Sitting of 2 July 2003

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

    Borders
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What plans he has to visit Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain and Knockin to discuss (a) the impact of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill and (b) the funding of higher education as they affect communities near the border of England and Wales. [122060]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): Although I have no such plans to visit at present, the Wales Office is working closely to ensure that cross-border issues in health and education are fully considered.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that the people of Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain and Knockin would be pleased to see my right hon. Friend, but if foundation hospitals go ahead in England, can he guarantee equality of access for treatment for patients in Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain, or any other part of Wales, if they have to have treatment in England?
    Conversely, can my right hon. Friend guarantee for students from Knockin, or any other part of England, the prospect of the same financial treatment as students from Wales if they go to Welsh universities?
    Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Bill that is now going through the House has guaranteed that Welsh patients being treated in English hospitals and English patients being treated in Welsh hospitals will have their rights protected. As it happens, the numbers of English residents being treated in Welsh hospitals and the number of Welsh patients being treated in English hospitals appear to be rising, especially in such border areas. That is because more people are being treated under the NHS in Wales than ever before; the same is true of the NHS in England.
    366
    So far as students are concerned, of course their rights will continue to be the same. They will have the right to study in Wales, as many choose to, and as many Welsh students will continue to have the right to study in England.
    Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept that the many positive differences between Wales and England in relation to higher education and health, including Assembly learning grants for students, the retention of community health councils and the extension of free dental checks and free prescriptions were thanks to the Liberal Democrats when they were in government in Wales? Does he agree with the obvious conclusion that if the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) opposes top-up fees and foundation hospitals, which could poach nurses from the Welsh health system, he should vote for the Liberal Democrats?
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is never afraid to exaggerate. Indeed, I quote from the Lib Dems' campaign guide to the last elections:
    "Be wicked, act shamelessly, stir endlessly, and embarrass the Administration. Don't be afraid to exaggerate."
    He is at it again. In truth, a Labour-led Government in Wales has delivered all these excellent policies, and will continue to do so over the next four years.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The Secretary of State needs to re-read the Bill on the bringing in of foundation hospitals, because it does not offer a guarantee that Welsh patients will have the same legal rights as English patients. As regards the good folk of Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain, their nearest acute hospital is the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, and they get their services there. What is the Secretary of State going to do to ensure that they get a guarantee of services equal to those on the other side of the border?
    Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, cross-border flows have been going on for many years, sometimes because people want specialised care, sometimes for geographical reasons and sometimes for traditional reasons. In the end, the issue comes down to who wishes to commission those particular services—the GP or the other relevant authority. Welsh and English patients alike will get the extra opportunities afforded by the massive investment that is going into our health service under Labour.

    European Constitution
    Mr. Peter Luff: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed new European constitution on the National Assembly for Wales. [122062]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): In line with the United Kingdom proposals to the European Convention on the Future of Europe, the draft constitutional treaty will, for the first time, formally recognise the involvement of the regions of member states such as Wales in European Union business.
    Mr. Luff: The part-time Secretary of State is an honest man—the Government's licensed conscience, one might almost say. He knows that the Convention is much more than just a tidying up. Do not the people of Wales deserve a referendum on the constitution, just as they did on the National Assembly?
    Peter Hain: No—just as the Conservatives never gave the people of Wales a referendum on the Single European Act in 1986, whereby far more British vetoes were surrendered by Mrs. Thatcher than in the entire 30 years of British membership of the European Union, and just as they were not given a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. Indeed, as I remember, the hon. Gentleman voted against a referendum on the Maastricht treaty.
    Mr. Luff indicated assent.
    Peter Hain: Well, there you are. The fact is that the new constitutional treaty, when it is finally negotiated, will be a good deal for Britain, advancing our democratic rights and for the first time giving our national Parliaments—and, indeed, the National Assembly for Wales—consultative rights in vetting any new legislative proposal from Brussels. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: Is the Secretary of State telling my hon. Friend that because he is worried about losing the new constitution, or because he is worried about a pathetic turnout like the 38 per cent. that we saw for the Welsh Assembly elections?
    Peter Hain: I think we should start looking at the turnouts in all elections over recent years—including, probably, the turnout in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Turnouts have fallen during that time, which is or should be of concern to us all.
    As for the issue of whether there should or should not be a referendum, the Conservatives have sought to frighten people into believing that this means the end of English and British civilisation. The truth is that the new constitutional treaty will mean more democratic rights for British citizens and, for the first time, more rights for the House of Commons: for the first time, the House will be able to vet any new Brussels proposals. That is a democratic advance. Instead of spreading fear and dishonestly peddling all sorts of misapprehensions about the treaty, its critics should look at the facts.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on prospects for manufacturing investment in Wales. [122063]
    Mark Tami: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary regarding investment in manufacturing in North Wales. [122069]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): There is evidence of increasing confidence in manufacturing investment in Wales, our high-technology industry and its highly skilled work force, symbolised by the massive Airbus investment at Broughton.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State paints a rather rosy picture, which contradicts the reality. The number of manufacturing jobs in Wales has been falling consistently since June 2000, and between that date and December 2000 it fell by more than 25,000. Manufacturing output has also declined consistently in recent years. CBI Wales blames Government policies such as the climate change levy, the packaging regulations and—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be asking a supplementary question. The Secretary of State will now try to answer it.
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there have been manufacturing job losses in Wales. However, 25,000 new manufacturing jobs have been created over a similar period. As an expert on manufacturing, the hon. Gentleman will know that a churning process is going on throughout the modern industrialised world. Higher-value-added manufacturing jobs are coming into Wales, while some at the lower end are leaving. According to Manpower Services
    "There is now increasing stability and confidence amongst Welsh employers, which is good news for both employers and job seekers in Wales".
    Mark Tami: My right hon. Friend said that he had recently visited Airbus at Broughton. As I am sure he will agree, it demonstrates that Wales can be a world leader in value-added manufacturing. Does he also agree that we should do more to help supplier companies to site themselves around such facilities?
    Peter Hain: Yes, I do agree. Airbus at Broughton, which is indeed a world-class centre, ought to be an increasing magnet for supplier companies. Evidence shows that when such a cluster of excellence is created it is good for the host manufacturer—in this case, Airbus—good for the supplier companies and good for the whole region.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: A few moments ago the Secretary of State said that there was confidence in the high-tech manufacturing sector in Wales. How does that square with the fact that 200 jobs are to go at Hoya Lens in Wrexham this week?
    When will the research and development tax credit be fleshed out? Despite the headline-grabbing of a few months ago, nothing has happened so far. Moreover, there is not a word about manufacturing on the Wales Office website. Why?
    Peter Hain: Yes, Hoya in Wrexham is to lose 200 jobs, although its sister company—which, I think, employs 220 people—is staying. It is moving jobs to Thailand, but it is keeping its UK base in Wrexham, where there is an excellent base for economic activity.

    369
    I think that there should be more recognition from Plaid Cymru that the Welsh economy outperformed the British economy as a whole last year. There was an estimated growth of 2.2 per cent., compared with the 1.8 per cent. forecast by British Strategies a few months ago.
    Ian Lucas: Thanks to its loyal Wrexham work force, Hoya Lens—that is the correct name— made a profit in the United Kingdom of £l¾ million last year. It paid its Wrexham work force back by making 240 of them redundant on Monday this week. Will the Secretary of State meet urgently with me to make representations to that company about the disgraceful way in which it has treated its work force, about the general rights of workers in the United Kingdom, about the road transport infrastructure in north-east Wales and about the future of manufacturing in the proud manufacturing base of Wrexham and the rest of Wales?
    Peter Hain: Having gone to Wrexham on a number of occasions, including with my hon. Friend, to visit the manufacturing centre of excellence there, I confirm my own concern and criticism about the decision. I will certainly work with him to see what we can do and make it my business to ensure that the First Minister works with the other agencies concerned to ensure that those workers are provided with a good future.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The part-time Secretary of State for Wales is complacent about the job losses at Hoya in Wrexham. It is not churn—it is burn as far as manufacturing jobs are concerned. The general secretary of the union Amicus has stated that 20 jobs are lost in manufacturing every hour of the day, and at that rate all manufacturing jobs will be gone within the next 25 years, so what action plan do the Government have to stop the rot and to expand the manufacturing base in Wales?
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes jibes about part-time but it was his party's policy at the last election to merge the Secretary of State for Wales's job with another post. In fact, according to the BBC website, it wanted to merge the position with that of the Leader of the House of Commons. As for part-timers, they are a bunch of moonlighters on the Conservative Benches. He should acknowledge that business confidence in Wales is now greater than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and that our record on employment is better than that in the rest of Europe and the United States. He should start to support the economic powerhouses generating more jobs in Wales instead of continually attacking them.
    Mr. Evans: I think that the part-time Secretary of State protests too much. He knows that manufacturing is a greater percentage of gross domestic product in Wales than it is in the rest of Britain, yet the Government are doing nothing to stop the rot. Instead, the Welsh Assembly is squandering vital objective 1 money, missing its own targets, and it may even have to give some of the money back, yet as manufacturing jobs disappear the number of people who work at the Assembly has gone up from 2,275 in 1999 to 3,451 today. The number of spin doctors is being doubled from three to six and £8,000 has been spent on
    370
    advertising those useless £150,000 jobs for spin doctors. How many manufacturing jobs need to be exported abroad before the Minister fights as hard for their jobs as he did to get two jobs for himself?
    Peter Hain: That comes from a party that saw more manufacturing bombed out than under the Luftwaffe in Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Yes I shall. I shall answer with facts instead of Tory myths. Unemployment is down 46 per cent. in Wales since April 1997. Wales has seen the biggest fall in unemployment over the past year of any of the UK regions. Employment in Wales has risen by 69,000 over the past year. There have been manufacturing losses but more manufacturing jobs have been created in parallel. The picture is of a buoyant Welsh economy meeting the challenges of the future and doing much better than many economies across Europe.
    Mr. Evans: The part-time Secretary of State for Wales knows that there has been a net loss in manufacturing jobs. If it were the manufacturing of greasy poles that was in decline, I am sure that it would get the full attention of the part-time Secretary of State for Wales. He knows that there has been a net overall loss in manufacturing jobs—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order.
    Mr. Evans: The part-time Secretary of State for Wales knows that there has been a net loss—the unions are saying it and those who have lost their jobs have felt it. Will the part-time Secretary of State now urgently set up a taskforce involving representatives from manufacturing, business and the Welsh Development Agency to look at matters such as red tape, European directives, the climate change levy, national insurance business rates and the landfill tax? Why is business profitability in manufacturing the lowest since 1993, or is he so busy with his other part-time job that he simply does not have the time?
    Peter Hain: The facts are that employment in Wales is at record levels, there are more business start-ups in Wales than anywhere else in Britain and business confidence there is rising. What the hon. Gentleman should do is to start supporting the Welsh economy, instead of continually attacking it.

    Broadband
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: What recent discussions he has had with (a) ministerial colleagues and (b) National Assembly Secretaries on progress in rolling out broadband services in West Wales. [122064]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet ministerial colleagues and we have regular bilateral meetings with National Assembly Ministers; we have discussed broadband, among other subjects. I have invited British Telecom to make a presentation on broadband at the Wales Office, and I have invited all Members of Parliament

    371
    representing Welsh seats, including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), to join us on that occasion, when colleagues may learn more about broadband in Wales.
    Mrs. Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Milford Haven, which is the largest town in my constituency, is due to go live with broadband on 24 September. That is an important economic development for my constituency, but bearing in mind the £100 million that the Assembly has provided for roll-out of broadband in Wales, will he have discussions with Ministers in the Assembly and with his colleagues here to try to get the roll-out extended to smaller towns such as Fishguard, given the economic development potential?
    Mr. Touhig: I certainly welcome the roll-out of broadband in Milford Haven. I am advised that Fishguard has in fact hit its target for broadband and can expect the broadband exchange to be rolled out within the next three months.
    Mr. Roger Williams: The IT revolution was meant to be the means of ensuring that rural Wales could take part in the economic growth that the rest of the nation enjoys, but rural parts of west Wales and mid-Wales have still yet to receive broadband. [Interruption.] Will the Minister consider the use of satellite technology to get broadband to rural areas, and particularly to Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain, which is in the Liberal Democrat-held constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik)? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I should point out that the Chamber is getting far too noisy. That always seems to happen at this time on a Wednesday.
    Mr. Touhig: I think that it is the attraction of Welsh questions, Mr. Speaker.
    My colleagues in the Assembly are looking at maximising the use of objective 1 funding for two major projects. The first is aimed at supporting a range of innovative local and regional projects, and the second at increasing broadband availability in areas that are unlikely to be enabled, such as the rural community to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he joins us at the Wales Office for the British Telecom presentation, he can pursue the matter further and perhaps we will have some good news for him.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that approximately 44 per cent. of the population of Wales are now covered by the asymmetric digital subscriber line service, but is he also aware that certain pockets in my constituency, for example, do not receive this service? Will he use his good offices to try to improve this service in the near future?
    Mr. Touhig: Yes, indeed. Sixty-one of Wales's 440 telephone exchanges are now ADSL-enabled, and a further 26 exchanges will reach the trigger level shortly. I shall certainly take up my hon. Friend's point, but I
    372
    invite her, too, to join us at the presentation at the Wales Office, when these matters can be put directly to British Telecom.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger: If he will make a statement on discussions with the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the common agricultural policy in Wales. [122065]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I are kept abreast of developments by Cabinet colleagues, and I will be discussing the matter with Assembly Ministers next week.
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger: In view of the fact that the common agricultural policy is now a schizophrenic document—in other words, France and Germany are favoured over the UK—what will the Minister do to try to bolster Welsh agriculture, given that it is in such a state under a Secretary of State who is double-hatted at the best of times?
    Mr. Touhig: I am not clear about the hon. Gentleman's view of the recent discussions on CAP reform, but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for her work on delivering a very good deal. I certainly welcome the package as a significant step towards supporting and sustaining agriculture in Wales. My colleagues in the Assembly and the National Farmers Union of Wales have welcomed it, and the Farmers Union of Wales wants further discussions on those developments. It is a good news story for Wales, which will benefit Welsh agriculture.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: May I echo the sentiments of farmers in my constituency, who have expressed their satisfaction that CAP reforms will lead to the freedoms that they need to develop their own businesses? However, there is immediate concern at the roll-out of biosecurity measures on 1 August and their effects on the blackmill grass-based market. Will the Minister join me in making representations to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Assembly to ensure that small indigenous markets do not lose out from those essential biosecurity measures?
    Mr. Touhig: My hon. Friend has made several representations to me and other colleagues on biosecurity measures. We all recognise that they are essential if we are to avoid a repeat of foot and mouth problems that the country experienced a little while ago. I will certainly take account of my hon. Friend's point and bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Has the Minister had an opportunity to reflect on two votes taken last week by the European Parliament? One relates to the labelling of genetically modified crops and food, the other to the liabilities arising from the planting of such

    373
    crops, and they will both impact on the CAP and planting policy in Wales. The Minister will know that the National Assembly for Wales has stated clearly that it wants Wales to remain free of GM crops. Will he give an undertaking today that, if the Assembly maintains that view, Wales will remain a genetically modified commercial crop-free area?
    Mr. Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Although I have not read the documents to which he referred, I will make it my business to acquaint myself with them and take account of what they say. I cannot give the assurance that he asks for on GM crops in Wales. I think that we have to be very careful. We must continue with the discussions and studies that are currently going on and ensure that they are properly evaluated. I urge a further word of caution. I can remember a time when Wales had nuclear-free zones, but such things are often little more than gesture politics. We have to discover what is best for agriculture in Wales and make a proper assessment before making our judgment—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    Inward Investment
    Michael Fabricant: What plans he has for overseas visits to promote inward investment in Wales in the next six months. [122066]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): In line with the Government's objective that Britain should be fully engaged in the European Union, the Secretary of State and I are considering a programme of contacts and possible visits to as many EU accession countries as possible. We will use those opportunities to promote Welsh business and Welsh industry.
    Michael Fabricant: I am pleased to hear that, and I am sure that the whole House knows that the Minister and the Secretary of State want to do their best for Wales. However, is it not the case that, in his position as Leader of the House, the Secretary of State has to chair three Cabinet Committees and be here in London every Thursday to take business questions? Once a month he has to be here in London in order to answer questions to the Leader of the House, so where will he find the time to go abroad and promote Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: I do not think that anyone can doubt the time and commitment that my right hon. Friend gives to Wales. It is absolutely first class, and he will not let up in his determination to do his best for Wales. He constantly promotes a world-class Wales. The hon. Gentleman talks about other jobs and other responsibilities, so why does he not ask the shadow Secretary of State for Wales how he had time to walk up and down Whitehall with a "for sale" placard on the day of the reshuffle? Clearly, he had nothing to do, and I thought that he was a newsagent, not an estate agent.
    Kevin Brennan: Under devolution we have a First Minister and a National Assembly. The First Minister recently visited Barcelona, where he met
    374
    with the bosses of Celsa, which is reopening the steel plant in Cardiff, thanks to the partnership between the Government in Westminster and the National Assembly in Cardiff. Is not that an example of the way in which devolution can work to bring inward investment to Wales?
    Mr. Touhig: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, I was in the Czech Republic last year with seven companies and Wales Trade International, to promote Welsh jobs and business and to forge links. We have a good and effective partnership between the Labour Governments in the Assembly and in Westminster. It is working well in the interests of the people of Wales. They certainly appreciated that when they gave us a sound vote of confidence on 1 May, by returning a Labour majority in the Assembly.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Annette Brooke: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mrs. Brooke: What progress is being made in the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
    The Prime Minister: The search for weapons of mass destruction, and evidence of the programmes, is being carried out by the Iraq survey group. It is some 1,200 strong and began its work a short time ago. It will be able to investigate all the sites, and interview all the witnesses and experts. We have already made it clear that the findings of the Iraq survey group should, of course, be publicly available.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider the report published by the Institution of Civil Engineers on future energy production and supply in this country? In that report, criticism is made of the Department of Trade and Industry White Paper on energy supply, which would see the demise of the coal industry by 2016. By 2020, we would need to rely on imported fuels to the tune of 90 per cent. and that is obviously causing great concern in mining areas. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet several Members who represent mining areas to discuss that important report?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend and other Members from mining constituencies. I understand the concern that my hon. Friend mentions, but we have put substantial additional support into the mining industry in the past few years. It is important that we also maintain an energy supply that

    375
    is fully competitive. That is under discussion with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members at the present time.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: In 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister said that it was a "national disgrace" that one in 10 trains ran late. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many trains run late now?
    The Prime Minister: The punctuality figures are worse since the Hatfield rail accident. Punctuality figures until Hatfield were stable for several years. After Hatfield, it was recognised that the state of the rail infrastructure required a massive amount of additional investment. That is why, over the next 10 years, we will roughly double the amount of public and private investment in the railways.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: They have not just got worse: they are twice as bad as when the Deputy Prime Minister said that they were a "national disgrace". One in five trains now run late—twice as bad. No wonder the CBI said today that
    "performance on the railways has yet to return to the levels of the late 1990s".
    Exactly how long will it take to get back to those levels?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that rail punctuality has not returned to the levels of the late 1990s. That is for the very reason that the CBI give and that I have just given—after the Hatfield rail disaster it was recognised that the state of the rail infrastructure was infinitely worse than we supposed. That was as a result of years of underinvestment in our rail infrastructure, which we are now putting right. We are set virtually to double the amount of public and private investment in our railways. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now say whether he agrees with the commitment that we have given to the extra spending, because the only way to achieve a better performance on the railways is for that investment to be made. We are committed to it. Is he?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: As ever, the Prime Minister blames everybody else when the Government fail. Network Rail has said that it will take until 2010—that is seven more years—just to get back to what the Government inherited. It is going to cost £58 billion just to get things back to where they were when the Government came to office. That is another example of taxpayers paying more and getting less. The part-time Transport Secretary now seems to think that things have to get worse before they can get better. I do not recall the British people being aware of the campaign song that said, "Things can only get worse." Is that not another reason why nobody believes a word that the Prime Minister says anymore?
    The Prime Minister: Railway punctuality has got worse post-Hatfield for the very simple reason that I have given, which is also the reason that the CBI gave. The combination of underinvestment over many years and a catastrophic privatisation implemented by the previous Conservative Government have given us this situation. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to
    376
    say that it will take billions of pounds of extra investment over the next few years to put matters right. Everybody agrees about that, but that is investment that we are committed to and he is opposed to. I gave him an opportunity a moment or two ago to say categorically whether he was in favour of this extra investment. He quoted the CBI, which says that it supports the 10-year plan and wants that investment to go in. That is our position, and the CBI position. Is it his? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Richard Burden.
    Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a short while ago Alstom announced that it had secured a multi-million pound order for tube trains in London. It followed that announcement by saying that it was going to bring to an end 150 years of train production at its Birmingham factory, threatening more than 1,000 jobs. On the day that workers from Alsthom are going to France to say that they are not prepared to have their jobs go down the tube in this way, I ask my right hon. Friend to back them.
    The Prime Minister: First of all, I understand my hon. Friend's concern and anxiety for his constituents. He will understand that the Department of Trade and Industry is willing to meet representatives of the company and of the unions at the plant, and of course my hon. Friend, to see what we can do. In the end, these are decisions that have to be taken by the company, but we will give whatever help we possibly can to my hon. Friend's constituents. At the present time, we are in discussions with the company about its restructuring plans. I hope that we can get a positive outcome.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Foreign Secretary said that the claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes was not in the original draft of the dossier released by the Government. However, the very next day, Alastair Campbell contradicted that, and said that it was in "the very first draft". Will the Prime Minister please clarify once and for all which version of events is correct?
    The Prime Minister: In fact, the matter was clarified. The clarification is this: in the first draft presented by the Joint Intelligence Committee, the 45 minutes claim was there. The allegation that the claim was inserted by anyone in No. 10 Downing street or any Minister is completely and totally incorrect. The right hon. Gentleman has been backing that claim. If he has evidence to support the claim that we inserted intelligence into the dossier, let him now state the basis for that allegation.
    Mr. Kennedy rose—
    Hon. Members: Come on!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There should be no shouting.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Prime Minister is aware that the Foreign Secretary—elected and accountable to this House—gave one version of events, and that an

