice where permitted limits exceeded]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 362:
Page 59, line 16, leave out "or (4)" and insert ", (4) or (4A)"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 364, 365, 367 and 368.
It cannot be right that a person whose application for a full premises licence is refused after a hearing and for good reasons should nevertheless be permitted to operate on, say, Thursday, Friday and Saturday each week for five weeks while he waits for his appeal to be heard, or can open anyway even if no appeal is lodged. Amendments Nos. 362, 364, 365 and 367 are designed to prevent that potential abuse taking place.
Amendment No. 368 is different. Here I may be becoming inconsistent, which comes of having the responsibility of moving amendments on behalf of more than one organisation. I may be stigmatised by the noble Baroness as over-libertarian. She spoke earlier of one of my amendments being draconian. This amendment could not be accused of being Procrustean, but it has the admirable characteristic—I seek to keep a straight face; I am conscious that there is a certain inconsistency in what I am saying—of making decisions about temporary events truly local. It also has the virtue of being a great deal less complicated than Clause 105.
Because we seek to make progress, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I ask a question about subsection (2). It is unclear to me how the licensing authority will know whether a personal licence holder has exceeded his limit of 50 temporary events a year. Will he give the Government's thinking on how that limit will be monitored? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said earlier that I had one group of amendments attacking me from the left flank and a second group of amendments attacking me from the right flank. Now in one group of amendments I have the same person attacking me from the left flank and the right flank simultaneously. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brooke!
Clause 105 sets out the circumstances in which a local authority must issue a counter notice; that is, the number of notices given in respect of individuals and premises. An individual who does not hold a personal licence can give five notices a year and a personal licence holder can give 50, but no more than five can be given for any one premises within a year. The answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is presumably that the licensing authority will have received and added up the number of previous notices. On whether there is a more complicated answer than that about more than one licensing authority, I shall see whether I receive an answer in time to give it to the noble Lord. If not, I shall write to him.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I thank the Minister for giving way—doing so gives someone

393
elsewhere slightly longer to prepare an answer for him. I was going to ask precisely that question. The national implication would produce the problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: One route that immediately occurs to me as a way around the issue is for the applicant to have to say how many times in the same calendar year he has done that; if there is any reason to doubt it, that would be the justification for the counter notice.
Amendment No. 368 would allow a licensing authority to permit temporary events as it sees fit, having regard to the licensing objectives and its statement of licensing policy. That is local flexibility carried to its extreme—I believe that even the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would agree—and would make the situation very difficult. Some local authorities might be more liberal than is provided for in the Bill and others might be less liberal. A charity might find itself about to do something in Nether Wallop and not in Middle Wallop if they were in different licensing authority areas. That does not appear to make good sense.
The limits set out in Clause 105 are there for a reason. There need to be safeguards to protect the system from being abused. Although it might be argued that a licensing authority has particular duties and will ensure that that does not happen, there are other more important reasons for leaving the limits in place. It is important that those who might benefit from the system know how many times they can give such notices in any one year, and can plan accordingly. They need to know how to plan their fund-raising activities, for example. They need to know whether they need to ensure that they have a personal licence holder it' they wish to sell alcohol. They need to know whether they should apply or encourage others to apply for a premises licence for a place that is used perhaps four times a year. And we need a degree of consistency throughout England and Wales.
The other amendments would prevent temporary event notices being given in respect of a premises for which an application for a premises licence had been rejected within the year. I understand the logic behind that. If the premises was not deemed suitable for a premises licence, it must be unsuitable for a temporary event notice. However, that thinking does not take account of differences in activities or the duration of the carrying on of those activities. Applications for a premises licence could be rejected for a number of different reasons and are considered necessary to promote the licensing objectives.
Unless otherwise requested, a premises licence is not time limited and the considerations will be different from those at which a one-off event takes place. For example, a premises licence could have included the intention to stage live music seven nights a week in the middle of a dense residential area. That could be refused on the grounds of public nuisance after objection. But that should not prevent an individual from seeking to arrange for a concert, a ballet troupe or an exhibition over the course of a single weekend. In any case, a temporary event notice must be copied
394
to the police so that they can issue an objective notice if there is conflict with the crime objective. Again, what we have here falls between the objections raised but I believe that it stands up after the consideration given to it by the Committee.
6 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am sorry that Mafeking has not been relieved in terms of the answer to the 50 events. But I congratulate the Minister on producing out of his own head at least the capacity for a running total, which would obviously necessitate the honesty of the person who was keeping it.
With regard to his objections to the other amendments, after a Minister has spoken wisely and well, it is often said from these Benches that we shall take the matter away and read carefully what the Minister has said. I hope that, on this occasion, the Government might look at the hypothesis that I put. I can see nothing that would be more likely to bring the legislation into disrepute, particularly in rural areas, than if someone were refused and yet were able, within the law and in terms of how the regulations stand, to conduct such events in the interim until the next stage of the process was taken.
I do not in any way seek to press the matter on this occasion—not least because we are trying to make progress. But if the Minister were to nod his willingness to consider the matter again, I should much appreciate it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Between the Committee and Report stages of any Bill, I go to sleep with the Bill as amended in Committee under my pillow.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I think that it must make for an uncomfortable pillow, but that is a matter of great reassurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 363 to 368 not moved.]
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clauses 106 to 108 agreed to.
Clause 109 [Personal licence]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 369:
Page 62, line 14, after "alcohol" insert "or provide regulated entertainment"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 369, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 415 and 416. It will be nice to reach the 400s. Clause 109, as drafted, provides a definition of "personal licences". It includes only licences permitting an individual to sell alcohol by retail or to supply alcohol by, or on behalf of, a club. These are two of the activities defined as "licensable activities" under Clauses 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) of the Bill. However, paragraph (c) of Clause 1(1) also provides for,
"the provision of regulated entertainment",
to be a licensable activity.
The definition of "personal licences" under Clause 109 should be extended to include persons providing regulated entertainment. The provision of regulated entertainment is a licensable activity and therefore should be regulated under the provisions relating to personal licences.
The current definition of a "personal licence" would not provide for a licence to be required by a person providing discos for young teenagers where no alcohol is supplied. There would therefore be no effective regulation of the people supplying such services, although they could conceivably hold convictions for offences such as indecent assault.
The definition of "regulated entertainment" at paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 contains various examples of other activities which would not necessarily involve the sale of alcohol on the premises and which may be attended by children and young people who are possibly unaccompanied.
Requiring personal licences only for the sale of alcohol implies that the licensing objectives are less important when alcohol is not sold. Yet the risk of crime, disorder, safety and the protection of children is equally important in the provision of entertainment where no alcohol is sold. The amendments to Clause 133 are consequential on the amendment to Clause 109. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Baroness has indicated, the amendments seek to extend the personal licence provisions in the Bill. The Bill provides that individuals who supply alcohol or are responsible for the supply of alcohol must have a personal licence. The amendments take a step towards requiring individuals who provide public entertainment or late-night refreshment to have a personal licence.
In the Government's view such a step would involve creating a substantial new burden on business which is quite unnecessary. The personal licence arrangements set out in the Bill are based on the clear proposition that particular care is needed to ensure that individuals who supply alcohol are fit and proper to do so. The personal licence provides that assurance.
Experience has taught us that there are risks associated with the commercial supply of alcohol—drunkenness, disorder, exploitation and excess— which it is prudent to control by ensuring that those undertaking the supply are honest and competent. No human activity is free from risk, but in our view the risks associated with the provision of public entertainment or late-night refreshment without alcohol are not so great that a system of personal vetting is needed. The difference reflects the difference in the nature of what is provided. Entertainment or late-night refreshment can be associated with disorder, nuisance or other problems if not properly conducted or controlled, but the activities themselves are not problematic.
In contrast, alcohol is a substance that, as well as causing pleasure, is potentially hazardous to health and rapidly changes the way in which people behave.
396
It is not reasonable to place all the activities covered by the Bill on the same level, which is the burden of the amendments. If we conceded that anyone providing any form of public entertainment, say a folk song recital, had to have a personal licence, where would matters end? Everyone would need a personal licence to carry on any trade or related activity.
To give the local authority a discretion to waive such a requirement, as I recognise that Amendment No. 370 envisages, is no solution. There is no reasonable basis for exercising it and there would be groundless inconsistency across the nation if such an amendment were accepted. The effect would be a needless distortion of competition across the land. I recognise the intentions behind the amendment but I do not believe that people involved in those other activities that are licensable under the Bill are involved in the same kind of activities as those who sell or provide alcohol. That is why I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Redesdale: Before the noble Lord sits down, I apologise for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate on this amendment. He has raised the point about a personal licence for a folk song recital and I have been waiting for a relevant amendment on which to raise an issue.
While we have been dealing with the rights of people to carry on entertainment, such as folk singers' performances and the like, there has been correspondence between the Minister in another place, Dr Kim Howells, and the Human Rights Joint Committee. Recently Dr Howells replied to the Joint Committee. In considering how to take forward future amendments to the Bill, it would help noble Lords greatly if a copy of that reply could be placed in the Library. I understand that the reply sent to the Joint Committee has not been made publicly available. If it were placed in the Library that would help considerably.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I was shuddering in my seat as the noble Lord rose to his feet. I thought he was bringing in a dimension for which I was singularly ill-briefed to cope as an addition to the amendment. But I understand that he has taken the opportunity of asking for additional and proper information. I shall take steps to see that that is done.
Baroness Buscombe: In response to the Minister, first, I support the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. In recent days, we have been lobbied at some length regarding that matter. It is clear that there is a serious issue regarding human rights that we shall all have to consider with care between now and on Report.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 369, 415 and 416, I am, as the Minister knows, concerned about the possibility of unaccompanied children being allowed to enter all kinds of premises without restriction. That is a possibility. I shall not say that it will happen because I am sure that in many circumstances the owners, managers or directors of various organisations in charge of these various licensed