    377
    unelected member of staff in his No. 10 office gave a different version of events. Does the Prime Minister not agree that the best way to clarify the matter, once and for all, would be for him to go to that Committee and spell out exactly what happened?
    The Prime Minister: It actually has been clarified. The Foreign Affairs Committee will make its report and the Intelligence and Security Committee will make its report. They have been given the fullest possible co-operation by the Government. I repeat, as I have from the very beginning, that the claim—it is a perfectly simple claim—that, contrary to the advice and insistence of the security services, the 45-minute claim was inserted in the dossier last September is completely untrue. Let me repeat once again: if anyone actually has any evidence, let them produce it. I think that before a claim of that seriousness is made, at least some evidence should be produced.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: May I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said? I heard my right hon. Friend's answer that he is willing to meet a delegation of mining MPs, but in the meantime, will he consider whether he should declare the deep coal industry a strategic reserve and that there should be no future colliery closures, including that proposed for Selby?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance or guarantee. It is important, especially now that the industry is in private hands, that we balance its interests as a whole with those of the energy supply of the country. As I said, over the past few years we have put a large sum of money into supporting the coal industry. We are working with the industry to see that it has a viable future. I shall be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and other representatives from mining constituencies, but we have to be careful about giving completely open-ended commitments to any industry.
    Mr. James Clappison: Last Monday's vote on hunting could have a very bad effect on the rural economy. Will the Prime Minister at least clarify his own position? Will the Government use the Parliament Act if the House of Lords amends the Hunting Bill so as to reject a total ban?
    The Prime Minister: On the Parliament Act, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality has already said. I supported the compromise proposals that he put forward; it is now for the other House to consider the Hunting Bill.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: I welcome the progress that is being made on the road map to peace in the middle east. Does the Prime Minister agree that if real peace is to be achieved, the Palestinians and other Arabs must stop preaching hatred of Jews in Israel and around the world? What representations has the Prime Minister made to the current Defence Minister of Syria who has written:
    "The Jew can kill you and take your blood in order to make your Zionist bread"?
    The Prime Minister: In general terms, my hon. Friend's point is right. It is a point that we make to Arab countries and, indeed, to representatives of the Palestinian Authority. It is important that we get the peace process under way. There was a lot of scepticism about whether we could make progress in the middle east, but I think that people now understand that there is that real and genuine possibility and that we must have a reduction of hatred and tension on all sides. That certainly includes the abolition of sources of incitement to racial hatred, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: With the World Trade Organisation meeting fast approaching, does the Prime Minister agree that the best way to raise living standards in the developing world is to reduce tariff barriers and to promote free trade?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course I do; that is precisely the position of the Government.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister also agree that the negotiations to achieve that must be balanced? Many of the poorest countries feel that they are outgunned by richer countries in those negotiations, and as a result they have not been able to benefit from the growth in free trade. At the last WTO round, the EU had more than 500 experts on their side, whereas many of the poorest countries had literally nobody to represent them. Will the Prime Minister consider establishing a specific advocacy fund to make sure that the poorest countries can make their voice heard?
    The Prime Minister: First of all, of course, I entirely agree that the reduction of tariffs is immensely important. I actually welcomed the deal that was done in the Agriculture Council; I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in negotiating it. It is important that Europe plays its part, with other countries, in making sure that tariffs are reduced. It is also important, incidentally, that we put that alongside a series of measures, such as increased aid and development, and this country, under this Government, has reversed the policy of the previous Government and has been putting investment into aid and development.
    Of course it is important that we give developing countries whatever help we can. I am perfectly happy to look at the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but many of the countries that are going to the WTO would regard it as their position to ensure for themselves that they have the right advocacy.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: That is exactly the point. The reality is that, as I said last time, more than 500 EU advisers swamped all the poorer countries. I understand from what the Prime Minister has just said that he has now agreed to look at the policy that the Conservative party has been promoting for some time—[Interruption.] Oh yes, the Prime Minister has now

    379
    undertaken to try to adopt our policy because, last week, his own DFID Minister dismissed—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow the right hon. Gentleman to speak.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is not aware that, last week, his own DFID Minister dismissed the whole idea, so I am glad that he has done a U-turn to accept our policy. Real trade and real justice mean access to free trade, and I hope that the Prime Minister accepts that.
    The Prime Minister: Let us be clear: over the years that the Conservative party was in office, the aid and development budget of this country fell, as a proportion of our national income; it is now rising every year under this Government. It is this Government who have been leading the way on third-world debt, and it is this Government who secured at the Agriculture Council, by qualified majority voting, the ability to make sure that we can give a decent offer from Europe at the WTO in September. When the right hon. Gentleman goes on about the 500 EU advocates, why is it that I sort of think that he is more interested in making a point about the EU than about the developing world?
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: As a scientist at heart, may I ask my right hon. Friend to join me in paying tribute to scientists in the House and, indeed, across the country—people involved in engineering and technology—and the role that they play in our economy? What measures will he take to enhance the science, technology and innovation base?
    The Prime Minister: The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely vital for the future of this country. We have increased science investment from the Government and with the private sector up to £2 billion, rising to £3 billion, over the next few years. That will play an absolutely vital part in making sure that our industry is competitive for the future. I pay tribute to the work that British scientists do. I can tell my hon. Friend that, with 1 per cent. of the world's population, we now fund 5 per cent. of the science, and that is a good omen for the future of industry and science in this country.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does the Prime Minister think it appropriate that a senior Minister should insult our armed forces by saying that all soldiers are boneheads; have a benefit in kind worth £12,000 a year, contrary to the ministerial code, and unregistered, contrary to the advice of the Standards and Privileges Committee; assault members of the general public; use foul language in front of House of Commons staff, while breaking the rules of the House; and all because he arrogantly believes that the rules only apply to the little people? When will the Prime Minister sack the Deputy Prime Minister? Or does he believe that, at 65, he should be the first beneficiary of the new policy on ageism?
    The Prime Minister: I will tell the House what I believe. I believe that the best commitment from a Government to our armed forces is not visiting 20 per cent. cuts, which is
    380
    what was implemented by the previous Government—[Interruption]—yes—but delivering the first real-terms increase in defence spending for more than 10 years: this side's record; that side's shame.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the Tory discovery of world poverty, which is only fair because they caused much of it? Is he aware of the events that took place last weekend in my constituency and others, sponsored and organised by those in the trade justice movement—Oxfam, Christian Aid, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and other organisations—who called for the Government to do more to assist the third world, even though they recognise that this Government have taken the lead in many of those matters? I have here a petition, signed by thousands of my constituents. Will the Prime Minister undertake to give me a reply, explaining what more the Government are doing?
    The Prime Minister: We will continue to try to get the best possible offer, not just from Europe but from other developed countries, at the World Trade Organisation in September. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point about the importance of free trade for the developing world. We believe that a good WTO round could add something in the region of $150 billion to wealth in the world as a whole. Of course, it is extremely important to recognise that we will only get a decent deal out of Europe by being constructively engaged in Europe. It is as a result of being engaged, forming the right alliances and having, at the Agriculture Council, qualified majority voting, that we managed to get the deal that we did.
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: In view of the White inquiry into Islington child abuse scandals of the 1980s and 1990s, which described Islington council as a chaotic organisation that breeds the conditions for dangerous and negligent practices in relation to child care, does the Prime Minister really think that his appointment as Minister for Children is well advised?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Minister for Children was, of course, the Minister with responsibility for early years from 1998 to 2001. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what she accomplished: free education for all four-year-olds—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I tell the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) that he has a habit of shouting, particularly at Prime Minister's Question Time. He will not do it.
    The Prime Minister: Those accomplishments were free education for all four-year olds—now 88 per cent. of three-year-olds—647,000 new child care places, and the development of the sure start programme, which, in constituencies across this country, is doing an immense amount for young people. That is a record of which she and we can be proud.
    Mark Tami: Last summer, my constituent David Holloway was knocked down and killed by a coach while making his way from

    381
    one of Ibiza's popular clubs to his hotel. He was one of many British victims to die on Spanish roads. The road from San Antonio to Ibiza town has no pavements and is poorly lit, and has a speed limit of 75 mph. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will do all in his power to approach the Spanish authorities to improve road safety in Spain so that young British lives are not lost?
    The Prime Minister: First, I take this opportunity to offer my deepest sympathy and condolences to Mr. Holloway's family. I understand that this matter has been investigated by the Spanish police and considered by a Spanish court. I can tell my hon. Friend that we have made representations about this particular road, and in 2001, local authorities introduced certain changes as a result of the matters that we raised. I will undertake to look at the matter again, however, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Alan Reid: Pensioners who want to have their pensions paid through a Post Office account have to go through a long and complicated process. One of the steps is to phone the rather sinisterly named customer conversion centre. When pensioners phone, the first thing that they are told is, "Yes, I know you want to open a Post Office card account, but …" Is not the whole process designed to drive pensioners away from the post office? Will the Prime Minister intervene to simplify the process and start publicising the Post Office account positively? Otherwise, many small rural post offices will be forced to close.
    The Prime Minister: We do publicise the account positively. The hon. Gentleman will also understand, however, that many pensioners and many people nowadays prefer to receive the money in their bank account. Precisely for that reason, however, we have invested a very large sum of money in working with post offices to ensure that those who still want to get their money at the post office can do so. In the end, however, it is right to say that over a long period there has been a trend towards people receiving the money in their bank account, and it would be wrong to force people to receive it at the post office. We must enable them to do it, and we are doing so.
    Mr. Mark Todd: Last week, this House passed a Bill to address various aspects of antisocial behaviour, including fly tipping and, through a late amendment, illegal camping—a particular bane of the South Derbyshire constituency. Did my right hon. Friend share my puzzlement that the Bill did not receive a wider welcome in the House, and will he share the welcome that it has been given by my constituents?
    The Prime Minister: First, since I was previously asked a question by a Liberal Democrat, I think that it is extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats opposed many of the measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. The whole purpose of the Bill is to give the police the power to deal with antisocial behaviour quickly and effectively through the use of fixed penalty notices and limitations on airguns and spray paints, for example. It
    382
    is absolutely vital that that range of measures is put into place because it will make a significant difference to dealing with antisocial behaviour on our streets.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Prime Minister share my concern that figures given to me today by Worcestershire county council show that because of the growing revenue funding gap between Worcestershire and the national average, bringing our schools' staffing ratios in line with the national average would require 30 more teachers and 400 more support staff? Does that sound as if Worcestershire schools are getting a fair deal?
    The Prime Minister: Surely the hon. Gentleman would also want to point out that since we came to office, there are in fact about 200 more teachers, 500 more support staff and 250 more teaching assistants. Indeed, Worcestershire local education authority has allocated an extra £500 per pupil in real terms compared with 1997–98. I agree that we can always do more, but surely the policy that he proposes, which opposes such extra investment and would make 20 per cent. cuts across the board, is not going to help.
    Lawrie Quinn: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the report by Sheffield Hallam university on the seaside economy? Is he aware of the all-party seminar that was held at the Treasury yesterday? What contribution can he make to be a champion for seaside communities such as Scarborough and Whitby to ensure that every part of this country benefits from the policies that this Government promote, which are in stark contrast to the years of decline under the previous Government?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's point about seaside towns is obviously true because many parts of seaside towns suffer from high levels of unemployment and poor housing. That is why it is important that through elements such as the new deal, the working families tax credit and the new children's tax credit, we continue to invest in those communities and others. As a result of that additional investment, we have at least managed to reduce unemployment in his constituency and many others, which is why it would be so unfortunate if the Conservative party were able to scrap those measures.
    Mr. George Osborne: Following the Sally Clark and Trupti Patel cases, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Crown Prosecution Service will review all cases in which the evidence of Professor Roy Meadow helped to secure a conviction? Will he instigate a broader inquiry on the way in which the criminal justice system deals with mothers who are accused of murdering their infant children?
    The Prime Minister: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the procedures are being reviewed. Perhaps I could investigate exactly what the review entails and write to the hon. Gentleman rather than giving him an answer off the top of my head. Of course, I understand the concern that has been voiced as a result of the case, and we plainly need to ensure that procedures are in line with what the public would

    383
    expect. My right hon. Friend says that such a review is being undertaken, and I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman with details of it.
    Mr. Mike Hall: My right hon. Friend will be aware of major problems caused by youths who recklessly ride their scrambler bikes on parks and open spaces. May I advise him that in the Northwich part of my constituency last week, the police were able to apprehend the leader of a gang of bike riders? They arrested him, confiscated his bike and drove it around the estate so that everybody could see it. That was an excellent operation by the police in Northwich and Halton. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that we will give the necessary resources and power to the police and local authorities so that we may continue to bear down on antisocial behaviour?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend raises a matter of deep concern to many hon. Members, especially Labour Members. There is now the ability to confiscate bikes, which will form an important part of the new measures that come into place. Talking to police officers shows that they believe that the combination of powers to close down crack houses and take action against juveniles in respect of airguns, spray paints and bicycles, and the ability to use fixed penalty notices without the whole hassle of having to go to court, will make a significant difference to our local communities.
    384
    Along with the much simpler procedures for antisocial behaviour orders, they amount to a substantial package. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I tell Conservative Members that there is no bigger issue in our communities than dealing with this problem.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: The Prime Minister is aware of the dramatic drop in the number of beds in Hereford hospital, but if I send him the letter that I have before me, will he look into the case of my constituent, Donald Jaques, whose ECG test was stopped when it became clear that he had a serious coronary problem, only to return to his GP to be told that he had to wait 10 months for a proper coronary angiogram? Will the Prime Minister please look into that real problem?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly look into the individual case and will correspond with the hon. Gentleman on it. But before we leave the subject of cardiac care in the health service, I know he would want to acknowledge the dramatic increase in the number of heart operations performed in this country and the huge amount being done in cardiac and, indeed, cancer care. For that reason, there has been a significant drop in the number of deaths from heart disease in this country over the past few years. If what the hon. Gentleman describes is correct, it is obviously a serious situation, but it should not be taken as a general comment on the health service. The fact is that the vast majority of people get extremely good treatment within our national service today.

Aviation Health
12.31 pm
Mr. John Smith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a responsibility on airlines for the health, welfare and well-being of their passengers; in that connection, to amend the Carriage by Air Act 1961; and for connected purposes.
Hon. Members may be surprised that such a Bill is being proposed at all. It would place a duty of care on airlines that use British airports and are registered in the United Kingdom for the health and welfare of their passengers. Surely airlines, just like any other business that provides a service for its customers, including other passenger carriers—coach companies or trains—have an automatic duty of care in common law for the health and welfare of their customers and passengers. But you might be surprised to hear, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the case. Uniquely, the world's airlines have no responsibility whatsoever for the health of their passengers. The airlines' liability is governed by a 75-year-old convention, the Warsaw convention of 1929, article 17 of which limits the liability of airlines purely to the safety of their passengers; they are in no way responsible for their health.
At the time, the reason for that was understandable. In 1929, flying was a novel and pretty dangerous activity. Not many people did it and there certainly were not many paying passengers. Indeed, we were still flying biplanes and there was no such thing as pressurised cabins. The international community reached an agreement—a settlement—in which they decided, on the one hand, to limit the liability in damages for the death or injury of passengers and, on the other, to have no-fault compensation. That was perfectly rational, perfectly logical and perfectly reasonable in 1929. In 2003—in the 21st century—it is ludicrous that airlines have a responsibility for the safety of their passengers, but not for their health.
Air travel is the fastest growing mode of public transport in the world. It happens to be, believe it or not, one of the safest modes of transport in the world. Unfortunately, there is now a wide body of evidence to suggest that it is an extremely dangerous and unhealthy mode of travel, but the airlines have no responsibility for our health.
I am sure that the general public, including those on the 60 million flights abroad that Britons take in any one year, are not aware that when they step on an aeroplane their health is not protected in any way. But can one imagine a more controlled environment than an aircraft cabin? Where and how we sit is controlled; what we can do is, quite rightly, controlled; what we eat and drink is controlled; and even the very air that we breathe is controlled. But the airlines have no responsibility whatsoever for our health. That is an absurd and outrageous anomaly, and it is about time that the House addressed it.
386
At this moment, the victims of deep vein thrombosis and their families are fighting a case in the Court of Appeal. I have taken advice on this matter, Mr. Speaker. Those poor people are trying to argue that a thrombosis caused by long-haul travel is an accident, as defined by the 1929 convention. They cannot go into court and simply argue that their relatives, who include my 29-year-old constituent, John Anthony Thomas, were killed by the airlines. Because of that limited liability, they will not have their day in court. Many people will be extremely surprised to hear that.
Last month, in Cardiff county court, Judge Graham Jones ruled that the victims of the Girona air crash, who have suffered considerable psychological damage, can sue the holiday company, Thomson, precisely because he knew that, under the antiquated convention, they cannot sue the carriers, Britannia Airways. The situation is absurd and it needs to change. The travelling public have a right to be protected, and the House should lead the world in giving airline passengers that right by supporting the Bill.
The Bill will place a duty on airlines to protect the health of their passengers. One could still have to go to court and prove that one's life had been endangered. We in the DVT campaign believe that at least one in 40 of all passengers travelling for over four hours develops a clot in a deep vein which can seriously damage their health and may even be fatal. If we are right, a huge number of people are affected. We wait for science to prove how many people are being killed by that dreadful condition and to identify the exact causal relationship between air travel and DVT, but there is not a serious clinician in the world who does not agree that there is a link between long-haul air travel and the incidence of DVT.
This is an important Bill, and it is an honour for me to present it to the House. I do it in the name of my constituent, John Anthony Thomas, and all those who have died in the past two years from DVT as a direct result of an international long-haul flight. I do it for the families who are suffering terribly—the Christoffersons, the Browns, the Thomases and the Lambs. I could go on. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Smith, Mr. Paul Tyler, Bob Spink, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. David Kidney, Dr. Richard Taylor, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. David Hinchliffe and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.

Aviation Health
  AVIATION HEALTH
  Mr. John Smith accordingly presented a Bill to place a responsibility on airlines for the health, welfare and well-being of their passengers; in that connection, to amend the Carriage by Air Act 1961; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 136].
Opposition Day
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Road and Rail Transport
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  12.40 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that since 1997 the fastest expansion in rail services, carriage of freight and passenger numbers in a century, huge forward orders for rolling stock, the fall of fares in real terms and the arrival on time of 90 per cent. of trains, have been replaced by cutbacks in train services, the axing of rail freight grants, abandonment of targets for growth in passenger numbers, a decision to increase fares in real terms and the arrival of 80 per cent. of trains on time; recognises that Network Rail has, to date, delivered a substantially worse performance at vastly higher cost to the taxpayer than Railtrack, and promises only to return to 2000 levels of train punctuality by 2010; condemns the fact that an increase since 1997 of over £10 billion per annum in taxes on the motorist has not been accompanied by any significant upgrading of the national road network; and calls for fair treatment for passengers, motorists and taxpayers alike.
  I shall begin by setting out a good half dozen policies introduced by the Government or their agencies that we thoroughly support and happily endorse as commonsense measures that should continue. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] My hon. Friends should not get too concerned, as that is not the entire substance of my speech. However, let us start on a consensual note.
  First, the Government were entirely right to establish the rail accident investigation branch in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. During the Bill's passage through Parliament, we have made it clear that we would not seek to divide either House on a sensible measure that, I hope, will be a success.
  Secondly, I very much welcome the Secretary of State's commitment in principle, as announced in recent days, to a national railcard. He will know that the Rail Passengers Council is particularly interested in a railcard that would encourage more people to turn up and go on trains, and use them at the last minute rather than for pre-planned journeys. It believes that such a card should aim to encourage people who travel infrequently by train to use the railway system more frequently, and—I hope that the Secretary of State and I agree about this—it should encourage more revenue for the rail system rather than cost it revenue.
  The third welcome initiative, which has been introduced partly through Government intervention and partly by other means, steps up attempts to achieve the proper collection of fares. Hon. Members on both sides of the House may have had a similar experience to me: I have travelled on the west coast main line all the way from Oxenholme to Milton Keynes before a ticket collector has appeared. A recent development at Peterborough, where a couple of ticket collectors have been put on duty, has raised about £1.5 million of extra revenue in the past nine months. That is welcome, but I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that more needs to be done.
  388
  Fourthly, we welcome the decision by Network Rail to bring in-house some work hitherto undertaken by contractors. That is a sensible experimental measure, which will ensure that a proper comparison can be made between public and private sector provision. I also welcome the fact that Network Rail has stressed that that does not mean that it intends to bring all services in-house—it merely wishes to ensure that it is charged appropriate sums by contractors and is not being overcharged.
  Fifthly, the Secretary of State will know that the Conservatives support the difficult decision to suspend some rail services for prolonged periods to accelerate the completion of engineering work. It is a difficult decision, because some people will undoubtedly lose out as a result, but, in some circumstances, it is the only means by which engineering work can be completed in a reasonable period.
  We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has undertaken a partial U-turn on the policy pursued by his predecessors on new road construction. I shall deliberate on that a bit later, but he should be applauded for going as far as he has.
  Finally, let me stress again that no one in the Opposition pretends for a moment that the problems with which the Secretary of State is wrestling are not long-term difficulties. They did not begin when he assumed his post in 2002, or when the Government came to office in 1997. We are dealing with problems that took many decades to build up and whose full resolution will no doubt take some considerable time.
  Mr. Eric Forth: But.
  Mr. Collins: But none of that, unfortunately, alters the fact that in many important respects the transport system of the United Kingdom is going backwards, rather than forwards. Things are getting worse, rather than better. In recent weeks there have been announcements of cuts in train services. The Secretary of State frequently quotes the figure of only 180 out of 18,000 services, so it will be helpful to hon. Members in all parts of the House if he can confirm in his remarks that that is the entirety of the cuts in train services that he anticipates will be announced in the coming months, as part of the efforts to improve the operation of the train timetable.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Collins: I will, if the hon. Lady will let me finish the point. I hope that she would agree that it is important that we should know whether that was a one-off reduction in train services, or whether more cuts are likely to be announced in the coming months and years.
  Mrs. Ellman: The hon. Gentleman recognises the faults of the past. Does he accept his party's responsibility in creating Railtrack, which led to more than £200 million being paid in compensation to Virgin, because Railtrack failed to modernise the west coast main line, resulting in the fact that many services could not be run efficiently? Indeed, I believe the compensation figure may be more than £300 million.
  Mr. Collins: The Opposition have made it clear that there cannot be any return to Railtrack, not least

  389
  because, given what the Government whom the hon. Lady supports did to Railtrack shareholders, there is no prospect of the City underwriting any further flotation. If we are speaking of value for money in terms of decisions relating to which companies run the rail track, surely she must agree that it is astonishing that Network Rail has changed the accounting practices that it inherited from Railtrack, and that, had they been applied retrospectively, at the time when Railtrack was wound up as a loss-making company by the former Secretary of State, her right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), on Network Rail's current accounting practices Railtrack was making a profit of £1.5 billion a year.
  Network Rail is spectacularly over budget and I will deal with that in greater detail in a moment. It is consuming huge sums of public money on a scale not even dreamt of by Railtrack, and as was established at Prime Minister's questions, the best the Government can tell us is that having spent all those tens of billions of pounds of public money, if we are lucky, by 2010 we might get back to the levels of train performance that Railtrack was delivering in 2000.
  Mrs. Ellman rose—
  Mr. Collins: No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady again. She has had her chance, and we have seen what her interpretation of value for money is.
  I was listing some examples of the significant backward steps that have been taken in recent weeks and months in relation to our rail industry. Not only have there been reductions in train services after years when, post-privatisation, there had been a substantial increase in train services, but there was the extraordinary saga of what happened to rail freight grants. That is admirably summarised in the report prepared by the Institution of Civil Engineers, which stated in a document published yesterday:
  "The announcement of the award of £5.5 m of Freight Facility Grants in December, the suspension of the scheme in January and then, in May, resumption from 2004 further illustrates the stop-go approach that currently bedevils the rail industry."
  How it is possible to plan sensibly for the future on such a basis escapes me.
  The BBC has revealed that future orders for rolling stock in the coming eight years will be just 10 per cent. of the orders for rolling stock over the past eight years. At a time when more and more trains are running late, train services are being reduced and rolling stock orders are being cut, we are told by the Secretary of State that train fares are to rise faster than inflation, rather than according to the funding formula that the Government inherited from the last Conservative Government whereby train fares would increase by less than the rate of inflation. Under the Conservatives we had more trains, newer trains and better services, paid for by fares coming down in real terms; under the Labour Government we have fewer trains, older trains and later trains, paid for by fares going up in real terms.
  Mr. Graham Stringer rose—
  Mr. Collins: I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt explain why that is a wonderful bargain for the passenger.
  Mr. Stringer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that part of the reason why there are delays on the railways is the state of the rails themselves and the backlog of maintenance? While my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged this lunchtime that there had been 30 years of under-maintenance, is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the year before privatisation, 1995, and the year after, 1996, track replacement was only at a fifth of the 1975 level? For 10 years prior to 2000, track replacement was less than half the previous rate. Is that not the reason why trains are running late now—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is too long for an intervention.
  Mr. Collins: The problem for the hon. Gentleman is that after three years of Labour Government, 90 per cent. of trains were running on time, and after six years only 80 per cent are running on time, but the Government are saying that the best that they can hope to do is to get back by 2010 to the levels that they inherited from the previous Conservative Government. He may believe that that is progress, but I do not think most passengers or taxpayers will. It is extraordinary that, as we established in Prime Minister's questions, punctuality levels that this Government's own Deputy Prime Minister said were a national disgrace can be reached again only after spending £58 billion and a decade, while in all the interim, things will be worse than when they were at the level that he described as such.
  Does the Secretary of State believe that that prediction, which was made by Network Rail this week, is (a) plausible and (b) acceptable? If he does not regard it as acceptable, what does he propose to do about it? Furthermore, does he have a view—he should have one, as he has gone on record as saying that Network Rail is now in the public sector—on the issuing of bonus payments to Network Rail senior management? Does he not think that it is a little unusual that such payments will be triggered not if management get train punctuality back to the 90 per cent. that this Government inherited or the 84 per cent. that was Network Rail's target at the start of this year, but if they get it back to 82 per cent.—a level that is substantially worse than that inherited both from the last Conservative Government and Railtrack? Does he have a view on that?
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the west country, the Great Western main line upgrade, which was in the SRA's 10-year plan, has been ditched and will not even start until after 2010? In some parts of the country, this is not a case of waiting until 2010 for everything to happen, as nothing will happen even in terms of starting the whole new programme?
  Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government are spending more and more public money, but delivering less and less for it. Her constituents are among the many who are suffering as a result.
  David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems in terms of investment was the shambolic process that occurred at the time of