397
premises will not necessarily want to admit children. But there will be situations in which it is possible. Indeed, the Government seem intent on liberalising alcohol laws and viewing them in the same light as entertainment. Lumping together entertainment and alcohol is a real problem, in particular in relation to children and young people.
I shall consider the issue with much care between now and Report. I hope that the Minister will as well. I do not understand why we must have the possibility of unrestricted and unaccompanied access by children of any age to all those licensed premises included in the Bill, whether lap-dancing clubs or a folksong recital. The Bill encompasses a huge breadth of different types of premises. The Government should consider with care the possibilities to which this could lead.
In dealing with a previous amendment, the Minister referred to the possibility of grooming by paedophiles. We appreciate that the Government have been considering that matter and the possibility of legislation in relation to paedophiles grooming children on the Internet. Incidentally, we asked for such legislation three years ago in relation to the Criminal Justice and Police Act. Why are the Government giving these opportunities to paedophiles and others in the Bill? I cannot understand that. It is an issue that adds a considerable burden to the entertainment industry, which it could well do without.
I heard what the Minister said. I am not satisfied. However, for today, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 370 not moved.]
Clause 109 agreed to.
Clause 110 [The relevant licensing authority]:
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 370A:
Page 62, line 21, leave out "which granted the licence" and insert "where the personal licence holder is normally resident or where the personal licence holder is registered as the premises supervisor."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is almost self-explanatory. It allows a personal licence holder to apply to the authority where he is resident. The issue refers to an earlier debate we had at some length about personal licence holders and which authority they should register with.
We have a problem with the fact that someone in Newcastle can apply for a personal licence, be granted it for his first pub, and then perhaps move to London, but he would still have to deal with the licensing authorities in Newcastle. We have discussed the idea of a central register that could deal with the entirety of the subject. The Government have shown that they are unwilling to accede to that, so we advance on the assumption that it would be good for personal licence holders to be able to deal with the local authority in which they are based. That would make the paper trail a good deal less burdensome, especially if licensees had been managers of several different venues since they first received the licence. That would make the system more streamlined and acceptable.
I was discussing the Bill with members of the industry, and they said if they found that one local authority was far more efficient at dealing with personal licences, managers might move people lo an area for a couple of weeks so that they could say that that was their local area and receive their original personal licence there. A central office of a beer group could then deal with one office and with people whom it knew. We might realistically end up with one authority that had several pub company headquarters located in its area dealing with a disproportionate number of personal licence holders, just because it would be more convenient for the pub companies to deal with one authority.
It is a logical and simple step to provide that personal licence holders should be able to deal with their local authority—not a local authority based up to 400 miles away. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: In this group, I shall speak to the Question whether Clause 110 stand part of the Bill and Amendments Nos. 388, 396, 402, 403 and 405. On the second day of Committee, I broached the topic of personal licences when I discussed whether there should be some form of central authority to handle them. I do not intend to press that point again, but I shall briefly reiterate one issue that has prompted me to oppose the Question that Clause 110 stand part of the Bill and to table the amendments.
Clause 110 states:
"For the purposes of this Part the 'relevant licensing authority', in relation to a personal licence, is the licensing authority which granted the licence".
If the holder of a personal licence moves from, say, Cornwall to Leeds, the relevant licensing authority will still be the local authority down in Truro and all the information about the individual's personal licence must be processed through Truro, not Leeds. I am sure that the Committee will agree that the relevant authority for a personal licence should change as the holder of the licence changes his residential location. That is only common sense.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the way in which noble Lords have presented the amendments. I am unable to accept them, but I recognise that they are advanced in a constructive vein to solve a problem, and I shall seek to explain why the Government have a slightly different perspective on the question of the efficiency with which we can discharge obligations on personal licences.
As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, the lead amendment would give responsibility to the licensing authority for the area in which someone applying for the grant or renewal of a personal licence lives, or where a person is supervising premises on which alcohol is supplied. We have no strong quarrel with what I take to be the aim of the amendment. However, it is not necessary. For the sake of the efficiency of the system, it is desirable to have one licensing authority

399
for personal licences and their renewal. The question is how we guarantee that there is one authority to do that.
The amendment is unnecessary because Clause 115(2) already makes it clear that an applicant who is ordinarily resident in the area of one licensing authority must apply to that authority for the grant of a personal licence. It will be the relevant licensing authority for all time in respect of that personal licence and will be the authority to which applications for renewal must be made. We do not want applicants shopping around for personal licences—I am not sure that the noble Lord would want it either—even though the Bill provides for a common standard. The reference in the amendment to registration as premises supervisor is also unnecessary. By virtue of Clause 19, the premises supervisor must already hold a valid personal licence if alcohol may be supplied on the premises concerned.
The other problem with the noble Lord's amendment is that it appears to assume that all applicants for a personal licence will live in the area of a licensing authority—that is, in England and Wales. I have no doubt that the vast majority will, but some will live in other parts of the United Kingdom and some in other parts of the European Union. Provision must be made for them as well.
The Earl of Onslow: Why does someone living in Aix-la-Chapelle need a personal licence to run a pub? He does not need it. It has nothing to do with the licensing authority in Truro. As I understood it, the noble Lord said that some applicants may live in other parts of the European Union, but they need the licence to run a pub in Leeds or Truro, not in Aix-la-Chapelle.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Someone may live in Paris and run a licensed establishment in London. The place that someone gives as their place of residence may be some distance from the licensed premises. Not all publicans live above the pub, although some do. In fact, the noble Earl is probably reflecting the fact that in all the hostelries that he visits—as I do—the publican lives on the premises. However, we are talking about a wider range than that.
We must be able to ensure that there is a personal licence for everybody involved in the trade. We want one location in which someone can acquire a licence, and we want that location to remain valid for them. We must avoid the problem with the constant mobility of people applying for licences.
Lord Redesdale: I take the Minister's point on board. He has strengthened the argument that I wished to get across, which was that, when someone initially applies for a licence, there is nothing to say that they have been a permanent resident in the area for just two weeks. Someone could turn up in whatever local authority area they wished and apply for a personal licence. Someone working for a particular group of pubs may be required to apply for a personal licence in a particular authority's area, so that everyone is
400
dealing with the same authority, which causes fewer difficulties. Many pub companies will have pubs throughout the country, but they may ask their trainees to register for a personal licence in a certain authority area.
The issue has not been addressed by the Bill. The permanent residence test is not very difficult. Someone need be there for only a couple of weeks and say that they are a permanent resident to register for the personal licence. It will cost some authorities more than others if some pub companies decide to register a vast number of their personal licences in one authority area. That will create disproportionate costs for that local authority.
The Earl of Onslow: Obviously I am being stupid. I cannot understand. If I have a licence which says that I, Michael Onslow, is capable of running a pub—I accept that any local authority which gave me that licence should be struck off, but that is altogether a different issue—that licence runs out after 10 years. I used to work in Truro. I now work in Scunthorpe. Why cannot I say to the Scunthorpe people, "Here is my old licence. I am of good character, I have not gone down the drain, and I am still capable of running a pub. Please will you renew the licence"? That seems eminently sensible and easy. With modern communications, the information goes on a computer database and everyone knows who you are. That is not asking for anything complicated. The Inland Revenue computer is seriously complicated. But that action seems perfectly sensible.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I agree with the noble Earl that that is not excessively complicated but neither is the system we propose. On starting out in the trade one takes out a personal licence in the area in which one lives. What is complicated about having to go back to that area for the renewal of the licence? It is right that modern communications facilitate mobility. But, by the same token, modern communications make it easy for a person in Newcastle to apply to Truro—from which he obtained his original licence—for renewal, against the guarantee that he meets the requirements specified in the Bill for the granting of the licence.
We seek to keep the system as straightforward and uncomplicated as possible. We are on the same wavelength. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and I seek to provide the least complicated system possible. Over a period of time people will need to renew personal licences. I had hoped to convince the noble Earl that I have to take into account those people who do not live in English or Welsh local authority areas which come within the purview of the Bill. We have to have a structure which makes due allowance for those people.
The noble Earl will recognise that we all apply for documents from outside our area every day of the week. One thinks of a driving licence, passport, or almost any other document one needs. One is lucky if the local authority provides it. Even if it is the local authority, one is lucky to regard that as inherently a better service than elsewhere.

401
For simplicity, insisting that a person obtains the first licence from his local authority area if he lives in an English or Welsh local authority licensing area and goes back to that base when wishing to renew that licence seems to make eminent sense. It is the basis on which the Bill is constructed.
The Earl of Onslow: I have a firearms licence and have a shotgun licence. I live at home. The Surrey constabulary deal with it. If I were to move to Leicestershire or Yorkshire and had to renew my firearms licence or shotgun certificate, I should have to renew it with the Leicestershire or Yorkshire constabulary. I do not say that one should not renew with Truro as opposed to Scunthorpe. But if you live in Scunthorpe why cannot you renew the licence in Scunthorpe as opposed to having to travel or write to Truro? My suggestion seems sensible and easy. It is the simple solution. The Government have put forward the complicated one. That is all I suggest.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government will have to take that castigation from the noble Earl. I have no doubt that it will not be the worst castigation we receive from him in the next few months. We take a different view on that particular matter.
The remaining amendments in this group introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raise a similar issue. They require the licensing authority, when dealing with an application for the grant or renewal of a personal licence, or some issue relating to the continuation of the licence, to refer the issue to the police force for the area in which the individual concerned is living. Members of the Committee will appreciate from my earlier remarks that the effect of Clause 115(2) will generally already be the position. Where an applicant is, at the time of the application, living outside the United Kingdom, these amendments will put the licensing authority dealing with his or her application in some difficulty. It would mean that the local authority would have to deal with a foreign police force.
The more sensible procedure—the one laid down by the Bill as drafted for cases such as these—is that the licensing authority should refer the application to its own local police force so that it can be responsible for pursuing any necessary inquiries on a police to police basis. Generally, I do not believe that licensing and local authorities would welcome such an obligation; namely, to contact police forces which may be a considerable distance away or potentially outside the United Kingdom.
I do not believe that these amendments will improve the Bill. It might be argued that Amendment No. 405 caters for the case in which someone holds a personal licence from one licensing authority, moves to a different part of the country and commits an offence. This is a judgment on balance. We recognise that there is not much between us on these issues, and we believe that it is best to have a clear relationship between one licensing authority, one personal licence holder and one police force. If authorities have to deal with a
402
whole range of police forces, it will be a recipe for confusion and there will be a risk of a breakdown in communication. It is better that police forces communicate with each other using the well-established channels for that purpose, than that local authorities take on that particular burden, it is on that basis that I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Redesdale: Before I withdraw the amendment, I should like to ask one question, not to delay the Committee, but as a matter of clarification so that we do not have to bring this matter back at a later stage. I am concerned that, at an earlier stage, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that one of the reasons for not having a central register was that there could be an issue of appeals; namely, that a central register could not deal with appeals. They would be dealt with by local licensing authorities. I may have completely misunderstood the situation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I made two points regarding a central register. First, yes, we might work towards a central register. It was proposed that there should be one immediately, but that would cause unnecessary delay. Secondly, a central register would not replace local registers because a central registration authority would not be able to hear appeals.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. He said that we regularly deal with organisations that are based all over the country or, in some cases, are not in this country at all. Therefore, the preferred option would be a central register. I thank the noble Lord for his answers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 110 agreed to.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 371:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
"MEANING OF "SERIOUS OFFENCE"
(1) In this Part "serious offence" means a relevant offence to which subsection (2) applies and in respect of which a custodial sentence of at least 30 months was imposed.
(2) The relevant offences to which this subsection applies are—

(a) any sexual offence, within the meaning of section 161(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) (interpretation),

(b) any violent offence, within the meaning of section 161(3) of that Act,

(c) any relevant offence under the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) or the Theft Act 1978 (c. 31), and

(d) any relevant offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (c. 45).

(3) In subsection (2) "custodial sentence" has the same meaning as in section 76 of the Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) (meaning of "custodial sentence")."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 371, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 375, 384, 386 and 387, 390, 393, 395, 397 and 398, 400, 406 to 409, 411 and 412 to 414.
Clause 118 makes various provisions regarding an application for a personal licence. A licensing authority must grant the application if,
"the applicant is aged 18 or over … he possesses a licensing qualification … no personal licence held by him has been forfeited in [the previous] five years … and … he has not been convicted of any relevant offence or any foreign offence".
If those conditions are satisfied, the licensing authority must grant the application. There is no discretion in the matter. That is the case, even if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the granting of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective.
That cannot be right. If the chief officer of police is satisfied that the granting of a licence would undermine the crime prevention objective, we on these Benches feel that it is essential that the licensing authority should consider the chief officer's views. The licensing authority can always reject his views, but at the very least it should consider them. The chief officer must, therefore, be given notice of any application for a personal licence so that he can then form a view as to whether or not the granting of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective.
We also feel that if an applicant for, or the holder of, a personal licence has been convicted of a serious offence, the application for a personal licence should be dismissed or the personal licence should be forfeited.
The Bill as drafted merely provides that where the applicant or the holder of a personal licence is convicted of a relevant offence—which would include a "serious offence"—the licensing authority must notify the chief officer of police, who then has to form a view as to whether or not the granting of the licence or the continuation of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective. If he forms such a view, he must then give the licensing authority an objection notice, which is then considered by the authority.
We on these Benches feel that as regards serious offences the application for a personal licence should be dismissed, or the personal licence should be forfeited. As to what we mean by a "serious offence", we have had regard to subsections (2) and (3) in Clause 112, which make a distinction as regards certain specific offences; namely,
"any sexual offence …any violent offence … any relevant offence under the Theft Act 1968 … and … any relevant offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981".
The distinction made in the clause is between convictions where an offender is sentenced to either more or less than 30 months' imprisonment. Under the Bill as drafted, if an applicant for a personal licence is convicted of such an offence but is not sentenced to more than 30 months, the conviction is disregarded and, if all the other conditions are satisfied, the licensing authority must grant the application.
We find that extraordinary. We feel that if an applicant has been convicted of one of these specific offences, at the very least the chief office of police should be entitled to object. If a sentence of more than 30 months has been imposed, the application should be dismissed. We can see no justification whatever for the view that someone convicted of such a serious offence and sentenced to more than 30 months' imprisonment should be a suitable person to hold a personal licence.
We have also provided for a change in the burden of proof where the applicant or the holder of a personal licence has been found guilty of a relevant offence. We believe that the burden of proof should be on him to satisfy the authority that the crime prevention objective would not be undermined by the application being granted or the licence not being revoked.
I regret to say that in formulating the test that the burden of proof is on the applicant or the holder of the licence it has been necessary to use double and triple negatives—which we feel state the test correctly, but which also mean that the relevant subsections require very careful reading. We should be grateful for any improvements to the drafting which could be considered on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I support these amendments. I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 371, which seeks to insert a new clause—"Meaning of `serious offence"—in order to make clear the importance that we place on these offences. They should be included in the Bill. Amendment No. 375 seeks to delete the subsections which refer to the fact that a relevant offence must be disregarded if a custodial sentence of at least 30 months is not imposed, and then go on to list, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, the relevant offences. We seek to insert what constitutes a "serious offence" in the proposed new clause at Amendment No. 371.
As to Amendment No. 384, ACPO has provided me with a briefing. In regard to criminal convictions it states:
"We would like to see a more robust system for ensuring that those individuals with criminal convictions of a type which indicate that they should not be involved in the running of licensed premises, are excluded, There should be a police right to object to the grant of both a personal and a premises licence".
In a longer briefing note, ACPO goes on to state:
"We have serious concerns over the issue of personal licences to those individuals with certain convictions … As a general observation we would contend that there should be certain offences or a category of offence which ought to disqualify a person from obtaining a personal licence for the period that the conviction remains unspent. We do not believe that the Licensing Authority should have the discretion to grant a personal licence in respect of such offences".
Finally, ACPO states that,
"we believe that the Licensing Authority ought to be under an obligation to consult the police in respect of every applicant for a personal licence and that the police should have the right, in exceptional circumstances and based upon the licensing objectives, to object to the grant of a licence to that individual".