  391
  privatisation? When companies were bidding for contracts, they completely underestimated the amount of capital investment that they needed to make in the rail network.
  Mr. Collins: Again, the problem for the hon. Gentleman is this. If the situation was a shambles at that time, given that his Government have had six years in office, how come that on the basis of all the indicators, things are worse now? That is the question that he and his hon. Friends simply cannot answer.
  I want to be fair to the Secretary of State in one respect, as the Government have set a clear target for Network Rail that has been met: they have said that it must be not-for-profit company. I must tell him that there is no danger of its coming up with a profit at the moment. There is no danger of that target not being met. Network Rail is losing £290 million on its own figures, which is the equivalent of £2 billion a year—the amount that would be lost if it accounted for its assets in the same way as Railtrack. I should have thought that that was not a huge achievement, as it involves losing public money hand over fist for years to come, but that was the target for Network Rail and I suppose that it has managed to keep to it.
  I dare say the Secretary of State will again cite, as he often does, the fact that, under his watch, he is "investing" £73 million a week in tine rail system. He is certainly spending that amount, but with costs increasing, exploding levels of waste and rapid reductions in value for money, surely he should be ashamed of the fact that he is spending so much for so little return, not proud of it.
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): I fear that the hon. Gentleman is in the early stages of his speech. Before he gets much further, will he tell us whether a future Conservative Government would spend more or less than we are spending on the railways? If the answer is less, where would he not be spending the money?
  Mr. Collins: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, of course, in common with all other Oppositions, including when he was shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the run-up to the 1997 general election, we cannot be expected to make spending pledges at this stage in the Parliament. However, in the second half of his question, he asked where it would be possible to make some reductions. Let me give him an example. The Strategic Rail Authority, the creation of this Government, is about to burst out of its office building in central London. It has become so overstaffed that it is going to need a second building in central London. Shortly, the Strategic Rail Authority, which does not run a single train or own a single inch of track, will have more employees in central London than British Rail had when it ran the whole system. That is an area where we could make some reductions and deliver a better service for everybody in doing so.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: It is fascinating that the part-time Secretary of State for Transport has a
  392
  problem in respect of his other part-time job in relation to the Scottish Parliament building, let alone the rail building.
  Does my hon. Friend recognise that part of the problem is that there are now fewer trains stopping at essential stations on main line routes? That includes the west coast main line and services used by my constituents, whether the stations are situated in my constituency or immediately outside it. I suggest that that is one of the major contributory factors leading to a decline in services under this Government.
  Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is right, but one of his comments slightly reassures me. The substantial cuts in services that have occurred as a result of recent decisions have included a reduction in the number of services running through Oxenholme in my constituency, so I am pleased about one thing—at least he has confirmed that my constituents and I are not being singled out. People throughout the country simply do not recognise the Secretary of State's complacent statement that only 180 services out of 18,000 have been reduced. For many people using services out of many areas, the reduction is significantly more than 1 per cent.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Many of my constituents who travel back and forth from south Wales and west Wales will be very concerned to maintain the current investment and will be surprised that, on a day when the Opposition have called for a debate on this important subject, they are failing to guarantee that that investment will continue. Will the hon. Gentleman please give an answer that I can relay to my constituents?
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman is treading on fairly dangerous ground. Is he saying that he or his Secretary of State can give an absolute pledge as to the levels of public spending currently set out in 10-year transport plan, let alone those now requested by Network Rail? Is he prepared to give an absolute pledge and undertaking that everything that Network Rail is asking for will be provided by the current Chancellor? If he gives such a pledge, he will face serious difficulties with the Treasury and his Whips, so he should be a little bit careful in asking others to provide guarantees that he cannot offer himself.
  Mr. Darling: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman, but does he not recognise that, unless he knows how much he can spend, anything that he says about promises to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and other hon. Members will ring pretty hollow?
  Mr. Collins: I find that comment extraordinary. Even in the Secretary of State's short time in office to date—barely more than a year—he has already had to come back on four separate occasions to revise the amount that he intends to spend in various aspects of his budget. For him to say, as I believe he just did, that the test of whether someone has a grip on transport policy is whether they can say specifically how much they want to spend when he has revised that sum four times in a year seems extraordinary even for him.

  393
  What did the right hon. Gentleman say when he came to the House a little while ago to make an announcement about the fact that he was scrapping the fare formula that he inherited, whereby fares would fall in real terms, and replacing it with a formula that involves their rising in real terms? He said that it was unreasonable for the taxpayers' share of money spent on rail to rise above 70 per cent. and that it was unfair for passengers to pay proportionately less. He will know that the Rail Passengers Council points out that in recent years the total amount of money being paid into the system by passengers has risen, not fallen, very sharply—by many hundreds of millions of pounds. There has been an explosion in costs. It is wrong for the Secretary of State to imply that a fixed sum is being spent on rail and that we should simply allocate that between taxpayers and passengers on the basis of fairness without taking into account whether that fixed sum is appropriate.
  I want to challenge the Secretary of State on another matter; I shall be happy to give way to him on it, as he is so keen to intervene on me. This Sunday, The Observer had a front-page story saying that the Government were so dissatisfied with the present structure and operations of Network Rail—which, I remind Labour Members, was their own recent creation—that they were studying plans to break it up and replace it with regional alternatives. Was that story true or false?
  Mr. Darling indicated dissent.
  Mr. Collins: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but would he like to come to the Dispatch Box to put it on record? [Interruption.] He says that he will address the point when he speaks, so we shall hold him to that pledge.
  That is the situation on rail—increasing chaos and increasingly poor performance as a result of the Government's policies. Let us turn to the situation on roads. As the Select Committee on Transport has pointed out, roads, which are valued at about £62 billion, are the Government's principal asset. They require not only upgrading and expansion over time, but long-term maintenance. Yet in the years since 1997, although the taxes paid by the motorist have risen from £32 billion a year to £45 billion a year, investment in our roads has not remotely kept pace. Indeed, the proportion of those taxes spent on the road system has steadily fallen since 1997. No wonder that the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and many other organisations that speak on behalf of British industry have been deeply critical of what the Government have done on transport overall, and on the roads in particular.
  Mr. Don Foster: While the hon. Gentleman is talking about road maintenance, will he confirm to the House that in the last four years of Conservative Government spending on road maintenance fell by 8 per cent. and that, according to the national travel survey, when the Conservative Government left office road maintenance standards were the worst they had been since records began?
  Mr. Collins: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman made that intervention, because he may come to regret it. In fact, the survey indicates that the quality of the
  394
  local road network was at its highest in 1980 and deteriorated in the period thereafter. Who is responsible for the local road network? Local authorities. Who controlled almost every local authority in the country in 1980? The Conservative party. Who was in charge of large numbers of local authorities in the last four years of the Conservative Government? The Liberal Democrats. They were the No. 2 party in local government, as they kept telling us at the time. It was their failure: in the one instance where they had some responsibility, they underprovided. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; I should like a few more like it.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: Does my hon. Friend remember a now-famous quote by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who said in Select Committee that we can all amend our opinions according to local circumstances?
  Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Of course, that quote is transport-related, because the hon. Lady is in favour of a very large road project in her constituency, although we are always told that the Liberal Democrats are against any road projects pretty much anywhere.
  Mr. Don Foster: No, we are not.
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman says, "No, we are not"—that is a very interesting comment to have on the record. I look forward to hearing him tell us that the Liberal Democrats have had a change of heart and are now in favour of some new roads.
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: I should be enormously grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether the Conservative party is now opposed to the south-east Manchester multi-modal study proposals.
  Mr. Collins: The funny thing about that is that the Conservative party is generally in favour of upgrading and expanding the road network; it follows that it is consistent for us to support roads in particular constituencies. The problem for the hon. Lady is that her party is generally opposed to new roads, yet she seeks to persuade her constituents that it would deliver a new road in her area. She has a problem; we do not.
  Andrew Bennett: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of problems, can he tell us to what extent he expects putting up the speed limit on motorways to kill more people?
  Mr. Collins: I am happy to deal with that point, since the hon. Gentleman raises it. As he will know, the RAC and the AA said today that it would be sensible to have a higher speed limit on motorways because nowadays the 70 mph limit is not widely observed, even by perfectly responsible drivers, nor is it enforced by the police. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) points out, it is certainly not adhered to by senior members of the Government. There is everything to be said for a

  395
  rational review of speed limits, with the likelihood that some speed limits in some areas should come down—notably outside schools and through small villages—whereas other limits, especially on motorways, should reflect the nature of today's cars rather than that of the cars of 35 or 40 years ago, when the limit was introduced.
  Mr. Robert Key: Can my hon. Friend confirm that one of the consequences of not-joined-up government is that county councils in particular have never had so little money to spend on the upkeep of rural roads, and are increasingly utilising the infrequency of the repainting of road markings and the prevalence of potholes as ways of making people go slower, neither of which is acceptable?
  Mr. Collins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has been a doughty fighter for common sense on such matters for many years. He highlights the severe difficulties created by the Government's scandalous rejigging of the local government grant system to pour money into their own areas at the expense of rural ones. That has had serious consequences, not least, as he rightly says, for road safety.
  Rob Marris rose—
  Huw Irranca-Davies rose—
  Mr. Collins: I have an embarrassment of riches. I shall give way once more to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies).
  Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's late recognition of a successful manifesto pledge made by the Labour party during the National Assembly for Wales elections, whereby 20 mph speed zones were to be introduced in built-up residential areas and around schools. It is good to see him supporting Welsh Labour policies.
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I began my speech by saying that it is possible, however unlikely, for even the Labour party to come up with a series of sensible policies; and we, being a constructive, common-sense Opposition, will happily endorse such policies that come from anywhere. After all, today the Prime Minister, no less, adopted a policy suggested to him by the Leader of the Opposition.
  Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Collins: I must make some progress; I have been speaking for 28 minutes and I wish to bring my remarks to a close shortly. The CBI this very day produced a report that is absolutely damning in its criticism of the Government's record on transport. It says,
  "we believe the credibility of the government's approach is now at stake".
  396
  It calls for "swifter ministerial decisions". It says that the transport plan could be meaningless if it does not deliver transport benefits. It points out that only half of local transport plans are on target. It points out that Trafficmaster has produced figures showing that
  "average journey times on key routes across the country have increased by 16 per cent. over the past four years".
  On rail, it says, as was quoted at Prime Minister's Question Time:
  "Performance levels have … yet to return to the levels of the late 1990s"—
  a period that has significance for Members on both sides of the House.
  This Government promise a great deal on transport and spend a huge amount of money, but deliver less and less, day in, day out.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to comment on the way in which the Government take decisions on strategic matters affecting roads. Yesterday, in Cambridge, a meeting involving four appointed members of a regional body—one from Luton, one from Bedford, one from Southend and one representing the Parish Councils Association—took the decision that there should be no timetable for improvements to the A47, which runs nowhere near any of their areas. If the Government are taking advice from bodies such as that, what hope is there for the strategic development of a road network?
  Mr. Collins: As usual, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful and compelling point. The Government clearly use multi-modal studies not as a means of making decisions but as a means of avoiding them, and that needs to change.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Collins: I will not, because I want to ensure that others can contribute. I have given way generously to Members on both sides of the House, and I now want to set out some key elements of the fair deal for passengers, motorists and the taxpayer that the country desperately needs.
  Network Rail needs to be properly accounted for and genuinely accountable. That would not only establish a better democratic remit for its work, but maximise its chances of raising capital in the City. At present it is neither properly accounted for in the shifty document that the Government dare to call a Red Book nor sufficiently grounded in reality in terms of its accounts, for the private sector to be interested in doing financial deals with it.
  We want to slim down the Strategic Rail Authority. As we established earlier, it is over-bureaucratic and overstaffed, and is making too many interfering decisions. We would also require the rail system to live within cash limits. That principle seems to be applied to every other area of public expenditure; perhaps it should be applied to this as well. We would ensure that bonuses for Network Rail's senior management were tied to genuine improvements, not sleight of hand or simply a return to past levels.

  397
  For the passenger, we believe that the best way of ensuring higher-quality investment in stations, car parks, trains and staff is to establish longer train operating company franchises. The short franchises that are now being introduced make it impossible for companies to plan for the future and invest accordingly. We want much more information to be given to the travelling public, far more consistently; and we will permit fare rises only when they are linked to clear, understandable and demonstrable improvements in performance. Under us, the public pay more to get more; under them, the public pay more to get less.
  For the motorist, under a Conservative Government there will never again be a year like 2001, when billions of pounds were raised in motoring taxes but not an inch of tarmac was added to the national road network. Indeed, 2001 was the first and only year in which that was true since the year when tarmac was invented. There will be a comprehensive review of speed limits to bring them in line with common sense and to maximise safety, and there will be an absolute commitment from the Conservatives to provide a Government who will be on the side of the motorist. There will be no more insults, no more hectoring and no more persecution—just a recognition that for millions of our fellow citizens the car is a necessity, not a luxury. Whitehall policy should recognise that driving is not a sin.
  Six years of Labour Government have badly let down taxpayers, passengers and motorists alike. It is clear that the present Administration know everything about how to spend money and nothing about how to get value for it. We need a fair deal on transport, and Britain will only get it under the next Conservative Government.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  1.13 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to investment of £180 billion through the Ten Year Transport Plan; applauds the decisive steps it has taken to set the country's railway system on the way to recovery following the shambles it inherited from the last Government's botched privatisation; recognises the balanced approach it has taken to maintaining and improving the trunk road network, taking account of wider environmental objectives; and notes achievements already evident in, for example, improved rolling stock for rail passengers, more reliable services for bus users, better maintenance of trunk roads for motorists and falling numbers of road accidents."
  I welcome the opportunity to discuss transport policy. It is interesting, is it not, that this is the first time the Conservatives have called a debate on transport in 13 months. One might have thought that if they were so concerned about the subject they would have called a debate before now. I suspect that they were goaded into action after the Liberal Democrats beat them to it by about 10 days.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) for listing the six things with which he agreed. That is always useful to know. I think he will agree, however, that until he can say how much a Conservative Government would spend on transport everything else he says will lack credibility.
  398
  The hon. Gentleman ended by talking about road policy. Many of our problems with both road and rail—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will give way to many Members, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to hold his horses for just one moment.
  As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale acknowledged, many of our road and rail problems stem from the fact that for 30 or 40 years, unlike most other European countries, we have not experienced a consistently high level of spending. We are now establishing that level. Until the Tories can say what they would spend, their policies will lack credibility.
  Rob Marris: Is it not extraordinary that in a speech lasting 33 minutes—admittedly, he was generous in giving way—the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) did not once mention buses? What his speech did reveal was an obsession with railways. It seems that railways are important, but the Tories have no bus policy.
  Mr. Darling: I hope my hon. Friend will not take it amiss when I say that I did not find that extraordinary. Given the Tories' record on buses during their 18 years in power, I think it was entirely par for the course that the hon. Gentleman had nothing to say on the subject—especially in the light of the difficulties caused by Tory policies in the mid-1980s, which we are slowly putting right.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The Secretary of State wants us to say what our spending plans will be when the next general election is called, in 2005 or 2006—perhaps he will tell us which! Will he also tell us what the inflation and rail inflation levels in those two years will be, which will enable us to obtain the necessary information?
  Mr. Darling: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be very wary about lecturing the Government on inflation. Inflation is at its lowest for 30 years, and compares rather well with the double-digit inflation that we had to endure in the 1990s.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will in a while, but I want to make some progress first.
  Last year at the Conservative party conference, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said:
  "We will earn public respect by the quality of our ideas, the strength of our convictions, and yes, the attractiveness of our policies."
  Nearly a year later, the hon. Gentleman still has nothing to say about spending. His policies, announced yesterday in one or two newspapers, amount to support for the ability to travel on motorways at 80 mph, but only at night, and support for the removal of speed cameras.

  399
  Evidence shows that the number of deaths and serious injuries has fallen by a third in areas where speed cameras have operated. The Tories should be cautious before embarking on a policy of removing them. Surely all Members on both sides of the House agree that the reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries should continue, and, in particular, that we should stick to our target of halving the number of children killed or seriously injured in a 10-year period. If the law says that no one should travel faster than 30 mph in a built-up area, I should have thought that we would all support that policy. When people say that they are against speed cameras because motorists should not really be caught, I sometimes wonder whether they understand that speed can kill.
  I recognise that some may be confused about what the speed limit is at different times of the day, but I think we all know that on occasion motorists exceed the speed limits on motorways. My guess is that if the limit were raised to 80 mph, people would be encouraged to think about driving at 90 mph.
  It is, however, with spending that the hon. Gentleman seems to have substantial difficulties. I was surprised that both he and the leader of the Conservative party quoted the CBI report with such approval. I commend the report to all members. Page 2, for instance, says that there have been significant developments. It says that the Government are committed to widening the M1 and the M6. It commends the Government for setting up Network Rail. It refers to the introduction of congestion charges in London, which it supports. It mentions progress on urban transport, and comments that nine new roads have been opened since last summer and a further 10 are due to be opened this year. It also mentions that we are upgrading the A14 and are to construct a tunnel under Stonehenge, and refers to the progress we have made on the railways. It is all pretty good stuff, actually.
  The one thing that I have not yet been able to find in the CBI report is a commitment to cutting public spending on transport. Indeed, it is rather the opposite. The report's main complaint is that we should be doing more, and doing it faster. When I spoke to the director general of the CBI yesterday, he expressed the hope that we would spend more. The leader or the Tory party said in December last year that the Tory Treasury team was
  "looking at a target of 20 per cent. savings across the board in Government spending."
  It will take more than reducing the head count in the SRA or anywhere else to get the sort of spending that most people would like to see in transport. Until the Conservatives tell us how much they are going to spend, their policy does not have any credibility. Perhaps when I give way to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, he will tell us, if the Tories are committed to a 20 per cent. cut in spending across the board, which they are because their leader has said it and their Treasury spokesman has said it, how on earth that will help transport spending.
  Mr. Collins: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has finally given way. I will nail yet again the total and complete fabrication that the Conservative party is
  400
  committed to across-the-board 20 per cent. cuts in spending. It is not true. The hon. Gentleman would like it to be true but it is not. He should debate with the Conservative party as it is, not as he would like it to be. He quoted from page two of the CBI document but seemed suddenly to come to a halt half way down the second column on page 2. Could that be because it goes on to say,
  "the multi-modal study process has continued to progress slowly and a number of significant problems have not been tackled"?
  It continues:
  "Even where the government has announced its recommendations, it has failed to reach conclusions on some key schemes."
  The top of page 3, which he was about to quote, then read to himself and realised that perhaps he had better not, says on rail:
  "Performance levels … have yet to return to the levels of the late 1990s",
  and adds that the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan was "deeply disappointing." Perhaps he should quote the whole document, not just bits of it.
  Mr. Darling: If we had time, I would happily read the whole thing into the record, but if I did that the length of my speech might rival even the hon. Gentleman's. I will come on to the railways shortly, but in relation to the 20 per cent., I am sorry but I recall hearing the Conservative party leader just before the new year saying on the radio that "they"—the Tory Treasury team—were
  "looking at a target of 20 per cent. savings across the board in Government spending".
  I believed him. Conservative Members may choose not to. After all, the hon. Gentleman accused him when he stood for the Tory leadership of being a member of a barmy army, so perhaps he still does not have any confidence in him.
  To give Conservative Members some idea, the 20 per cent. cuts would mean cancelling the whole strategic road programme. That is the order of magnitude that they are talking about. Until they can tell us how much they will spend, their policies lack some credibility.
  Mr. Blizzard: Is not the key to look at what the Conservative party did when it was in government? In 1989, it brought out the famous "Roads to Prosperity" White Paper, yet by 1996 every scheme in East Anglia included in the White Paper had been withdrawn from the programme. Today in East Anglia, no one could go at 80 mph, even if the speed limit were raised, because we do not have many motorways and there are hardly any dualled roads.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In 1990, the trunk road programme, which was entitled "Roads to Prosperity", announced no fewer than 500 schemes. By 1997, guess what the total was—it was 150. When Conservative Members give lectures about what we should have done and should be doing, they might remember that they had 18 years to look after the transport system and those 18 years are pretty pockmarked as far as their reputation is concerned.