405
Those are the substantive parts of many of the amendments so ably referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. We support these amendments.
Lord Redesdale: I shall speak to Amendment No. 414A, which is grouped with these amendments, it is a probing amendment which seeks to establish whether the Government agree that once the offences listed on the licence are spent they should be removed from the licence on application by the personal licence holder. It seems unfair that minor offences which would not discount a personal licence holder from holding a personal licence should remain on the licence for a long period of time. If the offences are relevant perhaps they should remain on the licence. But do the Government believe that certain offences should have time limitations and at certain points should be removed from the licence?
Baroness Blackstone: Under the present arrangements the licensing justices operate a somewhat subjective test of whether a licensee is a fit and proper person. In the Bill we define more objectively the circumstances in which the licensing authority must refer an application to the police to ascertain whether they have objections. The proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that all applications for personal licences should be notified to the police has overtones of the rather vague "fit and proper person" test that the Bill seeks to replace with a more objective and transparent system, with clear criteria for qualification for a personal licence.
When we published the White Paper we said that we would look at objections in the case of serious offences. There has been a great deal of debate on how to define "serious offences". The drift of Amendment No. 371 —most of the remainder of the amendments are consequential—and Amendment No. 375 is to include in the relevant offences crimes for which people receive short sentences. That would make it more difficult for people convicted of less serious offences to obtain personal licences. It is important to emphasise that we did not simply dream up a list of what we thought were serious offences. The list of offences was prepared in consultation with the stakeholders, including the police, and was cleared with ACPO as containing all the appropriate offences.
Our consultations with the police led us to make a distinction between offences attracting a custodial penalty of 30 months or more involving dishonesty, violence or a sexual element, and those attracting a lesser sentence. In the case of someone sentenced to fewer than 30 months, the conviction would not trigger a reference to the police. I do not claim that it is easy to decide where to draw the line between more and less serious offences. To some extent, any line is bound to be arbitrary.
The principle underlying the provisions of the Bill as it now stands is simple. On the one hand, we recognise that the possession of a personal licence puts its holder in a position of some responsibility. It is, therefore, important that the licensing authority should be able to decide, in the light of police advice, whether
406
someone with a serious criminal record is or is not suitable to carry out that responsibility. On the other hand, we ought not to exaggerate the dangers and provide for all offences to trigger a reference to the police. The amendments would mean, for example, that anyone convicted of any offence involving dishonesty, for however short a period, which had not yet been spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, would risk being unable to obtain a personal licence. Someone already in possession of a personal licence would run the risk of having it revoked. Anyone convicted of an offence—shoplifting, for example—would be in that position, even if punished by no more than a fine.
We accept that, where the offence is serious, as reflected in the sentence passed by the courts, a question arises about whether a person should be a licence holder. But not all offences covered by these amendments are necessarily serious. The licensed trade certainly needs responsible people. But it is unrealistic to regard it as suitable only for those without a stain or blemish of any kind on their character. However, I recognise the strength of feeling of both noble Baronesses about the issue. I am ready to make a commitment to look at it again and consider whether a licensing authority should be able to refer to the police an application for the grant or renewal of a personal licence by someone who has been convicted of a relevant sexual or violent offence or one involving dishonesty, even where the applicant received a custodial sentence of less than 30 months. With that assurance, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Amendment No. 393 and its consequentials raise points related to the grant or rejection of a personal licence where there has been a conviction for a relevant offence. The licensing authority, when considering the objection notice from the police, must reject the application or the renewal if—and only if—it considers it necessary for the promotion of the crime prevention objective. These amendments would change the basis upon which the licensing authority undertakes its function in this respect. First, there would be a duty on it to be satisfied about the matter. Secondly, the test would be whether granting the application might undermine the crime prevention objective.
The primary duty in the Bill is on licensing authorities to carry out their functions with a view to promoting the licensing objectives. These amendments would introduce a different assessment to be made by the licensing authority where it does not have the expertise to reach an independent view. Our intention is to have a transparent judgment based on previous convictions where the police have given their expert view to the authority, and then to empower the authority to reject applications where there is good reason to do so. This is an assessment that the licensing authority can make having held a hearing on the police objections. But they need input from the police.
Amendment No. 414A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, would place on licensing authorities a new duty to respond to any requests from a personal

407
licence holder to remove information about a spent conviction. At first glance the amendment does not seem unreasonable. I recognise that it is a probing amendment, but it is unnecessary and would add bureaucracy to the personal licensing arrangements.
Under Clause 112 a conviction for a relevant offence must be disregarded if it is spent. If there is a conviction during the validity of a licence, that conviction in due course becomes spent. It follows that when the licence holder comes to renew the licence, the authority must disregard the conviction. I hope that that answers the question that has been asked. In the light of what I have said, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her reply. However, we are not happy with it. Clearly, there is a strong difference of opinion here as regards how important it is to ensure that those in charge of licensed premises are utterly responsible. Publicans are regarded as upstanding members of the community. It is tremendously important seriously to confront these issues in relation to the crime prevention objective.
We are concerned that a licensing authority must grant an application if the applicant is over 18, possesses a relevant qualification, no personal licence previously held by him has been forfeited in the previous five years and he has not been convicted of any relevant offence or foreign offence. However, there is no discretion there. We believe strongly that there should be discretion.
We are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to reconsider issues in relation to serious offences. We believe strongly that if an applicant or the holder of a personal licence is convicted of a serious offence, that person's application should be dismissed outright or the personal licence should be forfeited. We do not believe that the gravity of the offence should be examined by a licensing authority.
The hour is late and we are determined to progress as far as possible this evening. I shall read with care what the Minister said. There are other issues in relation to the burden of proof on which I am not satisfied with the Minister's response. However, as I say, we shall read her remarks with care. I suspect that we shall return forcefully to this matter on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Personal licence: relevant offences]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 372:
Page 115, line 35, at end insert—
"An offence under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c. 12)."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 372, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 373 and 374. There is a single principle involved with different applications.
Despite the fact that the licensing objectives in subsection (2) of Clause 4 include public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm, the definition of "relevant offences" in Schedule 4 does not include offences under the Environmental Protection Act, offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act or offences in relation to the protection of children from harm. Accordingly, any number of convictions of a personal licence holder for breaching noise nuisance notices served upon him under the Environmental Protection Act—constituency Members of Parliament will know how relatively weak that Act is as an amulet against noise nuisance, especially out of doors—or any number of convictions for offences resulting in the endangering of his customers or staff under health and safety legislation are, under the Bill, simply not relevant to whether or not he should be granted or allowed to retain a personal licence. These amendments are intended to rectify that omission. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: The schedule includes two categories of offences. First, there are offences under licensing law or relating to the proper conduct of licensed premises. If someone is convicted of such an offence, it is an issue for the licensing authority. Secondly, there are serious offences under general criminal law, including offences involving dishonesty, violence, or sexual offences. Here, too, it makes sense for the licensing authority to consider whether the individual convicted of such an offence is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
Although unsuitable people should not own or run licensed premises, I fear that the amendments would go too far and could catch people who would be perfectly suitable. So far as offences under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 are concerned, Schedule 4 already covers sexual and violent offences.
The same issue of relevance applies to health and safety and environmental nuisance offences, including excessive noise offences. Let us suppose that someone has in the past run an engine repair workshop and been punished for failing to comply with an abatement notice in respect of dust and fumes coming out of his workshop. If he subsequently decides that he wants to run a pub, why should the previous conviction, which the court might have regarded as a relatively minor matter, be relevant?
The amendments would take Schedule 4 far beyond its proper purpose. The objectives in the Bill that the schedule supports supply a reasonably precise test as to whether someone is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The amendments would make the test much more vague and therefore less satisfactory and would expose people to a form of double jeopardy, which is disproportionate to the risk to the public.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In principle, I am desirous of fulfilling the Minister's expectation.