  401
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale went on to say that not a square metre of road was built in 2001. Actually, in that year, 16 major schemes were under construction, so it is simply not true to say that no work was going on. Indeed, since the hon. Gentleman raised the subject of roads, I said earlier that one of the problems that we face is that successive Governments have not invested enough. They have not planned ahead.
  Many of our motorways are 30 to 40 years old. The M6, for example, was designed to carry 75,000 vehicles a day. On some stretches, it carries more than 150,000. That is why I announced expansion of capacity on the Ml, M4, M5 and M6 last year. As I say, there are major road programmes under construction as well as a number of schemes designed to tackle bottlenecks in the system, which are now being completed.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned rail.
  Jim Sheridan: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the roads, may I remind him that yesterday we met the Road Haulage Association, which is concerned about the position of the Rosyth ferry terminal being undermined by foreign drivers using our roads, driving the length and breadth of Britain using their fuel and reserve tanks? Rosyth ferry terminal provides a direct route to Europe, so there is no need to use the roads of Britain. Will he look at that issue?
  Mr. Darling: That is why we are introducing the lorry road user charging scheme in 2006, with the complete support of the road haulage industry. It is unfair that hauliers from outside Britain can come and use the roads and not make a proper contribution. Everyone is agreed that the lorry road user charging scheme will be fairer. It will also be better, because as it develops it will enable differential charging to be applied, which will encourage lorries to use roads at off-peak times, rather than crowd on to them when they are very crowded.
  I am surprised that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale did not say something about that. I suspect that, at some stage on the Floor of the House we will have to engage on the question of road pricing generally. Clearly, there is not enough time for me to do it without being guilty of what the hon. Gentleman pleaded guilty to in speaking far too long. As we look at roads and at the pressures we face for the next 20 to 30 years, we will have to look at ways to manage demand. We will have something to say about that. I am surprised that when the hon. Gentleman set out his stall he had nothing to say about it, particularly as I know that a number of Conservative Back Benchers have views on the matter, which it would be interesting to hear.
  Mr. David Marshall: Following up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the safety problems caused by overloaded lorries coming into this country from the continent, and the concern that the European Union is about to be enlarged and that the standards of driving required in some of the entering countries may not be the same as in this country? Will he take that on board and look into it?
  Mr. Darling: Clearly, that is something that we need to look at. We are anxious to get the benefits of a wider
  402
  single market and to encourage the movement of people and goods, but safety on roads is of paramount importance, which is why I say I would be nervous about sanctioning wholesale increases in speed limits without thinking through the consequences.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I want to make some progress but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
  I turn to the railways. I noticed that on what I take to be the Conservative party's website a press release with a picture of a charming young man beaming out at us—that is, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—asks, "where are all the trains?" Let me answer that question. Since 1997, there are 1,300 more train services running every weekday—[Interruption.] That has been the increase since we have been in power. There has also been substantially more investment in the track.
  The Conservative party implies—it comes through time and again, there is hint after hint—that it does not think that the spending is worth while. The problem we have, as I say, is that we have a backlog of 30 to 40 years' worth of investment. The west coast main line is the best example of that. That was last done up in the 1960s and early 1970s. It needs now to be virtually replaced. We are spending about £9 billion to do that. It will allow more services to run, cut journey times—an hour will come off the Glasgow run when it is completed, and it will take two hours to travel between London and Manchester. It will allow four trains an hour to run to Birmingham and more freight to run, but it is expensive. There is no getting away from that. If investment is left for 30 to 40 years, it is common sense that more has to be spent than if the line had been done up over the years, as it should have been. That is one of the reasons why we are spending so much money at the moment.
  In the exchange at Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend made the point that, after Hatfield, it became patently obvious that an awful lot more spending was required not just to make the railways safe but to make them reliable. That spending is beginning to bear fruit, in that there are now fewer temporary speed restrictions, the number of signals passed at danger has reduced and the train protection and warning system is on nearly 90 per cent. of track. That is all thanks to investment that we are putting in. So when people ask, "What do you get for your £73 million?", the answer is a railway system that is being steadily improved year on year.
  I shall give another example. Is it not extraordinary that the 1930s power system for London commuter trains south of the River Thames did not begin to be replaced until last year? Railtrack never had that work on its books, and the Tories did nothing about it during their 18 years in power. We are now having to spend £1 billion to facilitate the new trains that are being introduced.
  Talking of new trains, it really is extraordinary for the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale to claim that somehow the Tories replaced lots of trains. Yes, of course there were renewals, but what we are doing is replacing 40 per cent of rolling stock in five years, half

  403
  of which will be for the London commuter system. For example, people who travel from London to Brighton can now use the new rolling stock. That is possible only because of the increased investment that we are putting in place.
  When we bear in mind the fact that the railways are now carrying more people than at any time since 1947 and that there are more train services, people will realise that money is going in and that we are seeing improvements. But of course, the system is operating under quite substantial pressure, not least because the economy is growing. It must have been much easier in the 1980s, when there were 3 million unemployed and people could not go out because they did not have the money. Because we now have very low levels of unemployment and rising prosperity, there is more pressure on the system.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale also asked me about the structure. We set up Network Rail not quite a year ago, and I have made it clear that I have no intention of embarking on yet another structural reorganisation of the railways. That would simply result in people taking their eye off the ball, which cannot be in the interests of anyone. So if the hon. Gentleman wants to know about Network Rail, that is the answer.
  On regional planning, it always has been the case that, where the passenger transport executive is involved, it makes sense for the national and local systems to operate together. If we can develop that, all well and good, but Network Rail is already getting to grips with the problems that it faces. Yes, that will take time, but it is taking action and we do not intend to distract it.
  Mr. Paul Truswell: Are we not still reaping some of the disadvantages of the botched Tory privatisation, and is my right hon. Friend aware that MTL, the first holder of the privatised franchise in my area, actually began by shedding 80 drivers' jobs? Does he accept that that decimated services, and that MTL's successor is still grappling with that legacy? Was that not a raw deal for rail passengers, and is not that legacy still producing a raw deal?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right, in that privatisation resulted in a whole host of decisions for which passengers paid a heavy price. Several train companies thought that they could get by with fewer drivers and then discovered two things: first, they did not have enough drivers to provide services; secondly, they made the day of their remaining drivers, who secured very large pay increases to carry on running the trains. That is a curious situation to get into.
  Returning to where we currently stand, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale implied that the Strategic Rail Authority interferes too much. It is clear to me that unless the railways are properly managed, and the SRA adopts a hands-on approach and demands better standards, we will go back to the days with which privatisation left us. For example, the SRA's decision of last week to remove the franchise from Connex South Eastern shows that it is not going to tolerate a company with £58 million of public money
  404
  coming back and asking for more, and failing to put in place the financial arrangements that were supposed to have been made. The hon. Gentleman may want to return to a hands-off approach, but he—and more importantly, passengers—would pay a very heavy price indeed.
  Mrs. Ellman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rail regulator condemned Railtrack for, among other things, neglecting its assets and being hostile to its customers? In the light of that background, does he welcome the SRA's proactive approach, and can he give us an assurance that we will not return to the bad old days of the regime set up by the Opposition?
  Mr. Darling: I get the impression that the Opposition are hankering after the days of the privatised structure, but it would be a tragedy for the rail industry if we returned to them. What happened during Railtrack's stewardship is within very recent memory. It had no knowledge of the system or of what maintenance was being carried out, and checks were not made in every case. We do not want to go back to those days. I am glad that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale at least acknowledged that the days of Railtrack are over. It would be a tragedy if, as he seemed to be hinting, he tried to get it back in through the back door.
  I want briefly to refer to local transport. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned the condition of local roads, and the point was well made. At least the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale had the courage to admit that between 1980 and 1997, the whole system declined. I seem to remember that the Conservatives were in power during that period, and could have done something about it. They were not above interfering in local government, and I am surprised that they did nothing here.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) mentioned buses. Since we took office, the number of passengers being so carried is increasing substantially in certain parts of the country, particularly where there is a good bus operator and a determined local authority.
  Mr. David Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that most of that growth has occurred in areas with bus regulation? Does he also agree that there is a growing feeling throughout the country that regulation could provide a far more effective and cost-effective bus service?
  Mr. Darling: I do not agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I have mentioned before in this House, I used to chair the transport committee in Edinburgh when we had a regulated bus service. It was, and still is, a very good bus service, but in fact the route is more extensive and imaginative now than when the local authority ran the service, because regulations prevented it, for example, from running services out of the city. So I would be wary of saying that we should go back to the pre-1986 situation.
  It is true that much of the increase in bus patronage has occurred in London, but there has also been a very substantial increase in places such as Brighton, York, Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow and Edinburgh. In each

  405
  case, a determined local authority has put in bus lanes and park-and-ride to encourage the use of buses, and the bus operator has shown a bit of imagination and flair. I have always said that we probably do need to see what more we can do to improve matters, but I do not subscribe to the view that we should go back to the old days. In fact, that would do nothing more than remove one set of problems and recreate another. We need to be a little more imaginative than that.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: Yes, for the final time.
  Mr. Hopkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. In the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) has just said, is the Secretary of State not making a case for better regulation, rather than for returning to the old system? Would it not be easier for local authorities to provide an even better service if they owned and operated the public transport system themselves?
  Mr. Darling: Not necessarily, but I agree with my hon. Friend that certain aspects of regulation do help. For example, one of the most irritating things is when bus timetables change regularly and without notice. If we want to encourage people to use a service, there has to be some predictability. We have been working with the industry and with local authorities to see what can be done about that.
  John Barrett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: No. I want to conclude my remarks, as the Front Benchers have spoken for long enough.
  Until the Conservatives can tell us how much they would spend, everything that they say today will ring hollow. What transport needs more than anything else is sustained and adequate expenditure, which we have promised over a 10-year period. We are doubling the amount of money spent on the railways, and we have announced major improvements to the road network. We are planning for the future. But until the Conservatives tell us how much they would spend, and for as long as their leader sticks by his promise to cut spending by 20 per cent.—that is what he said—frankly, their transport policy completely lacks credibility.
  I commend the amendment to the House.
  1.39 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I am grateful for the flattery from the Conservative party. The Liberal Democrats hold an Opposition day on tuition fees, and a few days later the Conservatives follow us by debating that subject; and, as the Secretary of State said, the Liberal Democrats hold an Opposition day on transport, and the Conservatives then do the same. The big difference is that, in the debate a few days ago, the Conservatives found our motion attractive enough to support it, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that I cannot
  406
  reciprocate on this occasion, as we are unable to support the Conservative motion. Although it recognises the crisis in our transport system, it fails to acknowledge that many problems existed before 1997 and does not even begin to acknowledge the Conservative party's involvement in the creation of that crisis.
  Sadly, the hon. Gentleman was unwilling to acknowledge that the Conservatives were one of the parties responsible for the under-investment, which the Secretary of State rightly says has existed over many years. As I pointed out in my intervention, investment in road maintenance over the last four years of the Conservative Government declined by 8 per cent., leaving road conditions in the worst state since records began. We have already heard other hon. Members refer to the Conservative party's guilt for the botched privatisation of our railways. That led to huge fragmentation and, because of the many organisations involved, many people spend every day working out who is responsible for each and every one of the far too many delays that occur.
  The hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to imply continued support for all that was done during privatisation, but he must be aware that several of his hon. Friends are increasingly having doubts about the way in which it was conducted. For example, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), quoted in The Times on 20 October 2000, said:
  "The system was made into too many different companies".
  Yet the motion implies that the Conservatives would have preferred to continue with the lamentable and failed Railtrack. I remind the House that the Conservatives sold that body off for a sum £6 billion below its proper valuation, and that it caused huge conflicts between passenger safety and shareholder profit in a monopoly. The body did not have its own asset register.
  Some Conservatives have been willing to acknowledge that the setting up of Railtrack was incorrect. For example, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said:
  "Railtrack's licence at privatisation contained serious shortcomings because of the haste in privatising. As a result, passengers have seen poorer quality track, weak contracts between Railtrack and train operators and possibly unjustified performance bonuses to Railtrack".
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is keen to criticise Network Rail in that regard, but its predecessor, Railtrack, introduced them.
  Mr. Robert Syms: We have acknowledged that the system was too fragmented. The hon. Gentleman and I were involved in consideration of the Bill that became the Transport Act 2000, during which the Government had the opportunity, if they so wished, to change the structure of the rail industry. Apart from the creation of the Strategic Rail Authority, they left the system exactly as they had inherited it. It ill behoves them to criticise us now for the structure of the industry.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair on the Government. I could point to other changes that have taken place, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has just acknowledged

  407
  from the Front Bench the benefits of, for example, the introduction of the rail accident investigation branch. We have also seen the establishment of the Rail Safety and Standards Board and, through the work of the Strategic Rail Authority, a significant reduction in the number of franchises has been achieved. I would like them reduced even further, but it is unfair to suggest that no significant changes have occurred since the Government came to power.
  There is no doubt that Railtrack needed to be changed. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on Railtrack, perhaps he should listen to its former chief executive, Mr. Gerald Corbett, who, in October 2000, said:
  "The Railway was ripped apart with privatisation. The structure that was put in place was a structure, let's be honest, to maximise the proceeds to the Treasury. There wasn't a structure designed to optimise safety, investment or to deal with the increase in passengers."
  The Conservatives should certainly take some of the blame for the position of the railways.
  The Conservatives also had disastrous planning policies, which led to a significant increase in the number of out-of-town shopping centres. They believed in the supremacy of the motor car, built on the famous quote of Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s, that
  "nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of the great car economy".
  The entire policy of predict and provide in road building, to which we hear the Conservatives are returning, led to the huge interest in the motor car to the exclusion of all forms of public transport.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said that the Conservatives had no policy on buses, but that is hardly surprising in view of the most famous quote of all time about the buses, delivered by Margaret Thatcher when the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was working in Conservative central office as her speech writer. This is what she said in 1986:
  "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure".
  Was the hon. Gentleman responsible for writing that?
  The Conservatives not only have no policy on the buses, but continue to be the sole supporters of the car above everything else. Again, it is not surprising to hear that they have selected as their mayoral candidate someone who is going to rip out congestion charging—a move that many have accepted, if belatedly on the part of the Government, as a great success—and who said:
  "The healthy smell of exhausts and kebabs, that's what I love."
  If someone like that were responsible for transport in London, we should be deeply concerned.
  I was perhaps a little unfair to suggest that the Tories did not have a policy on buses. In fact, they did have one—deregulation. It is worth reflecting that even before the Tory Government introduced deregulation, bus ridership fell by one third during their term of office, while fares increased in real terms by one third. Deregulation was then introduced, and—outside some notable examples of great success in London and some other major metropolitan areas—bus ridership has, sadly, continued to fall.
  408
  I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that all is not well under the current Administration, and I raised several concerns during the recent Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate on transport. The Government cannot always simply hark back to what the Conservatives did. It is worth reminding ourselves that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) said:
  "There can be no more excuses. It's now our responsibility. We can't blame the Tories any more."
  We rightly have to examine what the Government have done and what responsibility they are prepared to take for it. In that regard, the House may like to know about a slip—a very interesting slip—made by the Secretary of State in a speech on rail fares on 19 June. The copy of the speech that was circulated to all hon. Members included a short sentence that the Secretary of State did not deliver at the Dispatch Box. It said:
  "Government's responsibility is to make sure that the system is properly managed and properly financed."
  It is odd that that sentence was left out, because it could be argued that he sought to distance himself from responsibility for some of those problems. As we have heard, cancellations on the railways have risen by 50 per cent. since the Government came to power, delays have doubled and we now have some of the slowest trains and highest fares in the world. Despite five years of the secure station initiative, only 140 out of 2,500 main line railway stations have signed up. Under the Labour Government, we have also seen for the first time in several years a decline in the amount of freight on rail. Especially worrying is the decision by the Royal Mail to remove packages and post from the railways.
  Concerns also arise on all other aspects of the public transport system. Some parts of the country have problems with buses and congestion, which—as the Confederation of British Industry report says—costs British businesses £15 billion to £20 billion a year. However, the Secretary of State has acknowledged that the 10-year transport plan targets for reducing congestion will not be met. Indeed, the Government's motion shows a degree of optimism that is not always entirely warranted. For example, it refers to
  "more reliable services for bus users".
  Only last Thursday, the Government published a survey on passenger satisfaction that showed that customer satisfaction with bus reliability in non-London metropolitan areas has fallen two points in a year, and the overall rating across England has not improved, as the motion suggests, but remained static.
  I have been critical of the Conservatives' record on roads, but the Transport Committee said last week that rural roads were in their worst shape for 25 years and that there was no chance of meeting the targets for overall road improvements by 2010. It is therefore no wonder that a recent survey showed 81 per cent. of the British public saying that the Government were failing on transport. That is why the CBI report accuses Ministers of inefficiency, indecision and an inability to deliver improvements.
  The House will welcome the indication we received of the direction of Conservative transport policies. At last, they are beginning to develop—or are they? We heard much about the 80 mph speed limit proposal, which

  409
  achieved much publicity for the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, but I checked the Conservative manifesto for the last general election and found that it contained that policy; so we are not, after all, hearing much new from the Conservatives. The hon. Gentleman did not mention his plan to scrap the bus lane on the M4 today. I do not know whether that is still his policy, but interestingly the Royal Automobile Club has said that he is barmy because all the research evidence shows that the bus lane has eased traffic flows on the M4.
  The hon. Gentleman is desperately keen to be the motorist's friend, and I agree that we should not be anti-car, but he goes too far. In his speech to the Tory party conference in Bournemouth last year, he said:
  "Motorists are the majority. We will speak up for them—and in doing so we'll be the true people's party."
  He fails to remember that only 40 per cent. of journeys are made by motorists—they are not the majority. He also fails to recognise that the cost of motoring has steadily declined while the comparative true cost of public transport has rocketed. From 1974, the cost of travel by rail has increased by a staggering 85 per cent. and bus fares have increased by 66 per cent.
  The situation is improving. In the past three years, the cost of fuel has fallen by 16 per cent. Before, we were at the top of the league table for the cost of fuel, but now we are mid-table. Even the price of cars has continued to fall and some studies show that we are now one of the cheapest places to buy cars.
  Mr. Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for some 16 minutes. Will he now say something about Liberal Democrat policy on, for instance, car prices? Would they go up under a Liberal Democrat Government?
  Mr. Foster: I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so. Indeed, I shall conclude my remarks with some positive proposals. The Conservatives may wish to be the friends of the motorist, but surely they must acknowledge that the vast majority of motorists—and businesses—do not want continued congestion on our roads. It therefore makes sense to the motorist, as well as to everybody else, to introduce measures that seek to reduce congestion. That is why the Liberal Democrats are prepared to support congestion charging and road pricing, if it can be demonstrated that they will reduce congestion and if the money raised will be ring-fenced and used to improve the public transport alternatives significantly. That is clear Liberal Democrat policy, and we are delighted that the Government—somewhat belatedly—will adopt a similar approach.
  We could also make more progress by introducing soft measures to reduce congestion, such as giving greater support to companies for the introduction of green travel plans and to car share schemes and walking and cycling initiatives.
  Dr. Murrison: The hon. Gentleman is pursuing his anti-car agenda and perhaps he will illustrate that with a few examples from his own constituency. We can agree on road safety, but does he agree that the multi-modal study for Bristol, Bath and the south coast has done
  410
  nothing for the A36—in which we share an interest—and its safety record? It is about time that that was sorted out.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and I entirely agree with his comments about the disappointment with the multi-modal study. As he will be aware, another study is now taking place that might lead to improvements. I also agree with him on road safety. I welcome the recent reductions in deaths on roads, especially in the number of young children killed, but much more needs to be done. The Government were wrong, for example, not to have followed through on their 1996 commitment to reduce the drink-drive limit. That would have helped to reduce the number of deaths, and other measures would also achieve that.
  John Barrett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also essential to have a joined-up road and rail policy for the whole of the United Kingdom and that it would have been good to hear from the Secretary of State for Transport about the discussions that he is having with the Scottish Executive and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the issue?
  Mr. Foster: Indeed. We might have heard more about what the Secretary of State says to himself in bed about the issue, because that is where he might find time for such discussions. The Minister will be able to address those issues when he sums up.
  I believe that the whole House would agree with one other soft measure that I should like to propose, and on which I believe that more urgent action is desperately needed. In the mornings, 20 per cent. of congestion arises as a result of the school run. The latest figures demonstrate that, for the first time ever, fewer than 50 per cent. of all journeys to school are undertaken by children walking. The figures show a reduction in the numbers travelling by school bus, bicycle or other non-car modes, but there has been a huge increase in the numbers being driven to school. They now account for something like 30 per cent. of all journeys, 25 per cent. of which involve children being driven less than one mile to school.
  I genuinely believe that urgent action could and should be taken to reduce the use of cars for short journeys, not least because there has been a significant increase in the number of young people classified as obese. If all the children being driven less than one mile to school walked there instead, the savings resulting from the improvement in the nation's health would be staggering. One analysis suggests that walking less than one mile to school would cause some 3 million pounds to be shed.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) was right to talk about the need to look at some new form of bus regulation. We do not want to go back to the old regulation regime, but I was delighted that the all-party transport executive of the Local Government Association voted on 25 June for some re-regulation. The Secretary of State was right to say that we cannot go back to where we were before, but we need to give local

  411
  authorities more power. We also need a new framework to strengthen statutory quality partnerships, for example,
  Mr. Watts: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most passenger transport authorities support some form of regulation? They believe that the way that the system operates means that the private sector is ripping off the public purse.
  Mr. Foster: Regulation in London has demonstrated that it can lead to a significant increase in bus ridership, and there have been similar improvements in areas that have PTAs. Their ability and power to develop local arrangements mean that they can commission public transport, much as the Strategic Rail Authority commissions our railways. I should like a move towards developing the PTA style of working in all regions of the country.
  The Secretary of State was right to point to the number of areas in which there have been improvements on the railways. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was good enough to acknowledge them. My list would be slightly different, as it would include the way that Railtrack was turned into Network Rail and the reduction in the number of franchises. However, he was right about the rail accident investigation branch and the Rail Safety and Standards Board. He was right too about the moves by Network Rail to bring some of the maintenance back in-house, and he was right to welcome the moves by the Secretary of State at least to consider the establishment of a national rail card.
  The Secretary of State is right to say continually that the industry must address the issue of costs above all. He needs to work with the RSSB, which is reviewing the regulatory regime on the railways. I believe that the railways are now over-regulated, to the point where that is one of the factors adding to the extreme costs being incurred. We can argue about the number of contractors and subcontractors being used, and the Network Rail experiment is a move to resolve that. We can also point to the fact that heavier and more frequent trains add to the damage being caused, but there is no doubt that a key issue is to find ways to ensure better value for money.
  I support the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale in his call for more to be done in respect of collecting the fares that are due. He did not say so, but studies show that between 10 and 15 per cent. of fares remain uncollected. Notwithstanding the scheme in Peterborough to which he referred, a lot more needs to be done to collect the money that is owed.
  Finally, the Secretary of State is undertaking a major revision of the 10-year transport plan. Hon. Members from all parties accepted that a long-term plan was a good idea in theory, and they supported it. Sadly, the current plan has not worked. The Government have dropped so many of the targets that there is an urgent need to develop a new plan.
  Any new plan must command everyone's total confidence, and we will need to know that the Government have confidence in it for the total planning period. Without that, we can be certain—given the stop
  412
  go nature of funding for rail freight, for example—that the private sector investors on whose money we depend so heavily will not have confidence in the plan.
  Moreover, the public deserve a transport plan in which they can have total confidence. I hope that we can all unite on the need for people on all sides to be willing to work with the Secretary of State to develop a revision of the existing plan in which the entire country can have total confidence for the future. In the absence of such a plan, it is not possible for us to support the Government's amendment, which is far too self-congratulatory. We shall certainly not support the Conservative motion, as it simply fails to admit and acknowledge that party's involvement in creating much of the present problem.
  2.6 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I am pleased to be called to speak in this debate, as transport is the key to the future of the Lowestoft and Waveney areas that make up my constituency. Our main problem has long been unemployment in a weak local economy. Unemployment hit the heights of 14 per cent. under the previous Conservative Government, and it was at 11.7 per cent. when I was elected in 1997.
  The success of the present Government can be measured by the fact that unemployment in the area has fallen to 4.5 per cent., but it is still at least double the level found in the rest of East Anglia. It shows that, although the figures may go up or down, my area still suffers from structural unemployment. The Government have recognised that by awarding us assisted-area status, European objective 2 funding and single regeneration budget funding. None of those aids was granted by the previous Conservative Government.
  At the heart of the problem is the fact that we have lost traditional industries such as shipbuilding, fishing and food canning. A coach works that once employed thousands of people has also gone. Although other parts of the country have also lost traditional industries, we seem unable to attract new ones to take their place. In recent weeks, we have learned that unfortunately the oil and gas industry is to move from the area. Shell has announced that it is to close down its base in Lowestoft completely. That will leave a gaping hole in our local economy.
  The question to which we return again and again is why we cannot attract new firms to our area. My constituents are very hard working, and labour costs are among the lowest in the country. Land is also cheap. The problem has to do with location. Location, location, location: that is where transport comes in. Companies are reluctant to locate in the more remote and peripheral parts of the country. As I have told the House many times, Lowestoft is the most easterly point in Britain.
  The problem is rendered especially difficult by the fact that we are served by such poor transport links. I must tell Opposition Front-Bench Members that not many of my constituents are able to travel around at 80 mph, even during the night. There is hardly any dualled road in my area, and almost no motorway in the whole of East Anglia.
  Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem—certainly in my all-urban constituency,

  413
  but I suspect that it applies equally to my hon. Friend's area—is that some idiots want to drive around at 80 mph at night, even in areas where the limit is 30 mph? Despite that, the Opposition want to get rid of speed cameras.
  Mr. Blizzard: The situation to which my hon. Friend refers is the same all over the country, but it is especially dangerous in my area because many of the roads are nothing more than winding country lanes. When people go along them at ridiculous speeds, they crash; our road accident figures are frightening. The answer is not just road safety measures; we must also modernise and upgrade those roads, especially when they provide key economic links to important towns such as Lowestoft.
  The absence of good transport links only accentuates the peripherality of the area that I represent. By comparison, when industries close in what I describe as the "thoroughfare" of the country, other industries often move in quickly, so employment remains quite buoyant in those areas. However, that is not the case in the coastal regions.
  Obviously, we cannot alter our geographical position—nor would we want to do so, because there are many beautiful features of life on the coast—but we must improve the road links. At one time, the roads to Lowestoft were as good as those anywhere in the country, but despite the investment that has occurred, although roads in many other areas have improved over the decades, there have been no improvements in northeast East Anglia.
  Earlier, we heard from the Opposition about their new fair deal for the road user. What sort of deal has East Anglia received from the Conservatives in the past? In an intervention, I pointed out that the White Paper "Roads to Prosperity", which was published in May 1989, promised that the Al2, which serves my constituency, would be dualled to Lowestoft by 1999. The White Paper never really got off the drawing board and only a few schemes were prepared—a couple of village bypasses and the famous third crossing of the river in Lowestoft. Once the Conservatives had won the 1992 general election, those schemes were gradually given lower and lower priority. Then a special category called "longer term" was invented, and they were all placed there until, in the mid-1990s, they were abandoned completely. That caused my predecessor to ask the House, at the end of a debate with his Transport Minister:
  "What can I take back to my constituents, who have been deeply affected by the change in the economic base in the past decade? With their great hopes of investment in the area's infrastructure from taxpayers wiped out—at least for now—what can I take back to my constituents?"—[Official Report, 17 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 717.]
  He was able to take nothing back to his constituents from the party who were then in government—now the Opposition—because there was no fair deal from the Conservatives then, just as there would be no fair deal now, only continued neglect.
  Mr. Truswell: Is not my hon. Friend showing the inconsistency in the Conservative approach to motorists? The Conservatives are the motorist's falsest friend, not only for the reasons that he gave but also for their botched privatisation of buses and rail, which
  414
  means, in effect, that people who want a public transport alternative have been forced into their cars, while those who choose to use their cars or are dependent on them face longer journeys, more pollution and accidents in their community.
  Mr. Blizzard: My hon. Friend is right. The frequently stated policy of Margaret Thatcher's Government was to force people on to the roads. They built up people's hopes with the promise of new road schemes and then dashed those hopes by never being able to deliver.
  Since 1997, this Government have acted in my area. We received £3 million for the northern spine road in Lowestoft, and in December 2000 we were awarded £25 million for the south Lowestoft relief road. I congratulate Suffolk county council on mounting that bid under the local transport plan, although three years on, its progress in developing the scheme could have been much quicker. Those schemes will make a real difference to transport in and around the main town in my constituency.
  However, better transport links between my constituency and the rest of the country are essential if my area is to have a stronger economy and lower unemployment. Those whom I categorise as anything-but-roads people put ideology before practicality; they challenge the very idea that road improvement could lead to strengthening the economy. All too often, the famous SACTRA—Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment—report is quoted at me, or rather misquoted, because such people claim that it concludes that building roads does no good. SACTRA did not say that. It noted that in an area where roads are already well developed, further development might not bring massive benefits. However, the report comes down on the positive side: investment in road upgrading has economic benefits. It also pointed out that there can be no blanket rule; each area and its circumstances must be considered. The report does not make the statements which opponents of roads claim that it makes.
  There is plenty of evidence from around the country that road improvement can bring economic benefits. Members who represent north Wales constituencies are pleased that the A55 was upgraded. A study from the Cardiff business school showed that there were economic benefits. A similar study of roads around Merthyr in south Wales came up with the same results. A study of the A40 to west Wales concluded that benefits would accrue if there were road improvements. I did some of my teacher training in Hull and can remember what a downtrodden place it was in those days. When I returned several decades later, its road links had been dramatically improved and the town was thriving. Although there cannot be universal certainty that investing in road upgrades will bring economic benefits, there is evidence that, in many circumstances, it can.
  Who says that investment in upgrading the roads to Lowestoft would make a difference? Neither employers trying to run their business from a difficult position with poor links, nor the trade unions are in any doubt as to whether it would make a difference. Management and unions are at one on that issue.
  Our area has one of the lowest business start-up rates in the country. Those figures tell a story. Why are people more reluctant to risk starting a business there? It is

  415
  because they realise that they will be at a disadvantage because of the poor transport links. At Westminster, when I talk to national business leaders, I ask them whether they would consider locating in my area. The answer is that they might be interested if we had better transport links. Whenever Ministers visit my area, they are late; it always takes them longer than they expect to get there. Their first comment is that the roads or the railways are not too good.
  In asking for better links and more investment, one needs to establish which route should have priority. I conducted an extensive survey of employers in my constituency: I asked 300 for their views and 200 replied. Overwhelmingly, they pointed to the need to improve the A12. So towards the end of the year, with the co-operation and support of the local newspaper, the Lowestoft Journal, I launched our "upgrade the A12" campaign. I pay tribute to the editor of that newspaper, Russell Cook, for his persistence with the campaign—week after week, we are going on with it in the local paper.
  The campaign's aim is simply to get a faster, more reliable journey time up the A12 to Lowestoft, and there has been a fantastic and overwhelming public response in support of the campaign. We have had support from all sectors, not just business. Those in the health sector tell me that it is often difficult to recruit the people whom we need in the heath service because we are perceived as being a little remote and off the beaten track. We have had support from those in the education sector, who tell me that the aspirations of youngsters in schools are often less than they should be because people's horizons are limited. Upgrading the road is supported not just by people in the town of Lowestoft, but by those in villages on the route, who obviously want bypasses. That support is still growing, but our campaign has come across a major obstacle: Suffolk county council.
  Suffolk county council's idea is not to upgrade the A12 to produce a faster, more reliable journey time, but, through its so-called route management strategy, to slow traffic down further—with more traffic lights, more speed limits, more bollards—in the hope that that will make the road safer. I fear that it will just make road users more frustrated because in this; century they expect a better quality road than we have now. I suspect that an anything-but-roads mentality lies at the heart of the county council's approach.
  The A12 was detrunked about three years ago. Of course, detrunking does not preclude highway authorities from including road improvements in their local transport plans and sending them to the Government. Unfortunately, Suffolk county council's view is that Lowestoft's main link to the rest of country should involve going north, through Great Yarmouth, on to the A47. I am concerned that that idea seems to have taken root regionally, and I want to ensure today that my hon. Friend the Minister does not take up the idea nationally, because it is nonsense.
  The idea that, if people in my town want to go south to London, they should start by going north to Great Yarmouth is crazy indeed, especially for people who live in the south of town, as they would have to cross the river on the only bridge, which lifts up about 10 times a day. The idea that people would go through all that to
  416
  travel south beggars belief. I have measured the distance involved, and going to London via that so-called strategic, preferred route is 16 per cent. further, resulting in 16 per cent. more emissions. The survey that I carried out with local businesses showed that the A47 route was least favoured; it was of least use to those who form part of the local economy of my area.
  As I have said, the SACTRA report indicated that local studies were needed to see whether improving the roads would bring the hoped-for economic benefits. A number of studies have been undertaken in the past few months in our area. Suffolk Development Agency commissioned consultants, Ecotec, to take a look at the A12 between Ipswich and Lowestoft. It estimated that the county council's route management strategy—the speed limit and bollard approach—would cost us 600 jobs, and it found that there would be a positive correlation between upgrading the road and creating more jobs.
  Suffolk business link commissioned some consultants called Transitions to look into why we have a low level of business start-up. One of the findings was that transport improvements are essential to connect such businesses with national and international markets. A sub-regional study was carried out by consultants SQW, and its finding was unequivocal:
  "The A12 southwards from Lowestoft to Ipswich, Felixstowe and London should provide another strategic link into the subregion even though it has been de-trunked between Lowestoft and Ispwich".
  Clearly, the A12 is enormously important to our area.
  Including improvements in the Suffolk local transport plan must be the way forward. Our campaign will force a rethink by Suffolk county council, because its so-called sustainable approach to road transport is unsustainable for my constituency. Local people know it, and they will find ways to demonstrate that. In preparation for the time when the local transport plan is submitted to Ministers for decision, I suggest that a new dimension to Government policy, particularly transport policy, is needed in relation to the towns around our coasts such as the one that I represent, and the more peripheral parts of our country.
  We need to ensure that all those places are properly connected to the modern infrastructure. That will be more important than any development grant, or any other schemes that may come and go. That idea was a key theme in yesterday's seminar about seaside towns that took place in, and was led by, the Treasury. Nearly everyone who represented a seaside town came up with the same point: our towns would be helped most by better transport links. I hope that the Government will take the ideas from that seminar and work them up into a policy, under the revision of the 10-year plan, because we want to connect those parts of the country that risk being left out to the main infrastructure.
  In April, during the week when we heard the bad news from Shell, I asked the Prime Minister to
  "look at what can be done to help towns such as Lowestoft where there are many good, hard-working people but, because of the town's peripheral location, it is hard to attract new businesses when we lose the industries that have been there so long".—[Official Report, 2 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 909.]
  I hope that the Prime Minister takes that to heart and that the Government come up with an answer.

  417
  I have been saying that Lowestoft has three possible futures. I am sure that that could be said of other towns around the country. It could be a retirement town, a dormitory or a thriving, working town. Only one of those gives a future for young people: it has to be a thriving, working town.
  Therefore, we need a new policy. We talk about inclusion, so let us adopt an inclusive approach to transport, and not leave places outside the main network. If the Government can make that a priority, we will truly have a fair deal for all parts of the country.
  2.28 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I should like to declare my interests in road haulage and transport, as shown in the Register of Members' Interests.
  I welcome the debate because transport is important to all Members and constituents. As we heard from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), transport has a major impact on the prosperity and general well-being of towns. I grew up in Chippenham, which originally grew on the railway line west out of London—the Great Western Railway line. I can remember the M4 being built, and people did not quite know what impact it would have. However, if people go to that town today—or Swindon, or anywhere else on the M4—they see a vibrant, much-changed community, and jobs, homes and services have been built on the back of that infrastructure.
  I can perfectly understand the hon. Gentleman's comments. It is vital that people consider how easy it is to get in and out of communities. Its takes years to build roads and infrastructure in this country, so if there is nothing on the stocks, people find it tremendously frustrating to try to sell the benefits of their community or town. We all know that those very important decisions can have a great impact on the way in which wealth is divided across our nation.
  The debate is also interesting because the problems are long term, and it is probably true to say that all Governments have under-invested in transport. I have occasionally wished that we were rather more French in our single-mindedness towards large schemes, so that we got on with things.
  Mr. Hopkins: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we ought to be more French. Would he suggest that we bring our railways back into public ownership in a state-owned integrated system, as the French have done, which works extremely well?
  Mr. Syms: Many aspects of the French railway system work very well, but from my experience of travelling on it I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I was thinking more of the general attitude of people in France, which is a can-do, "Let's go and build something" attitude. Sometimes, the French do not consult people as much as we do, but I have always been struck by the fact that they see transport very much as part of regional policy, especially in northern France, in which unemployment is higher and where communities vie to have railways lines and roads built through them for their benefit. That is a little different from the attitude in our dear nation, which is a country of owner-occupiers who tend to judge every project on
  418
  the basis of whether the value of their home will go up or down. I acknowledge that it would cost money, but if we offered more generous compensation we might find it easier to build such infrastructure projects.
  We are six years into this Government, and inevitably there will be some reflection on their record. It is true that at the end of the last Conservative Government there was a reduction in the road programme—which I opposed—and the number of schemes was reduced to 150. Within a year of this Government coming to power, however, the Deputy Prime Minister made further reductions. A number of multi-modal studies followed, which, whatever their benefits, tended to put off public investment rather than speed it up, which is one reason for the lag in investment. I am pleased that the Government have started to realise that that was a mistake and that they must make provision for roads; they are now starting to put right some of the mistakes that they made in their first few years. There is no doubt, however, that because of the lags in investment they will take a while to catch up. The criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)—that last year was not a great year for new road schemes—was perfectly right.
  Other than taxing them, the Government have ignored motorists, from whom they have taken £9 billion or £10 billion in vehicle excise duty and VAT. It is sometimes presumed that motorists are rich and that those who use public transport are poor. I suspect, however, that those who commute to their jobs in the City may be better paid than many in rural communities, where a car is a necessity and where it may be difficult to afford a car.
  Interestingly, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is no longer in his place, talked about cheap fuel and cheap cars, the implication being that that was rather a bad thing. For many of our citizens, it is rather a good thing because it allows them to take their children to school, to go to the supermarket and to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. As democratic politicians, we should rejoice in that. It is no bad thing that people should enjoy the fruits of a prosperous economy.
  We have also heard responses to the Deputy Prime Minister's comments about and commitment to reducing traffic on the roads. As the current Secretary of State for Transport has made plain in a number of comments since, fuller levels of employment and a fairly robust economy will inevitably mean that more people will travel on the roads. That proves how stupid it was for the Deputy Prime Minister to think that we could artificially stop people using cars when they need them for their everyday work and everyday lives. We need to put far more effort into provision for motorists and roads, because that is how the vast majority of people in this country travel. It is the method of choice, and we can understand perfectly why people prefer to use their cars when public transport costs are spiralling. More imaginative ways exist, however, of managing the current system.
  Some comment has been made about the announcement that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made about speed. I see nothing wrong with variable speed limits. I know that some who work for motoring organisations are concerned that people will be confused, but we have

  419
  variable speed limits on the M25 that go up and down with traffic flow, and I see no reason why our whole motorway network should not have variable speed limits. Why have one speed limit, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whatever the traffic and weather conditions? That seems nonsense. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with driving at 80 mph down a motorway at night when there is virtually no traffic and conditions are good.
  Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if we increase the limit to 80 mph many people will feel that they can exceed it by a further 10 mph? If a fox or something else crosses even an empty road it is very easy to have an accident at such speed. The danger with variable speed limits is that accidents will increase dramatically.
  Mr. Syms: I do not see that there is a great problem with such speed limits. The general safety record on motorways is very good. We have a fairly good record for pedestrian accidents. Far too many children are killed in road accidents, but most of them occur at lower speeds where cars are parked on the road near estates and schools. A perfectly respectable argument exists for having a lower speed limit, and much higher levels of enforcement, in areas where young people leave school, jump on their bikes and try to get home. That is where they are at risk. We heard evidence at a meeting with the RAC that there are certain ages at which children are particularly at risk; usually, it is when young boys in their early teens get on their bike, rush home from school and perhaps do not pay attention to the highway code. We should target those children to reduce accidents. I welcome the Government's commitment to halve the number of deaths of children on the roads.
  With traffic on only one side of a motorway and with modern cars, modern brakes and good conditions I do not see any problem with people travelling faster. Conversely, when there is a lot of traffic on a motorway network, and when weather conditions are not good, we ought to be able to reduce speed limits. In addition, on the M25, at times of the day when there is a high volume of traffic, bringing down the speed limit means that people get home quicker, because people do not have to brake as often. Management of speed limits on the network—not being afraid to put them up as well as down—is one way of addressing the problem.
  Andrew Bennett: I agree about reducing speeds around schools, but I understand that the Conservative party wants to get rid of speed cameras. How will he reduce speed in urban areas without more checking and enforcement of limits?
  Mr. Syms: I am not the greatest reader of party publications—I say that as a vice-chairman of the Conservative party—but, as I understand it, speed cameras should be placed at accident blackspots. The objective of a speed camera is to save lives and deter motorists from speeding and thereby killing people. Cameras should not be used on safe stretches of road as a means of raising revenue. When I drive around the country I sometimes see speed cameras in areas where I
  420
  think they are being used as revenue-raisers rather than what they should be used for—saving lives on the road. That must be the focus of what we are doing. Therefore, as a nation, in terms of road safety, we must be single-minded in concentrating on more vulnerable groups such as children.
  In addition, we must not just concentrate on the motorist but educate pedestrians. I am amazed by the number of times that pedestrians walk off the pavement without looking, often when they are talking on a mobile phone or listening to a Walkman. When I see cyclists going through red lights in London and not obeying the highway code, I wonder why so many are not knocked over. There is a role, therefore, for better public education in these areas. Variable speed limits are a tool that can be used to improve the road network.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that the facts do not support the assertion made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett)? In France, for example, motorway speed limits are 80 mph, and there is no evidence of more accidents occurring there. In Germany, I believe there is no upper limit on the major motorways.
  Mr. Syms: That is true, but this country has a tradition of having speed limits. We should reconsider the whole issue of speed limits and perhaps consider variable speed limits.
  Thinking on traffic lights is fixed. They often operate for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and one can often sit at a traffic light at 2 am while driving to one's constituency through Twickenham. We have a mania for putting traffic lights on roundabouts, which are supposed to keep traffic flowing. It might be appropriate for traffic lights to operate briefly at certain times of the rush hour if there is a need to allow people on to a roundabout, but I cannot understand why such traffic lights operate 24 hours a day and seven days a week, because that disrupts traffic.
  The route from the motorway network to central London is one of the most congested because of all the traffic lights through which one must pass. Traffic lights should be audited to determine their impact on the system. The timing of traffic lights in London was changed before the Mayor introduced congestion charging, and such a measure can have a real impact on the speed of traffic.
  Mr. Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and some powerful points, especially about the unnecessary waste of human time and increased pollution that are caused by vehicles being forced to stop at a red traffic light when no vehicles are coming in the other direction. That happens because the lights are on a timer. Does he agree that some states in America have the right idea, because during non-rush hour periods traffic lights flash amber in every direction, which means that motorists may cross them? The lights give a warning to take care.
  Mr. Syms: I am not sure whether I would like to try that, but my right hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that motorists in America can sometimes turn left on a red light if the way is clear.
  My essential point is that we must consider the management of our road network and roads much

  421
  better. We should have a system to examine routes from A to Z and audit the number of traffic lights and roundabouts, the design of the road and speed levels all along the route to determine whether traffic could be allowed to move faster without the requirement for massive investment in more concrete and tarmac. That might require a review of bus lanes, because although they increase the speed of buses they knock back other traffic. We should look at everything and make an assessment of specific routes. On narrow sections of road, especially, there are occasions when a few cars parked on the side can knock traffic back, so we need more active management. I am not sure what the system should be, but I hope that Members on our Front Bench and the Government will consider it.
  Tom Brake: How would the hon. Gentleman's review reconcile faster flows of traffic with the need for pedestrians to cross the road?
  Mr. Syms: Stakeholders, to use that terrible word, must be considered. There are always competing interests—pedestrians, cyclists, buses and cars—and a judgment must be made. We sometimes do things in an itty-bitty way. One may drive into London through three or four boroughs with different policies, and a more comprehensive view might result in better policies.
  The Government have neglected the motorist for too long. I am glad that they are having a deathbed repentance and that they are taking the issue more seriously. I caution against hitting the motorist with higher taxes, not least because it is a rather regressive way of dealing with people. Anybody from the west country knows that many people who live there are on marginal incomes but need vehicles to support their employment and look after their families. The importance of motoring has been underestimated in recent years and it must be a central issue. We can do many things without building vast motorway networks and we need creative thinking. As I said, 24-hour and seven-day thinking on speed limits and traffic lights makes the situation worse. If we were a little more creative, we might improve the lot of our fellow motorists and passengers.
  2.45 pm
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: The Conservatives are rather shooting themselves in the foot by initiating a debate on transport because most of our problems derive from the policies that they pursued when they were in office. I make no apology for reminding them about rail privatisation and bus privatisation and deregulation because the effect of those measures is to an extent still with us. I would go further than my colleagues on the Front Bench by reversing those policies, and I think that we shall do that one day.
  I shall certainly support the Government's amendment and oppose the Tories' motion, but I think that I would delete the word "botched" from the amendment. There is constant reference to the privatisation being botched, which implies that the privatisation of such an industry as rail could be a good
  422
  thing. That is not the case, and we would make more progress if we deleted the word "botched" from the Government's lexicon for the foreseeable future.
  Mr. John Horam: If the privatisation policies were so bad, why have the Government not reversed them?
  Mr. Hopkins: I imagine that the Government have other priorities, although I am doing my best to persuade them to do such a thing. Indeed, I urge hon. Members of all parties to sign the early-day motion that I tabled this week calling for railways to be brought back into public ownership. The railway systems that work best are integrated state systems that are backed fully by government, such as those in France and elsewhere. As a member of the all-party rail group, and the former all-party rail freight group, I have made many visits abroad to see good railway systems in operation.
  Tragically, our railways have received poor investment for many decades but the cost of replacing a mile of railway track has increased by four times since privatisation. That is a direct result of privatisation and the contracting rip-offs that continue to this day. The Government are gradually inching their way back toward common sense and I urge them to go further in that direction. The Strategic Rail Authority's decision this week not to give Connex back its franchise is another step in the right direction, and I look forward to the SRA garnering further franchises as a basis for pubic ownership and future reintegration.
  In a sense, the privatisation was botched because it split track operations from train operations. I think that everyone realises that that was a big mistake. The idea was that there could be a degree of competition among train operators on the infrastructure provided, but there is plenty of evidence showing that that does not work. Clearly, we cannot have a situation in which trains race each other on parallel railway lines. Buses can race each other on the road, at least, but that is not possible on railways because there is one track and one train. It would be much better for the rail system to be planned and operated in the public interest with appropriate subsidies if necessary.
  Andrew Bennett: Surely my hon. Friend is aware of the racing that used to take place between Scotland and London to determine whether the east coast or west coast service was the fastest.
  Mr. Hopkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. My great-great-great-grandfather used to drive the Flying Scotsman. Sadly, he died in a railway accident—he was probably going too fast.
  In general terms, with that notable exception, trains do not race or compete against each other on the same track. The service should be planned and run in the public interest and subsidised if appropriate. Everything that is done should be made accountable to the House and, through us, to the public. We had that system before but the problem with the days of British Rail was that we did not invest sufficiently, so our railways lagged behind those on the continent of Europe for a long time. We are starting to address that problem but we must go further.