409
However, this is another occasion on which the legislation is in some danger of being brought into disrepute. I understand the Minister's arguments but, given the four licensing objectives, if relevant evidence in any of the three categories to which I referred is to be disregarded, despite being clearly unconducive to good order, the legislation is in danger of falling into disrepute. That is a particular danger if anything went wrong in any of those three categories.
It is a probing amendment. We may need to return to the matter later, but I understand the Minister's arguments and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 373 and 374 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Meaning of "conviction']:
[Amendment No. 375 not moved.]
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Period of validity of personal licence]:
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 376:
Page 63, line 10, leave out "ten" and insert "five"
The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 377, which is consequential on Amendment No. 376.
Under the Bill, the grant of a personal licence is "automatic", provided that the applicant is,
"aged 18 or over … possesses a licensing qualification … no personal licence held by him has been forfeited … and … he has not been convicted of any relevant offence".
I recognise, as I did on one occasion this morning, that my amendment may be subjective. However, I aver, as I did this morning, that given the qualifications that I have just quoted, a 10-year period over which a personal licence has effect should be reduced to five years. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord was kind enough to say that his suggestion of five years was a subjective judgment. All judgments on length of time on such issues must have an element of subjectivity. We do not see any significant advantage in reducing the period of validity for a personal licence from 10 years to five. The Bill requires the holder to notify the licensing authority of any change in their name and address and if they have been convicted of any relevant offences or foreign offences during the period of validity of the licence. Any failure to do so would be an offence. The ability to check and keep control of the proper fitness of the licence holder to enjoy the benefits of that licence is safeguarded.
Reducing the period of validity, as the noble Lord suggests, would put an additional burden on law-abiding personal licence holders. In addition, it would increase the administrative burdens on the licensing authority. The noble Lord will see that a major theme
410
in the Bill is keeping such burdens to a minimum. I hope he recognises that we have some justification in resisting his amendment, which I ask him to withdraw.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord says that the licence holder has to notify the licensing authority of any relevant convictions that may be sustained during the period of operation of the licence. How will the licensing authority know if he fails to do that? Somebody holding a personal licence could simply ignore the obligation that the noble Lord has mentioned, even though he is committing a criminal offence by doing so. He may think it is worth his while not to notify the licensing authority so that he can continue with his job.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord is asking how we deal with those who take risks in breaking the law when we have not been able to identify that the law has been broken. Of course the operation of the licensing activity is meant to be properly regulated. If he failed to convey the information to the licensing authority and therefore effectively forfeited his right to be a licence holder but was still continuing in the premises, anything untoward that occurred on those premises that might occasion the interest and activity of the police or the licensing authority would put him in very severe jeopardy.
We have to recognise that people will sometimes take risks when they think there will be a material advantage to them. We have a valid and viable structure in place in the industry that we believe will guarantee that those who participate in it are proper holders of licences. Any attempt on their part to lake risks in these terms would be a serious thing to do. Although the offender has an obligation to convey the information, the court also has the information and would bring to the attention of the licensing authority the fact that an offence had been committed of a significance that fell within the purview of the authority. The licence holder who commits the offence will be mindful of the fact that others are all too well aware that it has been committed.
Lord Avebury: The offence might be committed in the area of another licensing authority and might have nothing to do with his functions as the holder of a personal licence. For example, he might be convicted of shoplifting somewhere remote from the area in which he is operating as the holder of a personal licence.
Lord Davies of Oldham: If it is an appropriate offence, the court will be aware of the fact that the person before it holds some trust from the community, namely that he holds a licence. Therefore, steps would be taken to ensure that the authority was notified.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The Minister recognised that I accepted that I was being subjective. He said that I was being subjective about "five", but I was actually being subjective about "ten". As I had to be subjective about something else instead, I was then subjective about "five".

411
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his intervention, which seemed extremely pertinent. If someone commits an offence after his personal licence is two years old and does not have to renew it until he has held it for 10 years, he has eight years still to hold it, admittedly with considerable risk attached at the end of that time. Nevertheless, he may well think that eight years is a better bet. If he has only three years to go he may take a different view. I agree that that is also subjective and conjecture. So that we can make progress at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 377 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 378:
Page 63, line 21, leave out "And"
The noble Baroness said: This is a small but important point. Something seems to have gone wrong with the drafting. When I was at school, we did not begin sentences with the word "And", and I hope that we are not going to start now. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: Although I was probably at school long before the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I am afraid that I often start sentences with "And" in letters, articles and so on. If I were to write a book, I would probably do so in that. However, I do not think it seemly in an Act of Parliament. The word is also quite unnecessary, as it does not add anything to the clause. Like the noble Baroness, I am at a loss to understand how it has found its way into the Bill.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We recognise the contributions of both Members of the Committee and how helpful they have been in making the Bill more felicitous in its drafting. However, the "And" is there for a reason. It may be infelicitous, but I will not have it removed.
The word "And" is in its place to differentiate those events that would bring the period of validity of a personal licence permanently to an end—forfeiture or revocation—from those that would result in its temporary suspension. The offending "And" does a job, I am afraid. I stand subject to criticism if the drafting is less felicitous than it ought to be, but I shall not accept the amendment, as it would remove a crucial part of the subsection.
Baroness Buscombe: I want to offer a couple of alternatives. Could we not try under subsection (3), "A personal licence ceases to have effect when it is revoked under section 122 or forfeited under section 127; and"? Could we not have a comma there instead of a semicolon and continue, "and (4) a personal licence does not have effect"? Could we try beginning subsection (4), "In addition, a personal licence does not have effect during any period"?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The drafting shows an unseemly disregard for grammar. I am disappointed, because I do not believe that the
412
Minister has given a good reply. There is no good substantive reason to use such appalling grammar, but he remains seated.
Lord Davies of Oldham: No. I need the noble Baroness to give way before I can intervene. I could not afford to be both rude and incompetent on this issue. If the noble Baroness presses the issue, and if more felicitous phraseology can be found, particularly if it involves the use of the often derided semi-colon and would improve things, we should certainly consider it.
Viscount Falkland: I have a group of schoolchildren coming very soon to the House and I was going to show them the Bill as an example of how we worked. However, now that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has pointed out this inelegant usage, which would make Fowler—of Fowler's English Usage—turn in his grave, perhaps it is not a good example because it uses such clumsy syntax. I am sorry to see the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, shaking his head; I look upon him as something of a cultural icon in this place.
Baroness Buscombe: I should neither add to nor detract from that. I thank the Minister for his reply and for agreeing to revisit the grammar. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 [Application for grant or renewal of personal licence]:
[Amendment No. 379 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 380:
Page 64, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) An application for the grant or renewal of a personal licence must be accompanied by a list of licensed premises at which the applicant has been employed, or in respect of which he has played a part in the management in the five years preceding the application."
The noble Lord said: Under the Bill as it is currently drafted, applications for a personal licence are made to the licensing authority in the area in which the applicant is ordinarily resident. In the absence of a centralised, computerised database of personal licence holders, the licensing authority in those circumstances may have little or no information about the applicant or his qualifications and experience. The amendment would ensure that an applicant was required to disclose the licensed premises at which he has been employed or in respect of which he has played a part in the management in the five years preceding the application.
I point out that the pub in our hamlet in Wiltshire was rated the best pub in Wiltshire two years ago and has been rated the second-best in the county for the past two years. However, its management has changed four or five times during the eight years that we have