  423
  There has been emphasis on roads, but they are often congested.
  There are two reasons for that. The first is that there is too much traffic. The second is that roads, especially motorways, are constantly being repaired because of the damage caused not by cars but by heavy freight.
  I am a great supporter of freight transport by both road and rail. However, the mathematical formula—the fourth power law of road damage—shows that damage to roads increases by the fourth power of the axle weight. So if one doubles axle weight, one multiplies road damage by 16 times, and so on. That is a problem. If we get significant amounts of freight off the roads and on to rail, we will make a difference not just to the environment but to road congestion and the massive expenditure that comes out of the Treasury' pocket—the public purse—to pay for repairs. There will also be a smoother flow of traffic in general. Freight would be more reliable, especially from more remote industrial areas to the channel tunnel, if we invested more in rail freight facilities.
  I have long been a supporter of the Central Railway scheme to provide a direct dedicated freight link from the industrial north to the continent of Europe. A reliable roll-on-and-go service, operating every quarter of an hour, with full-scale trailers on trains, would be tremendously popular with road hauliers and the people who suffer from the problems caused by traffic. It would be a boon to Britain and could breathe new life into the economies of the north midlands and Scotland, and I am paying particular attention to the interests of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who represents a Scottish constituency. That scheme would make a difference to our economy.
  We are peripheral to Europe. Unlike Germany and France, we are not in the golden triangle. We have to ensure that our transport freight links to the continent are effective. The channel tunnel is underused, and there is scope for it to carry more freight. That would transform the economics of channel tunnel operations. The passenger forecasts for the channel tunnel have been proven to be overblown. There is scope for more freight to go through the tunnel. A direct link between industrial areas of Britain to the tunnel, which would accommodate full-scale trailers on trains, would benefit everyone. There is a scheme to that effect and I hope that my hon. Friends back it. At the very least, I hope that they support the principles behind it.
  I have always been concerned about road safety. I used to wear a seat belt before they were compulsory, much to the annoyance of some of my friends. They used to think that I did not trust their driving, but my response was, "I trust your driving. It's the person who's going to crash into us that I don't trust." They thought that was a smart answer. I used to wear a crash helmet when I rode my motorbike. I have always tried to be sensible about drinking and driving, even before the law was tightened. Those are sensible things to do, but not everyone is sensible. Unfortunately, we have to encourage people to be sensible by applying a law from time to time.
  424
  If we relax the laws on driving, a minority of drivers will be irresponsible and drive too fast, which will ruin our reputation as a nation of safe drivers, with a low accident rate. I hope that my hon. Friends will not listen to the siren voices that call for a relaxation of our sensibly strict controls on driving and safety.
  2.54 pm
  Mr. Mark Hoban: Transport is a key issue in my constituency and other parts of south-east Hampshire. Economic and housing developments put a great strain on existing infrastructure, leading to traffic jams and tailbacks in the area. Unfortunately, rather than problems being solved before they arise, there has been a pattern of solutions following the chaos that such development has caused.
  We are at a defining moment. Traffic studies suggest that the chaos in south-east Hampshire will get worse if no action is taken. The Government need to take action if we are to shield our roads and economy from gridlock. It is well recognised that there are problems in the area. That has been confirmed by not one but two studies into integrated transport. The first study was on the M27 corridor, which runs from Southampton to Portsmouth. That was followed by the south Hampshire element of the south coast multi-modal study. There was little difference between the recommendations of those studies other than the decision in the multi-modal study to investigate the possibility of congestion charging, which I shall deal with in a moment.
  Local people share the impression that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) identified: that multi-modal studies are often a delay rather than a spur to action. The current problems are clear, as the study indicated. The M27 is at capacity between junctions 9 and 12, and three of those junctions are in my constituency. Motorway intersections are congested. Heavy development in the Gosport peninsula has led to traffic build-up along the A32 almost from its start in Gosport through to junction 11 of the M27, with motorists experiencing long delays at almost every point on that road where there is a roundabout or traffic lights during both busy periods and the lull between the morning and evening rush hours.
  The studies have identified that population, work force and employment will rise in south Hampshire between 1998, when the forecast started, and 2016. For example, it is estimated that between 1998 and 2016 the number of residents in the borough of Fareham will increase by 8 per cent., employment by 26 per cent. and the work force by 8 per cent. The increase in employment outstrips that of population and work force in both relative and absolute terms, so more people will travel into Fareham to work than perhaps live there at the moment.
  Over the same period, it is predicted that in south Hampshire the number of car trips will increase by 25 per cent., vehicle kilometres travelled will increase by 26 per cent. and, interestingly, vehicle hours will increase by 61 per cent. The astute will notice that the increase in hours outstrips the increase in kilometres travelled. That is because vehicle speeds on the M27 are predicted to fall by 15 per cent. over the forecast period. On the M27 itself, journeys between junctions 9 and 10 will increase

  425
  by 30 per cent. in the survey period and by 28 per cent. between junctions 10 and 11. Those three junctions fall within my constituency. That is a bleak picture for local people who are already frustrated by sitting in traffic on the M27 or the A32.
  The traffic growth figures, which show a significant increase in delays and time spent on motorways, assume that a major public transport initiative will have taken place. The south Hampshire rapid transit system is to link Fareham to Portsmouth through Gosport. It is meant to relieve some of the existing and growing traffic problems on the Gosport peninsula and promote access to employment for those people who live along the route.
  However, the Minister will know that the scheme is in doubt. There has been a significant increase in cost—about £100 million—owing to factors beyond the control of Hampshire county council and Portsmouth city council, the local government sponsors of the scheme. They and the Government need to reach an agreement on how the overrun is to be met. Hampshire county council has said that it will meet its share of some £17 million. Portsmouth city council, led by the Liberals who, as we heard, are interested in non-car alternatives to traffic problems, is equivocating. The Government are reviewing their options.
  If the scheme does not go ahead, there will be more traffic on the roads, which will lead to slower journey times and greater congestion at junctions and on roads in general. But what are the alternatives? Traffic chaos can continue, and increase; we can consider tweaking existing public transport initiatives; we can put an end to housing development in the area; or we can simply build more roads.
  If we are to improve the area's economic and environmental well-being, we cannot allow traffic chaos to continue to grow. Despite the work of Hampshire county council and FirstBus to improve bus links, particularly in the Fareham-Gosport corridor, I do not believe that public transport can play a major role in reducing congestion in the area if the south Hampshire rapid transit scheme does not go ahead. Based on current form, the Government will not allow Fareham and Gosport borough councils to stop building houses, so the pressure on the transport network will continue to increase. The fourth option, a new road-building programme, would involve a protracted planning process, and it would take years to resolve today's traffic problems let alone those of tomorrow.
  The south coast multi-modal study described the rapid transit scheme as a "do minimum" scheme and advocated its extension to Southampton. The cancellation of that scheme would not only cause traffic chaos greatly to increase, but strike a blow at the economic development of south Hampshire, which has been designated a priority area for economic regeneration to tackle the deprivation along the coast.
  The consequences of the Government's withdrawing their support for the scheme would be complex and include implications for economic development and housing development, a need for alternative schemes to relieve congestion and an environmental impact. That decision cannot be made lightly. However, motorists in south-east Hampshire want certainty about the future
  426
  of the scheme. They would welcome a quick decision so that the county council, Portsmouth city council and the Government can consider alternative schemes to reduce traffic congestion.
  As currently set out, the scheme will affect only the centre of my constituency. In the west there are traffic problems arising from housing development, particularly on brownfield sites, which is causing roads in residential areas to become more and more congested. In Whiteley, a major development in the north of my constituency which is shared by Fareham and Winchester councils, there is only one road in and out for residents and those who work in the area, and thousands of people use that road every day. There is a plan to build another road so that Whiteley can be accessed from other directions, but uncertainty caused by the rules on compulsory purchase and the method of valuing the land means that the road cannot yet be built. The county council is investing more money to improve bus routes, but people's work and lifestyle patterns militate against the use of public transport, so it is difficult to see how it can be the sole means of meeting the transport needs of the many people who live and work in Whiteley. We cannot continue to accommodate additional housing development without proper transport infrastructure.
  Motorists in Fareham do not feel that they have a fair deal. There is too much traffic on our roads, and that problem will be exacerbated if the rapid transport system is not built. There will be more cars on the already overcrowded M27, with slower speeds, longer hold-ups and more pollution.
  The multi-modal study suggested the use of tolls to reduce traffic in Portsmouth and Southampton. It is difficult for local people to see how that would work within the existing public transport infrastructure. There are few sensible alternative means for those who live outside Portsmouth and Southampton to get into the cities to work. Local business groups are concerned that a congestion charge would have an impact on trade and increase their costs. If we are to introduce road-pricing or congestion-charging schemes in urban areas smaller than London, we need to give a great deal of thought to how they would work.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Is not my hon. Friend saying, in essence, that there is only one effective solution to the problem of congestion, and that is to build more roads that are appropriate to the development in the area?
  Mr. Hoban: My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) referred to the need to improve transport infrastructure to help the economy in his constituency. Fareham and south-east Hampshire face another problem: many parts of the sub-region are economically successful but that has transport consequences that we need to tackle. The situation is exacerbated by the Government's direction that more houses be built in those areas. We cannot have more development without more infrastructure to meet people's needs. In many cases, roads, rather than fiddly, peripheral measures such as green bus routes, are the answer. The existing congestion problems in south-east Hampshire require more significant changes.

  427
  The public transport infrastructure in the area recently suffered a significant blow, with the decision of South Central to remove 30 trains a day from the Southampton to Bournemouth segment of the route from London to the south coast. Those trains stop in my constituency, and people in Fareham who want to travel to the New Forest, Christchurch or Bournemouth will now have to change trains in Southampton. If they have luggage or young children, or are elderly, they will be more reluctant to let the train take the strain, as the great advertising slogan of, I think, the '80s said. They will be looking to use their car to travel on the M57 to the New Forest.
  The reduction in the train service on that key part of the route will make journey times uncertain and, because of the resulting inconvenience, persuade people not to use the train. In addition, many people in my constituency commute to London from Southampton Airport Parkway station, and of course they will be hit by the above-inflation increase in rail fares. It is not only motorists in Fareham who do not have a fair deal; the problem affects rail passengers too.
  The south-east is the locomotive of the British economy. Economic, population and employment growth in the region is predicted to be faster than in the UK as a whole. As I said in response to the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), that level of economic development brings its own problems. In south-east Hampshire that has shown itself in gridlock and slower speeds on the motorways, longer tailbacks and congested roads in residential areas. The Government cannot ignore those problems if they expect the south-east to continue to provide its 15 per cent. share of the nation's wealth. We need a fair deal for all those who have a stake in our transport system—motorists, rail passengers and, above all, taxpayers.
  3.8 pm
  Rob Marris: We should not overlook the amount that has been done on the railways. This has been a thoughtful debate, but sometimes people overlook what has already been achieved while concentrating, understandably, on the problems. By 2005, the Government will be spending double what they spent in 2001—£4.3 billion as opposed to £2.1 billion. That is extremely important. Overall rail investment during the 10-year plan will be well over twice the amount that was spent in the 10 years up to 1997. We could bandy about similar figures for the amount of track being laid, and so on.
  As a west midlands Member of Parliament, I am delighted that the west coast main line is being upgraded, but I have problems with some of the operators, particularly Virgin Trains, which may be well known to hon. Members. It is somewhat sad that although the Conservatives called for today's debate, only five of their Members are present in the Chamber. However, I appreciate that more of them were in the Chamber earlier.
  I have ongoing problems with Virgin Trains, which has artificially reduced the number of complaints it receives—the reduction is taken into account in its
  428
  franchise renewal—and does not stick to maintenance schedules for its rolling stock. I took that up with Chris Green, the chief executive, last September, and suggested that Virgin Trains should run longer but less frequent trains to achieve greater reliability, but he pooh-poohed the idea. Three months later, Virgin announced a policy to make such a change. I take no credit for that, but the company strikes me as one that is not well run. In public transport, whether railways, buses, aeroplanes or maritime transport, we need reliability. For most customers, reliability is more important than frequency. Having worked as a professional driver for several years—I am a former bus and truck driver—I know that when making a delivery or operating a public service vehicle it is frustrating to fall behind schedule because of congestion. That is one of the main things that puts passengers off.
  Rail freight is a big success story that is often not talked about. There has been a 24 per cent. increase in the amount of freight moved by rail since 1997. I am sad that the freight subsidy has been cut this year, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can explain why in his reply, as that seems a strange decision. We need to look at the successes of buses in many of our towns and cities, and try to replicate the successes of a number of local initiatives and visions. Travel West Midlands is, as its name suggests, the major bus service provider in the west midlands. It is not perfect, but it does a very good job overall, and there are similar success stories in, for example, Leeds, as we have heard.
  The success of trams or so-called light rail is not much heralded. Trams are expensive to build, but are well used. In the west midlands, surveys show that 15 per cent. of people using trams have a car which they would otherwise use, so the trams are taking cars off the road. Eighty-five per cent. of the west midlands tram network between my constituency and Birmingham is on dedicated track, so it does not create congestion on the roads, with the exception of the final two miles into my constituency. It is obvious—we need to state the obvious in public transport—but one reason why people take trams is because they know where they go. By contrast, as a bus user, I know that the majority of bus stops do not say where buses go, let alone display a timetable. How we are to encourage people out of cars on to buses when they do not know where they go is beyond me. As I said before, for people using public transport, whether bus or rail, reliability is generally more important that frequency.
  As for the roads on which the buses run, I welcome the Government's decision to spend large amounts of money, for example, to get rid of 192 bottlenecks, and other creative schemes. We should be cautious for environmental reasons about major road schemes; otherwise we could risk degrading our environment even further. I welcome the Government's actions on enforcing PPG6 on out-of-town developments. Not only do we have to cope with current traffic levels but we must try to manage and reduce those levels. Patterns of urban development, as well as the rural and semi-rural developments mentioned by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) in his thoughtful speech, have an effect. We should not go back to the predict-and-provide approach which, for example, led to problems on the M25. That road quickly filled up with traffic, and

  429
  created journeys. Those journeys may initially have improved people's quality of life, but they also caused congestion, which worsened it.
  If they are not already doing so, the Government should examine whether, instead of building an extra lane on motorways, we should use the hard shoulder—perhaps the Minister could address that issue when he replies. Many people throw up their hands in horror at such an idea because of the safety implications. However, people use the hard shoulder all the time when motorways are being rebuilt and resurfaced, and most hon. Members will have seen a sign at the side of the motorway saying that free pick-up or towing is available at a certain point. One drives along the hard shoulder, and there is no emergency lane. We have to use the tarmac that we have.
  The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) mentioned parking. We build roads, resurface them, but then people park on them and clog up arterial routes. Parking on side streets does not affect traffic movement very much, but parking on main roads does.
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right that, before we build more roads, we need to make better use of those that we already have. However, does he not agree that instead of encouraging the dangerous practice of using the hard shoulder on motorways, it would be better to have a Government-led campaign to stop people hogging the central lane of the motorway, effectively reducing three lanes to two?
  Rob Marris: I agree entirely, and was going to come on to a personal bugbear—people driving in the second lane when the first is empty, or even in the third lane when the first two lanes are empty. However, on the issue of parked cars clogging up roads, the Stafford road in my constituency is being examined as a possible site for a pilot project for a red route outside London. That route would partly run through my constituency, but principally through that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). Both of us have major concerns about whether that is necessary and wonder whether anyone will obey that system in a year's time. Like most Members, I come down to London at least four days a week to fulfil my duties, and I see people parking on red routes, but nothing is done about that. However, the proposal is to spend £750,000 on a red route in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. I suspect that, a year after that route is built, we will be back to where we were because there will be no enforcement.
  Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are circumstances in which roadside parking has the advantage of inhibiting speeding, which is dangerous in built-up areas? If people are failing to obey the speed limit, roadside parking helps to calm traffic.
  Rob Marris: I agree entirely that that is true in some cases. That leads nicely into my next point about bicycles. One reason why bicycle lanes are painted on roads is to visually narrow the road for car drivers—on average, car speeds drop by 4 per cent. in those urban areas, even when there are no bicycles in the bicycle lane. The Government are making a good job of encouraging
  430
  cycle use, and I urge them to continue expanding the Sustrans network and so on. However, I urge them to look more closely at segregated bike lines. Countries with a high level of bicycle usage often have segregated bicycle lanes in urban areas.
  I urge the Government to reconsider the cycle helmet campaign. The advertising associated with that campaign suggests that riding a bicycle is dangerous. It can be, but not doing so and becoming unfit can lead to people of the average age of right hon. and hon. Members dropping dead of heart attacks. People should be encouraged to cycle safely, but the current advertising campaign on cycle helmets is shocking in nature, and will put people off cycling. If, as a society and a country, we wish to encourage people to use helmets, we should encourage people driving motor cars to wear helmets, as that would have much greater safety benefits.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned walking, buses and the school run, so I shall not talk about that. However, I would urge the Government—and this is not simply a matter for the Department for Transport—to examine the matter of school catchment areas. That is a particular problem for people in London, but it is also a problem for people in large urban areas such as the west midlands. As a society, we need to look at the question of whether we should have catchment areas for schools. Since we have had a geographical free-for-all, the so-called school run has increased in distance and volume.
  To conclude, it bears repeating that we need to take a creative look at private transport—bicycles and cars—public transport and road usage. Society and the Government must be realistic when debating these things, or we will not solve the transport problems on our small island, particularly in England. However, as politicians, we can seek to work with our constituents to ameliorate the transport problems that we have inherited because of 40 years of underinvestment, a high population density and land usage patterns. We need to think creatively about the problems that will arise when we have electric cars—I urge the Minister to take note of that. One of the reasons why people like me have been suggesting for many years that it would be better to lessen the amount of miles driven in private motor cars is air pollution. Private motor cars are now much less air-polluting. When we get electric vehicles, many members of society and many constituents will think, "I can drive my car anywhere now. You've been telling me for years that I shouldn't drive it because of pollution. Well, I have an electric vehicle now and I'll drive it where I like." Congestion will worsen and the division of communities by roads will potentially get worse. There is a problem of motorist psychology that we will have to deal with.
  Mr. Bennett: Before my hon. Friend gets too enthusiastic for the electric car, he should remember that the electricity must be generated, and we have not solved the problem of ensuring that all our electricity generation is green.
  Rob Marris: I agree. I would not want my hon. Friend to misunderstand me. I was not getting enthusiastic about the electric car per se, but saying that when

  431
  electric cars become more widely available, many people will think it is green to drive those cars, overlooking the point my hon. Friend raises and creating congestion problems.
  3.20 pm
  Angela Watkinson: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I shall concentrate my remarks on the private motor car. Indeed, I shall celebrate the private motor car, if that is not too new Labour an expression. There is another new Labour expression. Until my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) spoke, I had intended to comment that we have not heard the new Labour soundbite "integrated transport" mentioned once. I have always been intrigued to know what it meant. Now I do. What used to be called integrated transport is now called a multi-modal study. That clears that up.
  Government must offer a realistic choice between public and private transport. Most people would choose to use both from time to time. Road traffic would then find its own level. There need be no coercion from this anti-car Government to get people on to public transport. The Government's policies are anti-car. The use of the private car is one of life's great freedoms. To travel from and to wherever one chooses, at a time that one chooses, in the company one chooses is an enormous freedom. Public transport can never match that, but there are occasions when we shall all need it. Indeed, some people need to use it all the time, so the need for a good public transport system is undoubted.
  The Government are not happy with people having too much freedom and choice. They cannot control them, so they place as many obstacles, costs and difficulties in the way of motorists as they can. Still, the first major purchase of any young person when they have an income, the first thing that they save up for, their pride and joy, is their own motor car. It brings an independence incomparable with any other way of travelling. The challenge for any Government is to provide a road network to meet people's need, not to engineer people's needs to suit Government policy. We must have a road network that will allow vehicles to travel from A to B quickly and safely. There is growing demand, and it will not decrease.
  Rob Marris: The hon. Lady speaks about engineering demand to suit Government policy. It was the Government whom she supported who rightly introduced tax differentials to persuade people not to buy leaded petrol. That was the kind of social manipulation that she decries. I support it, and I think she would have supported it at the time. It was wonderfully successful.
  Angela Watkinson: Lead has an environmental implication, but the volume of traffic on the road is a different issue. We must allow everybody who needs to travel the choice of mode of travel, so that road traffic will find its own level. The largest increase in the use of the private motor car is among pensioners and older people, particularly older women—77 per cent. of older women hold driving licences and use cars. It would be a
  432
  brave Government who took away or sought to curtail that new-found freedom and opportunity and the fundamental improvement it brings to lifestyle.
  We have high road tax and proposed new motorway tolls, which I know are under consideration, although no decisions have been made. The persecuted motorist has become the milch-cow of the nation. We have the highest fuel taxes in Europe. The total tax take from motorists was £45 billion last year. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what it was spent on. It certainly was not spent on the national road network.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who is no longer in his place, commented that even when we have new roads, the Government cannot resist interfering with them and putting traffic lights on roundabouts and junctions, which inhibit traffic flow. There is a case for traffic lights in those circumstances to be used only at peak times and to be switched off the rest of the time or adjusted according to traffic flow. Anyone who has worked for or served on local authorities, as I have, will know how much time and taxpayers' money are spent on what is euphemistically called traffic management.
  Of course, road safety is paramount and local authorities have a serious responsibility for road safety, particularly in the vicinity of schools, residential areas, shops or anywhere where pedestrians want to cross the road and come into conflict with motor vehicles. A Labour Member—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I think—mentioned the problem of traffic around schools and the changing habits of getting children to school. When my children went to school in the early 1960s, it was quite safe for me to see them across the road outside my house, and then they walked, probably up to three quarters of a mile, unsupervised and unaccompanied. I did not worry all day whether they had arrived and whether they would come home safely. Times have changed and parents are too worried to allow their children to do that now. In many families both parents work. The mother, as well as the father, needs to get to work, so that necessitates taking the children to school by car. The problem is not as simple as it sounds.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that when one considers traffic management measures, it is increasingly becoming clear that speed humps are not the answer to the problem? In cases where speed humps have been put in place, almost 90 per cent. of the population who originally wanted the speed humps want them removed because of the increase in noise and pollution that they cause, as vehicles slow and then accelerate away after they have negotiated the humps.
  Angela Watkinson: My right hon. Friend is right. I was coming on to a range of traffic management devices, including speed humps, which are often counterproductive, although they seemed like a good idea at the time they were put in.
  Another problem is inappropriate speed limits. If people cannot see the point of, for example, a 30 mph speed limit if there are no side roads from which traffic might join the main road, and if there is no housing and thus no pedestrians, they automatically want to speed. That is just the sort of location where cameras are being installed, and they are a tax-collecting device.