413
been its customers. Its reputation is such as to bestow glory and credit on anyone who has managed it. I do not in any way suggest discredit. That is an index of how rapid mobility is in the trade. I beg to move.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 383, which deals with a "fit and proper person". I again refer briefly to an ACPO briefing. It states:
"We have significant concerns over the way in which it is proposed that the 'criminal element' is prevented from becoming involved in the licensed and public entertainment trade and using the opportunities which these businesses afford to further their illicit pursuits. We recognise that the 'fit and proper' test is no longer appropriate within a modern system of regulation, however, its replacement must operate as effectively".
I have also received notification from the North Yorkshire Magistrates' Courts Service, which sent: me a copy of the good practice guide of the Justices' Clerks' Society, which refers to "fit and proper" persons. It states:
"The form is completed by the applicant for a licence and handed in to the court. This is then used as the basis on which magistrates ask questions to establish his/her fitness. The Justices' Clerks' Society has recently suggested that the form should be amended to make it clear that the applicant need not refer to convictions which are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974".
I am of course very happy about that. It goes on:
"In addition to the pro-forma, the magistrates will also usually have available a report from the local Police Licensing Officer setting out the result of the Police's enquiries into the applicant's background".
At Second Reading I said that, having been a former licensing magistrate some years ago—I declare that—we took very seriously the fitness of an applicant when trying to determine whether a person was suitable to hold a licence.
I shall give the Committee an idea of the kind of questions that we were looking at. The criteria for the granting of a justices' licence were: the age and experience in the licence trade; the training that was undertaken or proposed to be undertaken and any qualifications arising therefrom; the character of the applicant; knowledge and understanding of the licensing law; knowledge and understanding of any conditions and undertakings to which the licence may be subject; an expressed intention in the case of a protection order that the applicant intends to apply for the transfer of a licence; an assurance that the applicant is not in any way disqualified from holding a licence; and that the applicant exercises effective control and supervision over the premises. Those are the criteria which we used as licensing magistrates and which I hope will be used in the future. I very much hope that the Minister is able to address that matter in his response.
In Amendment No. 383A we seek to shorten the time limit to three years from the five years proposed. Where the clause states,
"no personal licence held by him has been forfeited in the period of five years ending with the day the application was made",
we propose to substitute a period of "three years".
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendments and everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, said. The issue here is the credentials of the holder of a personal licence. The "fit and proper person" test has been removed, doubtless because, much to the relief of those who feel that it is too vague and variable, there may be different judgments as to what constitutes "fit and proper" and that may lead to unfair refusal.
However, with the removal of the "fit and proper person" prerequisite, we lose the personal element. Someone may meet every requirement on paper but may be a particularly unsavoury character. The responsibility of selling and providing alcohol is, as we are all aware, not something to be lightly entrusted to an individual. Alcohol brings with it a great many potential dangers, which noble Lords have spoken about again and again in relation to this Bill.
That brings me to my first amendment—Amendment No. 382. I wish only to air the idea that perhaps the age limit for personal licensees should be raised from 18 to 21. A problem with that might arise for those who work in the off trade, many of whom are under the age of 21. This only serves to point out, as I shall assert when speaking to a later amendment, that many problems are associated with having a one-size-fits-all piece of legislation which covers supermarkets and retail outlets as well as clubs.
I shall not continue to speak at length on these amendments. I am sure that a great many—perhaps there are not that many; that is a shame—Members of the Committee are waiting to disagree with me. I wish merely to provoke debate. The question of credentials for personal licences deserves discussion.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We have listened carefully to the debate on these amendments and have seen some merit in them. But I am having difficulty with some of them. Amendment No. 380 carries the extraordinary dimension of increasing significantly the burdens of administration on those concerned with administering the Bill, when it becomes an Act. The noble Lord will recognise that, while we are seeking throughout to simplify matters, his amendment would increase significantly the burdens in terms of the information required.
Also, I ask the noble Lord to consider whether his amendment would be fair to personal licence-holders. That is all. The only possible use to which licensing authorities could put the information which it is suggested should be provided to them would be in seeking to exert an increased and possibly arbitrary degree of control in deciding whether or not to grant personal licence to individuals, depending on whether or not they have been associated with problem premises during their careers. They may have been associated with problem premises but have had absolutely no responsibility of their own. They could have held quite a limited role with regard to the activity

415
and the failure may have been at a much more senior level of management. Here we have the suggestion that such people should bear the full responsibility.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is the responsibility of a licence holder and someone looking after a public house to be responsible and to run a good house; otherwise, the licence can and should be taken away.
Lord Davies of Oldham: But we are not talking about the designated premises holder; we are talking about the personal licence holder with potentially fewer significant responsibilities in respect of the role they play. There is no doubt that Amendment No. 380 would create a circumstance in which people would be tarred with the same brush because of the establishments where they had worked when they had not been the sole responsible person for such establishments. They may have played a significant part because of the privileges enjoyed as the licence holder to sell alcohol, but they are by no means the creator of, nor are they responsible for, the environment in which difficulties may have occurred. Yet here we would have a circumstance in which their licence may not be renewed because of those facts.
On the amendment that suggests that the minimum age qualification should rise from 18 to 21, I can think of no responsibility in this country that we deny to 18 year-olds, except being able to stand for election to another place. I would be surprised if noble Lords considered that that is the comparator for this role. These days the age of majority is 18 for a whole range of enormously responsible roles in our society. Therefore, I have great difficulty in seeing the advantage of moving the responsible age in this case from 18 to 21.
Amendments Nos. 383 and 385 seek to introduce what was graphically and well described by the noble Baroness as the fit and proper person test. The problem with that test is that there is a widespread judgment that it is opaque and that it can be subjective and unfair because it varies from time to time and across the country. It will be recognised that we have considered the way in which licences have been administered and granted in the past; it is not just an administrative change from magistrates to local authorities.
Is there a more transparent and open system by which people can be judged on their fitness to play this role? Clearly, we have set out the criteria in the Bill for the basis upon which individuals will qualify for a licence. The criteria will work for the industry, for individuals who want to work in the industry, for the licensing authority and for the public. The system gained widespread support during the long period of consultation that was undertaken on this matter. We could not possibly have arrived at judgments on how we set out to replace a tried and trusted system, but one that everybody recognised had weaknesses and disadvantages, without the widest consultation. The Bill enshrines what we have developed on the basis of
416
that consultation and what is acceptable across the area. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords recognise that at this stage we cannot accept what appears to be a relatively minor amendment but which actually challenges an important element of the Bill.
Amendment No. 383A would reduce the period for which an individual would be prevented from obtaining a personal licence—because of forfeiture of a previous personal licence—from five to three years. I am sure that we could play the seeking game. I think the noble Lord corrected me earlier when I talked about the subjective aspects of some of these figures, but they are much more a question of judgment. The industry would like a much shorter period than the one in the Bill. In fact, it probably would not want any time limit. Others, and noble Lords, say that it should be extended. The Government have reached a position that we think strikes the right balance. Therefore, I hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I and other Members of the Committee have done our best to be co-operative in order to enable us to finish the Bill today. It is not for me to say, but I am not sure that being dismissive of arguments produced from the Opposition Benches at this hour is a sensible policy for the Government to adopt. It is their Bill; I just remark on it.
In particular, the Minister treated my amendments as though they verged on the juvenile. I was extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention. Against that background there was a touch of Gruyere about his own arguments. He said that it would be inconvenient for people to have to tell the licensing authority where they had been because of the risk that a licensing authority might not be sufficiently intelligent, if there was anything that was questionable, to take the trouble to investigate it. On the other hand, he is prepared to let through the fact that someone may have been in charge of what the noble Baroness referred to as a "less than good house", which would work against that person—in terms of the common weal—when he came to have his licence renewed. If a person is not obliged to make any reference to a role, there is no reason to suppose that the licensing authority will ever know that he actually had it.
I do not say that my argument overrides that of the Minister, but I do not think his argument overrides ours by a sufficient margin for him to be as dismissive as he was of the amendments that we have tabled. It may well be that it is the hour that makes one slightly testy, but we have been doing our best to help throughout the day. For the purposes of the debate I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I think that we may make more progress in the next half an hour if there is a greater willingness to see some virtue in the amendments being moved from this side. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Individual permitted to hold only one personal licence]:
[Amendment No. 381 not moved.]
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 agreed to.
Clause 118 [Determination of application for grant]:
[Amendments Nos. 382 to 388 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 389:
Page 65, line 3, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
"( ) An authorised officer of the licensing authority to whom the application is made or the chief officer of police may object to the granting of a personal licence by giving the licensing authority a notice (' -an objection notice")."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 389, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 392. Under Clause 118 only the police have any right of objection to the grant of a personal licence. Their right to object arises only where the applicant has been convicted of a "relevant offence" and the chief officer of police is satisfied that granting a licence would undermine the crime prevention objective. The amendments are designed to enable the licensing authority itself—although not other "interested parties"—to raise an objection to the granting of a personal licence, so that a hearing would be held at which the merits of the application could be fairly considered.
I give one example, which I suppose goes back to what we were discussing in the previous group of amendments. Once upon a time, rather more than 40 years ago, I was responsible for creating the headhunting industry in the United Kingdom. I am gratified that an acorn has become an oak in the ensuing 40 years. It was reasonably commonplace for individuals, especially at lower levels of businesses, to falsify their curricula vitae. There is no reason why the police would know that that had happened, but it is potentially dangerous not to have such a matter investigated, especially as a personal licence is what it says and inaccuracy threatens to infect the system. I do not want to make too much of the matter, but I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful that it is the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, moving this amendment, because that gives me the chance to repair the damage done on the previous set. I responded in the way that I did simply because I considered that one amendment lacked judgment on the question of fairness for the individual concerned. We were clashing less on technical issues than on a judgment of fairness and how the process would work. We have carefully thought through the issues and I was merely defending our stance on what we considered fair to the individuals concerned.
However, this amendment covers a much more technical aspect, as the noble Lord will recognise. I hope that he appreciates that we are seeking through Clauses 118, 119 and 122 a much more straightforward and less bureaucratic structure to obtain a personal
418
licence. The clauses also provide a safeguard to ensure that applications from those with a criminal past are properly considered by the police with a real power of objection.
The Bill sets out three absolute requirements and one trigger for closer examination: a past conviction for a relevant offence. The amendments would make the position a great deal more complicated, put more obstacles in the way of honest licensees and create considerably more bureaucracy. Amendments Nos. 389 and 390 give power for a licensing authority officer to object to the issuing of a personal licence. Coupled with a requirement for a hearing in the case of all such objections, that would open the way for some licensing authorities to interfere outside their area of expertise and, perhaps, frustrate the intention behind the Bill. The police are the experts on crime prevention matters, not local authorities, who will be the licensing authority. That is why we seek to ensure that the triggers in the Bill relate to the activity of police, not the licensing authority itself. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have no difficulty in recognising that a police matter is for the police. I do not seek to argue that white is black or black is white. However, the fact remains that inspectors, especially, in local authorities form clear views about a whole host of people who are engaged in the licensed trade. We have to a degree debated this before, but that information will go for nothing under the Bill, potentially to the detriment of the trade. The Government may argue that we need not concern ourselves with the state of the trade under the Bill, and that that advantage should be dispensed with. We know the hour; I shall not press the matter further. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and the poultice that he applied to our previous debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 390 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 391:
Page 65, line 12, at end insert "subject to such conditions as the authority thinks fit having regard to the licensing qualification possessed by the applicant"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 391, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 394, 399, 401 and 410. I hope that I shall please the Committee by being incredibly brief.
There is a world of difference between the retail sale of alcohol at a small corner shop and running a nightclub attended by hundreds of people at which the manager must supervise numerous employees selling alcohol in various parts of the club. The Bill makes no distinction between those extremes for the purposes of a personal licence. There should be scope to grant