  433
  I make a plea to the Minister: will he ensure that, in special circumstances, local authorities can install repeater signs along 30 mph stretches of road? In my constituency, there is a road that has a very bad pedestrian accident record. It has a 30 mph speed limit that applies close to where it is joined by a stretch of road with a 60 mph limit. Motorists do not always observe the change and there have been several nasty accidents. I have already written to the Department about the issue, but will the Minister consider whether, in special circumstances or in the light of a bad accident record, repeater signs can be used in 30 mph zones? My local council said that if it introduced the policy on the road in question, it would have to introduce it throughout the borough, which would be impossible. However, if there were some way of designating difficult spots as eligible for repeater signs, I would be eternally grateful.
  I also have grave reservations about cycle lanes. There are cycle lanes in my constituency that no cyclist who has any regard for his life would dare to use, as the lane is too narrow and there is scarcely room for two cars to pass each other in the remaining part of the carriageway. Some cycle lanes are so narrow that I can imagine cyclists who use them being knocked over or having their shoulders brushed by large vehicles. I think that we should be more circumspect about where cycle lanes are introduced.
  Bus lanes often cause car users enormous frustration when they are empty but all the other vehicles are crowded into half the carriageway and there is not a bus in sight. When I was an Essex county councillor, on a road in Chelmsford that I used twice every day, I made a point of noting how many buses there were—very often there were none—and how many people were using any bus that I saw. The bus lane was not an efficient use of road space, because on the rare occasions when I saw a bus, it often contained only two or three people. We need to be more circumspect about the use of bus lanes. If a road is full of buses and the buses are full of passengers, bus lanes are justified, but the other side of the coin is the fact that introducing bus lanes for their own sake does not always represent an efficient use of road space.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ridiculous that some areas have 24-hour bus lanes, but not a 24-hour bus service?
  Angela Watkinson: My right hon. Friend adds to the point that I have been making. The issue needs to be considered and we need to bring common sense into making best use of road space.
  When I was a Havering councillor, I chaired the local public transport committee. Its members were crusading public transport champions and anti-car in their attitudes, but when I asked how many of them around the table had used public transport to attend a meeting, I found that none of them had done so; they had all used their cars. There is an element of hypocrisy in championing public transport over the private motor car.
  Many housing developments, especially in inner cities, are now being built without parking provision on the basis of the theory that people who live near enough
  434
  to public transport access points such as stations or bus stops will not want to own a car. Even if people use public transport to travel to and from work, many of them want a private motor car for leisure. If housing developments do not include any parking provision, people park in neighbouring roads and annoy everyone else. Again, that is an issue on which the theory is not borne out in practice.
  Policy must be realistic and must accommodate cars. They are here to stay and people like them. People who do not drive—the morally crusading and superior "I've never owned a car" brigade whom we have all met—like cars too, but those of other people. How many times have we heard somebody say, "Would you mind running me home as it's not safe to travel on a bus at this time of night and it's not far out of your way"? The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The answer is local policy making to suit local circumstances that is not driven by Government targets and directives on how to slow down the traffic.
  That brings me to London congestion charging, which is just another tax on the hapless motorist. Nobody drives in central London merely to annoy the Mayor of London; they do so because they have to. The congestion charging scheme had so little to do with genuine congestion that the Mayor had to make the situation worse to justify it—and very inventive he was too. There were road closures, diversions, roadworks and—this was the real brainwave—all-red phases on traffic lights. That cannot be denied; too many people experienced it, including me. Nothing moved in any direction and no pedestrians wanted to cross. Everything would be at a standstill in all directions and the lights all at red, with the traffic piling up nicely in every direction. Drivers were exasperated, fuel was being wasted and emissions were building. Then came the killer punch: "The Mayor of London can cure all this, but you'll have to pay for it."
  There we have it—roads for the rich. At a stroke, everyone who could not afford to pay £5 a day to travel in the London congestion zone had to make other arrangements, often at great inconvenience. In fact, the scheme has been too successful. The income is lower than expected, so the zone will have to be extended to recoup the huge setting-up costs, possibly as far as Heathrow. Imagine the large numbers of people approaching Heathrow every day: it will be a wonderful area for tax collection. I am particularly concerned about the Thames gateway area because a huge mixed development is on its way, with houses, businesses and leisure facilities, and that will generate a lot of additional traffic. The area will be a sitting duck for another congestion zone. Upminster, my constituency, which is famously at the end of the District line, has suffered from commuter parking for a long time. Now, it is a park-and-ride area for people who used to drive into London but now stop at Upminster and come the rest of the way in on the train to avoid the congestion charge.
  For most of us, life would be impossible without the use of the private car for at least some of our journeys. For example, I would still be trying to complete last Saturday's schedule if I had tried to do it on public transport. Public transport needs to be safe, reliable,

  435
  clean, affordable and, above all, convenient if people are to choose it in preference to their own cars for getting to work every day or for their leisure use.
  We need to improve the roads that we have and to increase our motorway network in economically affordable and environmentally friendly ways in order to build a road system that is fit for the 21st century. Cars are liberating for work, family, leisure and business, and they generate prosperity. The next Conservative Government will recognise that. The persecution of the motorist will end, because Conservatives are not afraid to admit that they drive cars.
  3.36 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: This has been an excellent debate. My only regret is that it takes place on the day on which the Minister and I were both looking forward to being present in Christchurch for the opening of the coastguard training centre at Steamer Point.
  On 17 June, a good backcloth for the debate appeared on the front page of The Independent, in the shape of a headline saying, "Derailed: how transport has become Labour's most spectacular failure". Shortly after that, we had corroboration of the fact that the message is getting quite close to home with the Prime Minister, when Lauren Booth, the half-sister of the Prime Minister's wife, wrote in The Mail on Sunday:
  "The train services in most of the areas we looked into were touch and go at best. The motorways? Congested to a virtual standstill Monday to Friday."
  No doubt that lady can afford to take the option that is not open to most other people in this country of moving to France.
  We heard some excellent contributions, and I hope to be able to comment on most of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) regretted the cuts in the road programme during the Major Government, reminded us of the history of the new Labour Government, who started off with further such cuts in 1997, and welcomed what he rightly described as the Government's deathbed repentance in reversing some of those cuts.
  My hon. Friend commented on road safety, a subject that came up a lot in the debate, largely as a result of yesterday's interview with my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). Conservative Members will take no lessons from Labour on road safety. In 18 years, we reduced the annual toll of fatalities by 3,233—from 6,831 in 1978 to 3,598 in 1996. That is a 45 per cent. reduction. By 1998, the total had fallen to 3,421. But what was the figure last year? It was 3,431—higher than in 1999, 2000 or 2001.
  Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chope: I shall in a minute, but I want to emphasise these figures.
  When I was the Minister with responsibility for road safety from 1990 to 1992, fatalities fell from 5,373 in 1989 to 4,229 in 1992—a reduction of 1,144 road deaths
  436
  in three years. By contrast, in the past three years, road deaths have increased. In my submission, that is because the Government are preoccupied with over-zealous enforcement of speed limits at the expense of education and engineering.
  Andrew Bennett: Any fall in the number of casualties on the road is of course welcome, whether it includes fatalities or not, but will the hon. Gentleman put the figures into the context of miles actually driven, which gives a very different picture? I am sure that he agrees that that is the sensible way to make the calculation.
  Mr. Chope: That method reveals an even greater proportional reduction between 1978 and 1996 than has occurred more recently, as is borne out by House of Commons Library figures. The hon. Gentleman should ask what has changed during the period involved. The speed limits have not changed, but the present Government have invested far less in road infrastructure than the Conservative Government did. They have also taken a much more relaxed approach to education about road accidents and evaluation of the facts underlying them.
  Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend and I served together in the Department of Transport for a while. Does he agree that one reason for the dramatic fall that he has described is the bypass building programme? Taking cars out of towns has helped to reduce the number of fatalities, which shows that a reduction can also be achieved through better roads.
  Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right. It is estimated that the number of road casualties can be reduced by between 30 and 40 per cent. through increased investment in roads.
  Mark Tami: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chope: I will not give way now. I have only a short time to respond to some of the points that have been made.
  The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) was right to emphasise the importance of investment in roads. I thank him for saluting the work in his part of the country for which I was responsible as Roads Minister. He is not alone, however, in pointing out that road investment is related to external investment in our economy. He will have seen the report in last Sunday's Observer warning of a UK transport crisis deterring investors. The chief executive of the FTSE 100-listed company Exel said:
  "unreliability of British road and rail systems … was a key factor deterring … companies from investing in Britain".
  Mr. Blizzard: I would have dearly loved to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that was done in my part of the country when he was a Minister, but unfortunately it did not happen. My point was that, although all those road schemes were promised by "Roads to Prosperity" in 1990, they were abandoned. Our area never benefited from them.
  Mr. Chope: I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying, in a rather skilful way, that he is sorry that I lost my seat in 1992 and was no longer involved after that.

  437
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) expressed concern about the prospect of increased congestion, delays and traffic chaos on the M27. As a Member with a south coast constituency, I share his concern. In an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) spoke of the need for more roads appropriate to the area. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) celebrated the motor car. I shall show her a copy of a book that is displayed prominently on my bookshelf—"The Boys' Book of Roads", a celebration of investment in our road infrastructure.
  In an unreconstructed tribute to old socialism, the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) called for renationalisation of the railways. He also asked a question that was echoed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris): why are the Government cutting the freight facilities grant? I hope that the Minister will answer that pertinent question.
  We are increasingly familiar with signs saying "Queues ahead" and "Caution: queues for the next 10 miles". "Queues ahead", of course, has been a catchphrase of socialist regimes throughout the ages, but we must now face the prospect of queues—indeed, worsening queues—for the next 10 years.
  The trust factor is very relevant to what we are discussing. At the end of last month, asked in a YouGov poll whether they believed that the Government had on balance been honest and trustworthy, 29 per cent. of respondents said that they had been honest and 62 per cent. said that they had not. That is borne out by the devious way in which the Secretary of State and others have misrepresented the policies of the Conservative party on getting 20 per cent. savings where there is inefficiency. If the Secretary of State reads the letter from the chairman of Network Rail, he will see that Network Rail has identified a 20 per cent. reduction in costs within three years, an annual saving of £1.3 billion. He describes that as challenging but realistic. If Network Rail can manage a 20 per cent. reduction in costs without damaging services, why cannot a lot of other organisations, too? That is the point that Conservative Members are making.
  We have the highest rail fares in Europe, the highest motoring taxes in Europe and we have the Prime Minister's admission that transport is "probably" the worst of our public services. In a survey in The Mail on Sunday on 22 June, people were asked whether they thought that Britain's public services had improved under Labour. Fourteen per cent. said that they thought that they had improved, and 54 per cent. said that they thought that they had got worse. That is the indictment against the Government.
  What do the Government promise in return? Yet more congestion on the roads, further delays on the railways and ever-escalating costs for travellers and taxpayers. The people have been taken for a ride by the Government's transport policy for six years. It has been a very expensive, inefficient and uncomfortable ride. We are proud to be the only party voting today in favour of fair treatment for passengers, motorists and taxpayers.
  3.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I, too, was sorry not to visit the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in his constituency today but delighted to hear what he had to say in the debate. I think that he was a lawyer in a previous incarnation. If this had been a court of law and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had been the judge, we would have thrown his case out for lack of evidence, supposition, half-truth, innuendo, hearsay and fabrication. His speech and that of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) were long on rhetoric and very short on facts.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale talked about a fair deal for the motorist. He spoke at considerable length, probably because he had difficulty mustering his Back Benchers to come to support him today. There were very few, although two Opposition Whips intervened and spoke in the debate. It is a good job the Whips can get themselves here on his side.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman used to scribble speeches for the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) when he was a local government Minister. I dare say he penned something like, "Fair deal on the poll tax." I saw the hon. Member for Christchurch twitch then. I know that he was a great supporter of the poll tax. The country did not trust Conservative Members then and it does not trust them now.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Christchurch has seen this quote:
  "We have gridlock. The rush hour begins at 6 a.m. and is still in full flow after three hours. In many parts of the south-east the traffic queue from one junction runs to the queue to the next."
  That was the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) speaking in 1996, after 17 years of Conservative Government. So much for the nonsense that we have heard today about the wonderful golden age when the Conservatives were in office. I do not know whether he belonged to the swivel-eyed, barmy army from ward eight in Broadmoor at the time, but that was certainly his view.
  We have had some interesting and thoughtful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) and the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms), for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson).
  The hon. Member for Upminster made some interesting comments. She talked about using a car to travel to your destination when you want, where you want and how you want. I seem to remember someone else saying that once in another context but you cannot do it if the roads are congested and you cannot get through.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch commended to the hon. Lady a book called, "The Boys' Book of Roads". I do not know whether that is the same document that he may have had a part in writing in 1993. The hon. Lady made some points about road charging and congestion charging. I have the document here, and strongly commend it. It is entitled, "Paying for Better Motorways: Issues for Decision". I think it was

  439
  published just after the time when the hon. Member for Christchurch was the Minister for Roads and Traffic. It says in paragraph 3.8:
  "There are two ways of relieving congestion: increasing road capacity or reducing demand … The second can best be achieved by imposing a price mechanism—by charging users for the congestion costs they impose on others."
  I do not know whether that statement appeared in "The Boys' Book of Roads".
  I have to hand another document, on urban congestion charging. I doubt whether the hon. Member for Christchurch can make any claim to it, but the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) might know something about it. It states:
  "The Government will consider, in partnership with local authorities, the need for further local powers,"—
  we should note the following—
  "eg to introduce congestion charging, or to control vehicle access to sensitive areas."
  I do not know how that fits with the ambition of the hon. Member for Upminster and her comments about the Conservative party today. That was the reality of the Conservatives when in government, but it is not what we have heard from them today.
  This debate was almost as interesting for what was not said as for what was. The Conservatives said very little about buses, yet unlike the hon. Member for Upminster, about a quarter of people in this country do not have access to a motor car. In fact, 40 per cent. of my constituents have no such access, but we heard precious little from the Conservatives about that issue.
  Mr. Greg Knight: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Jamieson: I will not give way at the moment. [Interruption.] We need to hear about one or two things that the Conservatives do not want to hear about. It is clear that they do not want to hear about buses, because ordinary people have to use them. There is widespread use—
  Mr. Knight rose—
  Mr. Jamieson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could wait until I have finished this point. There is widespread use of buses in London, but in many other places it is in fact the only available form of public transport. That is why we have introduced imaginative schemes such as that referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and that is why, notwithstanding the chuntering from Conservative Back Benchers, we have introduced rural and urban grants to assist in the development of bus routes—routes that were taken away under a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he now move on from this unedifying knockabout and answer some of the questions that were asked? In particular, will he deal with the issue, raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), of opening up the hard shoulder on motorways during busy times? Will he pledge to the House today that he will look at the possibility of
  440
  opening up the offside hard shoulder on the northern-bound carriageway of the M1, near the M25, where the biggest congestion occurs every day of the week?
  Mr. Jamieson: If the right hon. Gentleman did not make long interventions, I would be able to deal with some of the points that were raised. Indeed, I intended to get to that particular one.
  Interestingly, we gained a slight insight into Tory policy yesterday, when they briefly lifted the lid on it. For a moment, we were able to look into their secret box, but when challenged by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the actual cost of such ambitions, and whether a Conservative Government would provide the necessary funds, they said nothing. [Interruption.] Conservative. Members can complain and shake their heads, but their own leader said "They"—the shadow Treasury team—
  "are looking at a target of 20 per cent. savings across the board in Government spending."
  I cannot see how that relates to Conservative Members' ambitions for extra investment in transport.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale chided Liberal Democrat local authorities. At the time in question, I think most were Conservative-controlled, but history may tell a different story. I can give him some specific figures. For example, in 1996 the local transport settlement in Cumbria—which is not a million miles from his constituency—was some £3.75 million. Today, that figure is £16.69 million, but we heard no mention of that from him. That is a huge increase that local authorities can spend on their own local transport plans. The figure for Dorset in 1996 was a mere £1.186 million. That figure in 2002 was £7.75 million. Those are substantial increases in funding by a Labour Government for local authorities to use to provide improved transport in their areas. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is about to tell me about the substantial increases in funding for Devon.
  Mrs. Browning: On the question of credibility, is the Minister aware that the Devon and Cornwall business council last week described his remarks as "cloud-cuckoo" observations when, after travelling on the French rail system in 2001, he promised that his Government could deliver something comparable to what the rest of Europe has within 10 years? The business council went on to say:
  "Many a jocular pint glass was raised to David in the pubs of Penzance, Truro and Plymouth that night!"
  Mr. Jamieson: I am delighted that the Devon and Cornwall business council has over the last couple of years started showing some interest in public transport, particularly the railways. When I raised issues with the same people, then in different organisations, they used to say that the roads, not the railways, were important. It is interesting to note that, under the Labour Government, those people are expressing a much greater interest in public transport. We welcome their interest and their conversion.
  Reference was made to road safety and the hon. Member for Christchurch referred to the improvements made over the years. Governments can be proud of our

  441
  record on road safety, as we have substantially reduced casualties on the roads over a long period. The amount of traffic on the road and the number of miles travelled have substantially increased, but the rate of casualties has decreased. It is important to take account of the reduction in serious injuries as well as deaths on our roads and to note that the number of children injured on the roads has greatly diminished over recent years. Governments of all parties should be congratulated on that.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale spoke about the netting-off scheme and speed cameras, which I prefer to call safety cameras. There is symmetry in the fact that the safety cameras ensure that the money provided for those cameras comes not from the taxpayer, but from the speeding motorist who is breaking the law. At one time, the Tory party used to consider itself the party of law and order, so I would have thought that it would rather like that symmetry.
  What has been the effect of the safety cameras on the schemes that we have introduced? On the eight sites, there has been a 35 per cent. reduction in the number of casualties. That means 280 people are either alive or have not been seriously injured because of the presence of safety cameras at those particular sites. If it is now Conservative policy to have more children and elderly people killed and injured on the road—[Interruption.] I would like to see how they phrase the policy in their documents. Conservative Members may not like it, but I have to say that although the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale does not strike me as much of a boy racer, he has created a charter for them.
  David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 151, Noes 382.

  Division No. 272]

  [3:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Burnside, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butterfill, John

  Bacon, Richard

  Cameron, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Barker, Gregory

  Cash, William

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Bellingham, Henry

  Barnet)

  Bercow, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clappison, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Boswell, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Conway, Derek

  Brady, Graham

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Curry, rh David

  442

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Stamford)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Howden)

  Coldfield)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dodds, Nigel

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Evans, Nigel

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paterson, Owen

  Flook, Adrian

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Forth, rh Eric

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Randall, John

  Francois, Mark

  Redwood, rh John

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  M-Kent)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Goodman, Paul

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Grayling, Chris

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Ruffley, David

  Greenway, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Selous, Andrew

  Gummer, rh John

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hague, rh William

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hawkins, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Heald, Oliver

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Howard, rh Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hunter, Andrew

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tredinnick, David

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Viggers, Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Walter, Robert

  Lansley, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Leigh, Edward

  Whittingdale, John

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Willetts, David

  Lidington, David

  Wilshire, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  (Macclesfield)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Maclean, rh David

  Young, rh Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maples, John

  Angela Watkinson and

  Mates, Michael

  Mr. Mark Field

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Ainger, Nick

  Austin, John

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Baker, Norman

  Allan, Richard

  Banks, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Barnes, Harry

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Barrett, John

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Battle, John

  Darwen)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Beard, Nigel

  443

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bell, Stuart

  Dawson, Hilton

  Benn, Hilary

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bennett, Andrew

  Denham, rh John

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Berry, Roger

  Dismore, Andrew

  Best, Harold

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Betts, Clive

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Blizzard, Bob

  Doughty, Sue

  Borrow, David

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Edwards, Huw

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Wallsend)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Etherington, Bill

  Browne, Desmond

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Farrelly, Paul

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Burden, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Burnham, Andy

  Flint, Caroline

  Burstow, Paul

  Follett, Barbara

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  & Rye)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gardiner, Barry

  Casale, Roger

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Caton, Martin

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Challen, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Chidgey, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilroy, Linda

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Grogan, John

  Chryston)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hanson, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Colman, Tony

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Connarty, Michael

  Abingdon)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Rhymney)

  Corston, Jean

  Healey, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Heath, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hendrick, Mark

  Crausby, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Cummings, John

  Heyes, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Holmes, Paul

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  David, Wayne

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Sefton E)

  444

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Shettleston)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Martlew, Eric

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hutton, rh John

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Merron, Gillian

  Illsley, Eric

  Michael, rh Alun

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Miliband, David

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Miller, Andrew

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Highgate)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mole, Chris

  Jamieson, David

  Moore, Michael

  Jenkins, Brian

  Moran, Margaret

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Morgan, Julie

  Hatfield)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  MurPhy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Keetch, Paul

  Norris, Dan (wansdyke)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  O'Brlen, Bill (Normanton)

  Inverness)

  O'Brien Mike (N Warks)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Olner, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S.

  O'Neil, Martin

  Kidney, David

  Öplk, Lenmbit

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Organ, Diana

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal, Green &

  Owen, Albert

  Bow)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Picking, Anne

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Lamb, Norman

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lammy, David

  Pond Chris (Gravesham)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pope Greg (Hyndburn)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Pound, Stephen

  Lepper, David

  prentice, Ms Bridgetd (Lewisham

  Leslie, Christopher

  E)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Dinefwr)

  Linton, Martin

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Prosser Gwyn

  Love, Andrew

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Purchase, Ken

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Quinn Lawrie

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rammell, Bill

  McCabe, Stephen

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Reed Andy (Loughborough)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Reid Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Reid rn Dr. Jonn (Hamilton N &

  McDonnell, John

  Bellshill)

  McFall, John

  Rendel, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  McKechin, Ann

  Anniesland)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  McNulty, Tony

  NW)

  MacShane, Denis

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Rooney, Terry

  McWalter, Tony

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McWilliam, John

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Ruane, Chris

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Chester)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Salmond, Alex

  Atcham)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  445

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Trickett, Jon

  Sawford, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kemptown)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Finsbury)

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Lunesdale)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watts, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

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

  White, Brian

  Kincardine)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Southworth, Helen

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Spellar, rh John

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Squire, Rachel

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wills, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  C)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Wishart, Pete

  Stringer, Graham

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stunell, Andrew

  Woolas, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Baillieston)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Thurso, John

  Wyatt, Derek

  Timms, Stephen

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Tipping, Paddy

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Vernon Coaker and

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Mr. John Heppell

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to investment of £180 billion through the Ten Year Transport Plan; applauds the decisive steps it has taken to set the country's railway system on the way to recovery following the shambles it inherited from the last Government's botched privatisation; recognises the balanced approach it has taken to maintaining and improving the trunk road network, taking account of wider environmental objectives; and notes achievements already evident in, for example, improved rolling stock for rail passengers, more reliable services for bus users, better maintenance of trunk roads for motorists and falling numbers of road accidents.