419
personal licences subject to conditions depending on the licensing qualifications held by the applicant for a licence. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she moved the amendments.
The amendments would give licensing authorities the discretion to attach conditions to personal licences. Under the terms of the Bill, the licensing authority's responsibility is relatively straightforward: it must satisfy itself that the applicant meets the prescribed qualifications. If the applicant has relevant convictions and the police object to the issue of a personal licence, the authority must consider those objections also. If the authority is satisfied that an applicant passes the required threshold, it will grant the licence; if not, it will refuse the licence. That is how the Bill is, and that is how it should remain.
The stipulation of added qualifications would vastly increase the bureaucracy and would complicate matters significantly. We must be clear about what we are discussing: there is an important distinction between personal and premises licences. It is right that premises licences should be subject to conditions set by the licensing authority. Those conditions define how the supply of alcohol is to be conducted. There is no need to overlay that system with a further set of conditions attached to personal licences. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I found it extraordinary. If I were managing a small corner shop and a large, popular nightclub, I would demand of the individuals—never mind the premises—different qualifications with regard to their ability to perform the relevant functions. It would make sense for there to be some additional training or a requirement for more qualifications for somebody who will have the enormously responsible task of managing a nightclub.
The hour is late, and we have worked hard today. I will not detain the Committee any longer than is necessary. I shall examine in Hansard what the Minister said, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 392 to 394 not moved.]
Clause 118 agreed to.
Clause 119 [Determination of application for renewal]:
[Amendments Nos. 395 to 401 not moved.]
Clause 119 agreed to.
Clause 120 [Notification of determinations]:
[Amendments Nos. 402 and 403 not moved.]
Clause 120 agreed to.
Clause 121 [Duty to notify licensing authority of convictions during application period]:
[Amendment No. 404 not moved.]
Clause 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Convictions coming to light after grant or renewal]:
[Amendments Nos. 405 to 409 not moved.]
Clause 122 agreed to.
Clause 123 [Form of personal licence]:
[Amendment No. 410 not moved.]
Clause 123 agreed to.
Clauses 124 to 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [Forfeiture or suspension of licence on conviction for relevant offence]:
[Amendments Nos. 411 and 412 not moved.]
Clause 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 agreed to.
Clause 129 [Court's duty to notify licensing authority of convictions]:
[Amendment No. 413 not moved.]
Clause 129 agreed to.
Clause 130 [Licence holder's duty to notify licensing authority of convictions]:
[Amendment No. 414 not moved.]
Clause 130 agreed to.
Clause 131 agreed to.
Clause 132 [Licensing authority's duty to update licence document]:
[Amendment No. 414A not moved.]
Clause 132 agreed to.
Clause 133 [Licence holder's duty to produce licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 415 and 416 not moved.]
Clause 133 agreed to.
Clauses 134 to 136 agreed to.
Clause 137 [Defence of due diligence]
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 417:
Page 75, line 5, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (3),"
The noble Lord said: I am sure the Government will reject the amendment. It has not been their wont to accept many amendments. In an earlier amendment I asked the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to be robust. On this amendment, I ask him to be amicable.
The purpose of the amendment is to protect performers who are brought before the justices for contravening the legislation. The Bill sets out severe penalties for performing without an entertainment licence outside a pub. It is a probing amendment to ascertain the Government's view on how strictly the provisions should be adhered to.
I was going to raise the human rights issue but I shall await the letter from the Minister which will be placed very soon in the Library. I shall not press the amendment. However, under human rights legislation the freedom of individuals to express themselves is extremely important. We do not believe that

421
individuals who have performed musically should face the consequence of the law to the extent that may be provided.
The Minister will probably say that it is very unlikely that the provisions will ever be enacted. However, under the old system of public entertainment licences unfortunate cases have been reported in the press. Landlord licensees have faced prosecution and fines due to the fact that people in their pubs danced or were singing along to entertainers. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support Amendments Nos. 417 and 418, to which I and my noble friend Lord Luke have added our names.
7.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that Amendment No. 417 is unnecessary.
There are two particular problems with these amendments. First, an element of variation is introduced into the "due diligence" test. Clause 137 states that it is a reasonable defence that a person charged with an offence,
"took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence".
Amendment No. 418 proposes that, instead of exercising all "due diligence" to avoid committing the offence, the person "acted reasonably". I do not think that the amendment is an improvement. The definition of "due diligence" protects those involved. There are plenty of precedents for it. "Acting reasonably" is more vague, adds nothing and may actually take something away.
Secondly, Amendment No. 418 singles out a particular group of people; namely, performers. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made clear, the offence with which we are concerned, is,
"carrying on unauthorised licensable activity".
In this case, I presume that the noble Lord is referring to presenting a performance that should be licensed but has not been. Clause 137 also covers,
"exposing alcohol for unauthorised sale"
and,
"keeping alcohol on the premises".
I do not believe that we are concerned with that.
Performers are protected by the "due diligence" provisions in Clause 137. I sympathise with and love performers, but I do not believe that they should be treated differently from anyone else. There must be a proper defence against an inadvertent breach of licence conditions—that applies to everyone, including performers. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the clause as drafted covers those points.
Lord Avebury: Is a performer who is not inside the premises liable to commit an offence if he has not exercised "due diligence"? I am thinking of plays performed in pub gardens adjacent to a pub where the
422
performer may be unaware that the garden is subject to licensing restrictions. I should not have the faintest idea, if someone invited me to act in a pub garden, whether I should make stringent inquiries of the landlord as to whether that activity was permissible.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not understand how a performer could not know. A pub garden is clearly part of a licensed premises, just as a pub room is. That argument could apply to almost any offence.
Lord Redesdale: This has been a probing amendment. One of the issues we wanted to raise was the severity of fines that could be imposed on performers for transgressing the rules of the licence. We believe that they are excessive. Obviously the issue of music and entertainment is one where we have a divergence of view from that of the Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to prolong matters, but I failed to answer the point regarding penalties. Normally, a penalty will be trivial: there will be no significant penalty, or no penalty at all. Performing in a pub garden will not attract a huge penalty. But let us take the example of what happened on Brighton beach last year, when a performance attracted incredible numbers of people. many of whom were injured. There must be a maximum penalty which is adequate for that kind of case.
Lord Redesdale: I am glad that the Minister has put that point across. Although the penalty should be proportionate to the offence, the very fact that the maximum penalty is so great is causing a great deal of concern to many performers.
Our views diverge on the provision of entertainment. It is an area on which we shall focus at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 418 not moved.]
Clause 137 agreed to.
Clauses 138 to 142 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 419 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Listowel The Earl of Listowel moved Amendment No. 419A:
Before Clause 143, insert the following new clause—
"ALLOWING CHILDREN INTO LICENSED PREMISES
In pursuit of the licensing objective in section 4(2)(d), children under the age of 14 should only be allowed into licensed premises when accompanied by an adult over the age of 18 unless the licensee can show in his (or her) operating plan how the premises will be made suitable for this age group."
The noble Earl said: I shall be as brief as I can. The Bill introduces significant changes for the access of children to licensed premises. Currently, a child under the age of 14 can enter a licensed premises only with a children's certificate, and then only if accompanied by a person over 18 years of age. The Bill does away with such constraints. My amendment would prevent an unaccompanied child under the age of 14 from

423
entering licensed premises unless the licensee can demonstrate how he is making his establishment suitable for young children.
My intention is to ensure that licensees are ready to meet the particular needs of those under the age of 14. One recognises that bowling parlours and pizzerias now need licences, and that more and more family-friendly premises are coming into being which families enjoy and which are very valuable. At the same time, licensees should not only protect children from direct harm—for example, by providing non-smoking areas—but also ensure that children are not exposed to examples of poor behaviour or to the wrong messages about alcohol. So, for example, such licensees should make it clear in their operating plan that they will not be offering "happy hours" and similar promotional activities likely to lead to binge drinking in adults.
Members of the Committee will be well aware, from earlier debates, of the problems caused by binge drinking. I simply remind the Committee that the 1999 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs found that 56 per cent of 15 to 16 year-olds had taken more than five drinks on a single occasion in the previous 30 days. I understand that 30 per cent of this age group reported this behaviour as occurring three or more times in the previous 30 days.
My amendment may be imperfect in form, but I should like an assurance from the Minister that there will be a means to ensure that children in licensed premises will have access to non-smoking areas, and that children will be protected from witnessing irresponsible drinking. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing the amendment, which we support. As our debates have continued, our position has slightly hardened in terms of the safeguards that will be needed for the access of unaccompanied children. When the Bill began its passage, I believed that such provisions would be included. However, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made it clear at an earlier stage that it would be up to the landlord—as under the present system—whether unaccompanied children should be allowed in such premises. It could be a point of contention, and I am not sure that the Government have made their case that unaccompanied children over the age of 14 should be allowed in, given all the present difficulties—especially those associated with the landlord facing penalties for serving those who are under age. Adhering to the age of 18 provides a much easier cut-off point.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment. It is very similar to an amendment brought forward earlier by this side of the Committee. I am not sure of the extent to which the noble Earl has been in his place during our debates on the Bill, but if he had been in his place he would know that this is a subject to which I have returned repeatedly—beginning with Second Reading—because I feel very strongly that the Bill is not a proper vehicle for liberalising unrestricted access. Perhaps that is not the correct way of putting it, but
424
liberalising our alcohol and entertainment laws should not be conducive to allowing unaccompanied young people and children unrestricted access to licensed premises.
The Government have said that they will consider the issue between now and Report stage. We appreciate that. Many people have contacted me over the past weeks and expressed their deep concerns about the issue of allowing children into licensed premises. I hope very much that the Government will take those concerns on board.
The Earl of Listowel: I was unavailable for earlier days in Committee. I consulted colleagues who have been following the Bill but they did not seem to be aware that this issue had been raised before. I should have checked Hansard to ascertain whether it had.
If the Minister feels that this matter has been rehearsed before, I will be very happy to read his previous response. However, if the Minister has not had a chance to answer before, I should be grateful for a full reply, even at this late hour, because of the importance of the issue.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I confess that I have had a chance to rehearse the arguments before. Entirely inadvertently, I had not noticed that the noble Earl was not in his place—he is such an assiduous attender—and so, as it was grouped with other amendments on which we had a substantial debate, I addressed the issue contained in his amendment. I am reluctant therefore to rehearse the arguments in full again at this late hour.
I recognise the concern in all parts of the House—it is shared by the Government—that we must get this part of the Bill absolutely right. It is very important that we should extend the opportunity to make pubs family friendly. An attempt was made in 1994 to liberalise the licensing laws and to increase the opportunities for young people to participate in pubs, particularly those who went with their parents into certain parts of pubs. The number of applications for the extension of these opportunities has been pathetically small. This is a reflection of the fact that, despite the intention of liberalisation with proper safeguards, it just did not work.
So, within the framework of the Bill, we are having a second shot at creating a more liberal and family friendly framework while at the same time having a proper regard for the issues raised by the noble Earl in both his amendment and his speech. Other noble Lords have participated in this debate for a second time and expressed similar opinions.
We recognise that this is a significant part of the Bill. I cannot accept the amendment. There are all sorts of reasons for that, but it would take me until well beyond the witching hour to identify them. The noble Earl will forgive me if I do not do so. Although I cannot accept the amendment, I can assure the noble Earl that we recognise the extent of the feeling on the issue, which he exemplifies but which has also been expressed from

425
both the Opposition Benches. We will look at the issue further to see if we can come up with an amendment that meets the requirements.
On that basis, I ask the noble Earl, at this hour of the evening, to accept our good intent. There is time for us to engage in consultation on this very important issue. I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for his helpful reply and the assurance about future work on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 143 to 156 agreed to.
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. In so moving, it may be helpful if I inform your Lordships that the usual channels have agreed that we now plan to conclude the Committee stage of this Bill next Monday, 20th January, as first business after Starred Questions.

London Development Agency Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at one minute past eight o'clock.

  Pedal Cycle Lamps
  Pedal Cycle Lamps
  Bus Lanes: Camera Enforcement
  Bus Lanes: Camera Enforcement
  Rail Bridges Struck by Vehicles: Train Delays
  Rail Bridges Struck by Vehicles: Train Delays
  Oxfordshire Structure Plan
  Oxfordshire Structure Plan
  Tax Law
  Tax Law
  Inland Revenue Holdings
  Inland Revenue Holdings
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Palestinian Reform: London Meeting
  Palestinian Reform: London Meeting
  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Pinewoods
  Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Pinewoods
  Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice: Sunday Times Article
  Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice: Sunday Times Article
  Northern Ireland Hospice
  Northern Ireland Hospice
  House of Lords Refreshment Department: Purchase of Fairtrade Products
  House of Lords Refreshment Department: Purchase of Fairtrade Products
  Police Science and Technology Strategy
  Police Science and Technology Strategy
  Prisoners: DNA Samples
  Prisoners: DNA Samples
  Olympic Games 2012
  Olympic Games 2012
  Haemophilia
  Haemophilia
  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Fertility Clinics
  Fertility Clinics
  Smoking Restrictions: Impact
  Smoking Restrictions: Impact
  Criminal Cases in Consequence of 1994 Bomb Explosions at Embassy of Israel and Balfour House
  Criminal Cases in Consequence of 1994 Bomb Explosions at Embassy of Israel and Balfour House
  HMS "Nottingham": Repair Costs
  HMS "Nottingham": Repair Costs
  Citizens Advice Bureaux: Donations
  Citizens Advice Bureaux: Donations
  Maritime Patrol Aircraft
  Maritime Patrol Aircraft
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr Douglas Robertson: War Pension
  Mr Douglas Robertson: War Pension
  Death of Detective Constable Stephen Oake: Inquiry
  Death of Detective Constable Stephen Oake: Inquiry