  Small Businesses
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I must advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.16 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the impact of Government policy on small and medium-sized enterprises; condemns the Government for increasing the burden of regulation, taxation and bureaucracy, for blurring the economic and social agenda and for wasting money on Government branding and quangoes; and calls for fair treatment for small businesses to allow British enterprise to create jobs and wealth for the benefit of the whole community.
  I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  I warmly welcome the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to her place in the House today—a place, as I read in The Daily Telegraph today, she intends to occupy not merely until the age of 60, but well beyond then. Of course, that date is many years hence. I wonder whether she has checked that ambition with the Prime Minister, because she rubbished his attachment to the cult of youth in terms that were so candid as to be worthy of the Leader of the House.
  I also wonder whether the electors of Leicester may have a say in that matter. Perhaps they will be so grateful to her for the fact that she proposes to postpone not only her own retirement but that of all her constituents that they will regard that as a reason to go on electing her as long as she chooses to honour them with her candidacy—[Interruption.] I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to the debate. I welcome her decision to address the real issue of age discrimination, and I look forward to debating it with her on another occasion—since she did not choose to make a statement to the House when she published her consultation paper, I hope that there will be a proper opportunity to debate the issue on the Floor of the House at a later date.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman ought now to address the motion.
  Mr. Yeo: I am, but I would be dismayed—I know that this is not your intention, Madam Deputy Speaker—if it were thought that age discrimination was not relevant to small businesses. I believe that it is absolutely relevant to them.
  This is the first debate on small businesses on the Floor of the House since the Secretary of State took office, although some years ago we were promised an annual debate on the subject. The Opposition have chosen to remedy that omission by giving up half our time today for such a debate. The Government's reluctance to discuss small business is in marked contrast to their enthusiasm for debating hunting. As there has not been a whisper of protest about that extraordinarily distorted set of priorities from the Secretary of State, people involved in small business must conclude that she agrees with her colleagues in the Government that considering the needs of small business is less urgent than pursuing the vendetta against field sports.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing attention to an election pledge by the Labour Government—to hold an annual small business debate. Does he agree that when the Government came into office, the slogan was "Education, education, education", but as far as small businesses are now concerned, it is "Legislation, legislation, legislation". Is not that what is crippling small businesses?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I know how many times she has raised on the Floor of the House and privately her concerns about the plight of small businesses in her constituency. The Government's unwillingness to debate the needs of small business is perhaps not surprising, given that many of the difficulties faced by small business today are directly or indirectly the result of the Government's actions and inactions. Small businesses bear a disproportionately heavy share of the cost of the extra regulations to which my hon. Friend has just referred: regulations that this Government have introduced, which the British Chambers of Commerce estimates are costing a total of £20 billion. Small businesses are disproportionate victims of the extra taxes imposed on business by this Labour Government, estimated in total, by the CBI, to amount to £47 billion. According to this year's Budget submission from the BCC, the cost of complying with new employment regulations is 50 times higher for a small company than it is for the largest company. Against that background, it is no wonder that Labour does not want to debate small business.
  Lembit Öpik: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that small businesses are suffering terrible stress—economically as well as psychologically, for very small businesses—with regard to insurance. Insurance companies can effectively drive out of business small businesses that are profitable in all other respects, because they cannot afford the incredible and often extortionate insurance premiums.
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman anticipates a point to which I shall refer in a moment. He is right to raise it.
  Against the background that I have described, it is no surprise that when I met the Forum of Private Business yesterday in Manchester, I was told that fewer of its members expect their businesses to grow now than at any time since Labour came to power. Whatever probusiness rhetoric Ministers like to deploy, their actions tell a different story: a story of neglect of the overriding need to protect the competitive position of British business; a story of increasing hostility to the aims and values of business and enterprise, which are now respected by Government only in so far as they create a milch-cow from which Labour can extract more and more taxation; and a story of ignorance and even disdain for the challenges faced by small business.
  Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the vast majority of the estimated on-costs that he has just quoted relate, first, to the minimum wage, secondly, to the European working time directive and, thirdly, to holiday rights? Is he saying that he would try to repeal any of those, or is he simply uttering a lot of hot air? Does he not accept that
  448
  measures such as the working families tax credit reduce real wage costs for small businesses and help to stimulate them in a stable economy?
  Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman will regret making that intervention, as he has clearly exposed his ignorance of small businesses' concerns, which will not go unnoticed by his electors.
  My point was that under this Labour Government, in the six years since 1997, the burdens on small business in terms of taxation and regulations have risen to levels that have never been seen in the whole of Britain's history.
  Angus Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that small businesses in Scotland have to pay a much higher burden than small businesses in England and Wales, with a business tax rate 9 per cent. higher than that south of the border? How does he think businesses in Scotland can compete in an environment that is clearly uncompetitive?
  Mr. Yeo: Businesses in Scotland are suffering under the particularly burdensome regime of a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition: a warning to the rest of the United Kingdom if ever we were faced with a similar threat. They are also labouring with the problem of devolution, which has meant that no one is clear about which responsibilities lie on which side of the border in terms of policies that impact on business.
  The harm that new Labour has done to small business is especially worrying, because more than a third of all employees work for enterprises that employ fewer than 20 people. Historically, small business has been the engine of job creation. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, six out of seven private-sector jobs created between 1995 and 1999 were created by small and medium-sized enterprises.
  Geraint Davies: Under this Government.
  Mr. Yeo: Exactly, because under this Government today, the only engine of job creation is the obsessive determination with which Ministers spend more and more taxpayers' money to expand the ranks of the already swollen army of bureaucrats who work in the public sector.
  Despite a huge increase in Department of Trade and Industry spending, the Government do little to addresses the real concerns of small businesses. Those concerns focus first on cash, secondly on people, and thirdly on time. Cash is being drained out of business by huge rises in taxation. Employer national insurance contributions take £10 billion more from business today than they did in 1997, and business rates take £4.5 billion more from business today than they did in 1997. The new tax on pensions is draining away a further £5 billion a year and, from a standing start only two years ago, the wholly anomalous climate change levy is draining a further £1 billion a year from business.
  Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman referred to our investment in public services. Does he realise that investment in school buildings,

  449
  hospitals and public construction works provides much-needed business opportunities for the people about whom he is talking?
  Mr. Yeo: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to what I said, he would know that I referred not to investment in public services but to the swollen army of bureaucrats who work in the public sector. If he took the trouble to go to a library to consult the recruitment pages in newspapers and magazines, he would see that the advertisements for public sector jobs are not for nurses or doctors—they take years to train; there is no tap that can be turned on and off—but for posts such as performance review analysts. Such people do not deliver public services to patients and pupils, but simply create more and more bureaucracy.
  I suspect that the Secretary of State will try to claim that the Government have been sympathetic to business by cutting corporation tax. If she does, she will simply expose her ignorance of small businesses, which seldom find that corporation tax is a problem.
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman must, like me, know of many small businesses that could not afford to employ the type of expert who would allow them to interact with bureaucracy, major fund providers, objective 1 requirements and European legislation. The public appointments advertised are for people who would provide that support and those services at little cost to those companies. Businesses were denied that under the previous Administration.
  Mr. Yeo: I hope that at some stage during the next two and a half hours a Labour Member's intervention will demonstrate that he or she has had some contact with small businesses during the past two years. The hon. Lady's point might well have been handed to her by the Government Whips Office, but it could not have been suggested by any small business person.
  Mrs. Browning: On the matter identified by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), surely the real challenge is the forthcoming temporary workers directive, which is yet to hit small businesses. Small businesses could buy in expertise for a specific project, but they will be penalised for doing that by yet more legislation.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The temporary workers directive will have an especially damaging impact on the United Kingdom. It is a typical example of a piece of European legislation that will have an uneven impact on EU countries because it fails to take account of the unique characteristics of the British labour market.
  Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: In a moment.
  Small businesses do not worry about corporation tax, especially in their start-up phase. Indeed, many would love to have a corporation tax liability. As soon as they start trading, however, all small businesses are hit by employer national insurance contributions, business
  450
  rates and the climate change levy—taxes that apply before a penny of profit has been earned. By shifting the burden of business tax away from corporation tax on to those other taxes, Labour's policy is directly damaging small business.
  If only Labour shared the Conservative goal of a fair deal for small business, in which no small business was held back or left behind, it might understand the damage that is done by draining cash out of a small business—
  Geraint Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to say explicitly that Labour Members have no business experience? I have run businesses with a turnover of £1 million; all he has is a connection with cattle semen. I do not want to talk about cattle semen; that is for him to discuss. I want to talk about my business experience, but he will not allow me to intervene.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a point of debate, not a point of order.
  Mr. John Bercow: And a pretty bad one at that.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. It might reassure my hon. Friends to know that I do not intend to give way to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) again.
  If Labour Members shared our goals of aiming for a fair deal for small business, they might understand the damage done when cash is drained from a small business at its most vulnerable stage of development. I fear that Ministers in this Government do not understand that. People who have never been personally involved in small business seldom understand the importance of cash. People whose salaries have always been put into their bank account on the 28th of each month, regardless of what they have or have not done, do not know what it is like to wake up in the night sweating about whether one has the cash to pay the bills. They have never spent half their day chasing the payment of invoices to get a bit of cash. They do not realise the damage that the Government's tax policy is doing day in, day out to small businesses.
  It is not only tax that drains cash from small businesses. Huge increases in employer liability insurance premiums are another heavy burden. The Federation of Small Businesses has reported on an Essex company that shreds confidential waste—probably a booming business in the light of the Government's difficulties. It faces a 400 per cent. increase in premiums on its latest renewal notice. That follows a 250 per cent. increase last year. Those premiums were demanded despite the company's having no machinery or factory premises, and despite the fact that it had not made a claim for 30 years. Given that the Treasury collects more than £2 billion a year in insurance premium tax, which is more than three times the amount of that tax that was paid in the last full year of the Conservative Government, we can be sure that the Chancellor is in no hurry to slow down the rate at which premiums are increasing.
  Instead of the Secretary of State washing her hands of the problem, will she tell us whether the short-term measures proposed by the Government after the recent

  451
  Department for Work and Pensions review will be implemented in the foreseeable future? Does she plan to provide immediate relief for businesses that may be threatened with closure because of escalating premiums while the more fundamental reforms are considered? In the light of the Office of Fair Trading finding that problems exist in respect of asbestos-related risks and professional indemnity insurance for independent financial advisers, how will she tackle those problems? Does she share my concern, and that of the CBI, about the compensateion culture? In addressing the problem of escalating insurance costs, does she agree that it would help if a greater share of the costs were apportioned to claimants who lose a case and if the cost burden were rebalanced, so that not only the claimant, but the claimant's lawyer, has to shoulder an element of the risk?
  The second concern is people. Many employers find it hard to recruit employees with appropriate skills. The Government's obsession with churning out more and more graduates, regardless of whether their degrees equip them for work in the 21st century, does not address the problem. Our approach is to make sure that everyone who will gain from university education receives it, and that those who will gain from other forms of education and training receive those. Even when a small business can find a suitably qualified and trained recruit, it faces other difficulties in the form of employment regulations, which frequently act as a disincentive to offering jobs. Our fair deal for small business will be a fair deal for employees as well as employers, because we want a country in which no one is left behind and no one is held back.
  What does the Secretary of State think will be the effect on some of the more vulnerable potential employees, who might be left behind, of her cherished work-life balance? Does she agree with the Institute of Directors, two thirds of whose employer members believe that her policy will reduce the chances of younger women finding jobs? If she does not agree with that bleak but entirely predictable conclusion, on what does she base her own view? Has she undertaken an assessment of the impact of work-life policies on the job prospects of young people?
  Given that the European Union will soon admit new members such as Hungary and Poland, where wage costs are only a quarter of those in Britain, could there be a worse time to pursue the agenda that the Secretary of State favours? Is it not grossly irresponsible to do so, presumably to curry favour with trade union bosses, secure with their comfortable salaries and expense accounts, without regard to the damage that she is doing to the chances of the next generation of British workers?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the absence of, and the need for, a light-touch regulatory environment. Is it not a damning indictment of the Government that for six successive years they have refused to publish an annual statement of the cost of regulation, or indeed of their plans for a reduction in that cost?
  Mr. Yeo: It is, as my hon. Friend says in his usual elegant and eloquent way, a damning indictment. It is
  452
  also a clear admission, first, that, whatever they may say, the Government are not concerned about how much damage they are doing to business and, secondly, that they are fully aware that if they did publish such a statement, it would be clear that they were undermining the competitive position of British business and, therefore, the future job prospects of the British people.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us whether she thinks that a small business will be more or less likely to take on new staff as a result of the Employment Act 2002. Does she consider that the 50 per cent. jump in employment tribunal claims shows that new Labour has created a more, or a less, harmonious relationship between employers and employees? Does she realise that if, in three or four years, private sector jobs are harder to find than they have been for the last two decades, the reason will be the policies of this Government, whose tunnel-visioned, old Labour passion for championing more and more employee rights may end up taking away the most fundamental employee right of all: the right of every woman and man to negotiate with a prospective employer the basis on which they are willing to work?
  Andrew Selous: Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the costs of employment tribunals in which the employer is found to be wholly innocent? Earlier this week, I met a man with a small business who told me that a tribunal had cost his firm £27,000. Even though his firm was completely exonerated, he had no chance of getting that money back. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a serious point, which needs to be looked at?
  Mr. Yeo: It is a very serious point. It is scandalous that many employers are burdened with huge costs as a result of tribunals, some of which involve frivolous claims. Indeed, I am told that there are examples of employees going from one firm to another, taking one case after another to a tribunal.
  If the Secretary of State had any concern for the next generation of workers, and if she were as anxious as the Conservative party is to secure a fair deal for small business, in which no one is left behind or held back, particularly the most vulnerable and least skilled workers, she would argue, as we are doing, for more flexibility in labour markets—the flexibility that creates jobs, as we see in the United States, instead of the rigidity that destroys them, as we see in Germany, and which, sadly for Britain's future workers, appears to be the model that the Government favour.
  The third concern for small business managers is time, far too much of which is spent by small business people filling in Government forms, trying to understand what new regulations mean for their businesses, and trying to comply with those regulations. Far too much time is spent administering the Government's tax and benefits systems. The handling of the Chancellor's increasingly chaotic attempts at social engineering and wealth redistribution has been forcibly sub-contracted to business, which now not only administers payrolls and the entire national insurance contribution regime, but has been compelled to take over some of the functions of the Benefits Agency.
  As more employees become eligible for some form of tax credit, the Government need to consider the effect that that has on relations between employers and

  453
  employees. Does it really promote good relationships at work if employees have to disclose intimate financial information to their employer? The time that all of that takes would be better spent talking to customers, improving products, controlling costs, and all the other things that small business people must do. Saving half an hour a week might even allow small business people to get home a little earlier on a Friday evening to spend a little more time with their families. Cutting a few regulations might allow small business people to enjoy a taste of the benefits that the Secretary of State claims to want to create through the work-life balance.
  Mr. Mark Prisk: My hon. Friend has highlighted an essential issue for small businesses. Is he aware of the latest figures on the number of hours that small business men and women running family firms have to endure? I understand that more than 28 hours a month are spent filling in forms.
  Mr. Yeo: Some of the figures for the amount of time that small business people have to spend filling in forms and complying with regulations are alarming. That is unproductive time. On a future occasion, I hope to tell the House about some of the forms that small business people are required to complete. However, it is not just red tape that takes up their time—infrastructure problems do so as well. Britain's increasingly thirdworld transport system, which we heard about during the previous debate, wastes a huge amount of time and represents a vast burden for business. Ministers themselves have admitted that that costs billions of pounds.
  Mr. Robert Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that another part of the infrastructure surprisingly neglected by the Government is broadband access for the very companies in rural areas that could most benefit from that new technology? That is proving to be a serious handicap in our competitiveness with other European countries. The Government could have done a lot more, for example, by allowing piggy-backing on their programmes for wiring up doctors' surgeries and schools in rural areas, but they simply have not bothered.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right, and highlights an area of infrastructure that is the direct responsibility of the DTI. The Government's failure to achieve the ambitious plans that they published for access to broadband is causing genuine problems for many small businesses, particularly in rural areas. Many of my hon. Friends have constituents who cannot get access to broadband now and cannot even get a date when they will have such access.
  In the next few months, I shall set out in more detail what the Conservative fair deal for small business will include. This afternoon, in an attempt to promote constructive debate about these important issues, I invite the Secretary of State to agree that a fair deal for small business must start with the recognition of four fundamental principles. First, the most important thing that any Government can do for business, small or large, is create a stable macro-economic climate. No amount of ministerial intervention, new Government initiatives or grants to bail out failing businesses in the
  454
  constituencies of ministerial colleagues can replace the need for policies that promote wealth creation and preserve the competitive position of British business. We live in times of exceptional uncertainty, when modern technology and communications have made investment and jobs more internationally mobile than ever before. Investment which, a decade ago, may have been made in Ipswich, is today just as likely to go to India. Whole industries in which western Europe led the world in the last century are migrating to China in the first quarter of this century.
  That is why it is worrying that, under Labour, productivity is rising at only half the rate that it was under the Conservatives. That is why it is worrying that business investment last year suffered its biggest drop for over 10 years, and the second biggest on record since that series of data was started in 1966. That is why it is worrying that last year, strikes cost business more lost days than in any year for more than a decade. That is why it is so worrying for business that, for every week that the Labour Government have been in power, an average of 2,000 manufacturing jobs have been destroyed. That is why it is worrying that Britain's deficit in traded goods is the worst since records began 306 years ago. Those figures are a reminder of worrying trends in the British economy, and they reflect the accumulation of difficulties that small business faces and the gradual erosion of the competitive advantages that Britain fought so hard to win in the 1980s and the early 1990s.
  The second principle to be recognised is that the effectiveness of Government intervention is extremely limited. Take the Small Business Service, on which spending has rocketed to £423 million. Is that sizeable chunk of taxpayers' money achieving added value for small business? It is hard to see that it is. It certainly has not established itself as a champion of small companies in the Government and it is not yet established as a widely used source of valued business advice. The Small Business Service business plan for 2003 states:
  "Business Link is being enhanced to improve the support given to those starting a business."
  It continues:
  "Key to success will be repositioning and strengthening Business Link as a valued brand."
  Those statements are shorthand for noting Business Link's continued shortcomings and the Government's desire to throw good money after bad.
  The same document goes on to state that a key task for the Small Business Service will be the establishment and rolling evaluation of three regional development agency-led business support pilots in the north-west, the west midlands and the east midlands. It continues:
  "A new challenge is to understand the relationship with factors such as company culture, ownership issues and sector-specific issues which can make many small businesses reluctant to grow."
  The Small Business Service will
  "map the interdependence of these factors and, by March 2004, publish a 'capabilities for growth' strategy."
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us what all that jargon means and how it translates into any added value for small business.
  The Department of Trade and Industry seems to have decided to exclude such private sector business support groups as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British

  455
  Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the CBI, the Small Business Bureau and the Forum of Private Business. It has excluded those, as well as many more specialist bodies, from playing a leading role in small business development. More is the pity. The DTI will rue the day.
  The third principle concerns tax. It is time to recognise that business is much more heavily taxed than when Labour came to power. No further increase in the tax burden on business can possibly take place. Two weeks ago, the Leader of the House let the cat out of the bag when he admitted that tax would have to go up again next year. Most of us suspected that already. The Chancellor had already had to admit that he got his sums wrong twice, in the pre-Budget report last November and in the Budget in April. Most people believe that his forecasts for tax revenue will again be proved wrong in the next few months.
  Since income tax is a sacred cow that cannot be touched—an extraordinary commitment, as national insurance contributions, which have precisely the same effect as income tax on employees, have already been raised—we must conclude that business taxes will bear the brunt again next year. If the Secretary of State wants to champion small business, I invite her to make a commitment here today to fight publicly against any proposal by the Chancellor to raise tax on business. She should make it clear that if tax on business is raised again while she is Secretary of State, she will resign her office.
  The fourth and last principle concerns regulation. It is long overdue to recognise that regulation costs business more than ever before and is weakening the competitive position of British business. Regulation damages small business particularly badly. The burden cannot be increased any further. I invite the Secretary of State to introduce sunset clauses into many of the Government's regulations, such as the provisions of the Employment Act 2002, so that their effect on the job prospects of potential workers can be properly analysed. Those four principles—that small businesses are affected by the macro-economic climate more than anything else; that direct action by the Government without the full involvement of the private sector is of little benefit; that the tax burden on business must now be capped; and that the tide of regulation must be reversed—are the crucial pillars on which a fair deal for small business must rest, so that no small business is left behind. I invite the Secretary of State to commit herself to upholding each of those principles.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No.
  The futures of millions of people working in small businesses throughout Britain can be made more or less secure and their daily working lives easier or harder by the Secretary of State's decisions. I invite her now to break the mould of the past two years, abandon her Government's over-taxing, over-regulating and meddlesome ways and support our motion, which I commend to the House.
  4.50 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "agrees that small and medium-sized businesses are crucial to the prosperity of the nation and will be responsible for many of the new jobs and much of the future innovation in the economy; welcomes the steps that the Government has taken to make it easier than ever before for people to start their own business; acknowledges that the Government has created the economic conditions of macro-economic stability and low and stable interest rates in which small business can grown and prosper; believes that the Government has created a pro-enterprise tax environment; and applauds the Government for improving access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses, removing unnecessary regulations and providing world class business support."
  May I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) to the Front Bench? My hon. Friends and I look forward to jousting with him during DTI questions. However, I regret the fact that, in contrast with the hon. Gentleman, who is always courteous in his questions, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has developed a most unfortunate habit of opening every debate with rather churlish and, I have to say, rather silly remarks.
  I particularly regret that, because this is a debate about small businesses. One of the best things about being Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, as I was for two years previously, has been that I can get around the country and meet some of our wonderful entrepreneurs and owner-managers. I have met people such as Dave Stevens and his team at Cooke Optics in Leicestershire, who, with the help of a DTI grant, developed the high-definition film lenses that were used in that wonderful film "Chicago". It was one of those grants on which the hon. Member for South Suffolk pours scorn, a £140,000 SMART award—a small firms merit award for research. A few weeks ago, Dave Stevens told me in an e-mail:
  "It is now our responsibility to return to the UK through 95 per cent. export some revenue from this investment."
  Dr. Ian Gibson: While my right hon. Friend is extolling the virtues of Leicester, will she add another discovery made in Leicester? DNA fingerprinting is an amazing discovery funded by DTI money through the Office of Science and Technology.
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend, who plays such a superb role in promoting science, is absolutely right. We in Leicester are particularly proud of that discovery, which has created benefits for our whole society and economy.
  I should also like to mention Irene and Arthur Allen in rural Norfolk, who created a tiny company called Listawood 15 years ago. It was a family company that was started around the kitchen table with a £40-a-week enterprise allowance.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: It is in my constituency.
  Ms Hewitt: Yes. I visited the firm years ago when I was deputy chair of the Commission on Social Justice.

  457
  It was a wonderful firm and is now a flourishing manufacturing company. It makes PC products and has a turnover of £8 million and 100 employees. I say to the hon. Member for South Suffolk that, from the outset, it built up the business by recruiting local staff and giving them family-friendly working because that was what they needed. As a result, it has built up a dedicated, loyal and flexible work force who are one of the main reasons for its success.
  A few weeks ago, I visited another Leicestershire company and met Stefan Olsberg and his colleagues at Voice Connect in Groby. They have developed wonderful software that helps schools to cut truancy through text messaging, e-mails and voice mails to parents. People can use whatever system of communication they want. The company is now extending the product to GPs so that they can cut those wasted appointments. It is franchising the business, which it has already expanded to include more than 40 employees, throughout the country, giving other entrepreneurs a chance.
  Let me mention, if I may, one of the many entrepreneurs in my own constituency, Atul Lakhani, whose new restaurant my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and I had the pleasure of opening last Friday. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) founded and grew an outstanding travel business that is promoting the environment and ecologically responsible tourism in Crete.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, who is my near neighbour in Leicestershire. Does she recall that last February the then Leader of the House, who is now Secretary of State for Health, went to talk to small businesses in Leicestershire? Afterwards, a banner headline in the Leicester Mercury said, "Minister offers sympathy about red tape," but all he had to offer was sympathy. When I spoke to small businesses in Leicestershire, they complained that the right hon. Lady had not been visiting them, yet I now hear that she has been visiting them endlessly.
  Ms Hewitt: I visit and talk to small businesses week in, week out, both as Secretary of State and because they are in my constituency, as well as in other parts of the city and the county. I shall turn later to regulation, which is of course important.
  The reality is that whether it is Indian food, tourism, the creative industries or new technologies, our entrepreneurs are leading the way. I was delighted a couple of weeks ago when Surrey Satellite Technologies, one of the companies that has been spun off from the science departments of the university of Surrey, won a €30 million contract, the first to be awarded by the European Union, to lead the development of Europe's first satellite navigation system, Galileo.
  Those are examples of outstanding entrepreneurs and businesses throughout our country. For me, they are the real heroes and heroines of our economy—entrepreneurs who work incredibly hard, invest their savings and often put their homes at risk in order to build up a team of people, create a great product and grow a business. I sometimes think that if somebody
  458
  goes into a shop, buys a scratchcard and wins £1 million there is more public celebration of their success than if they grow a business from scratch through sheer hard work and determination.
  I hope that all Members on both sides of the House agree that we should celebrate our entrepreneurs, who do not get great rewards for great failure. If their business fails, they lose their savings and their livelihoods. One of the reasons why I have been so determined to deal with the issue of big rewards for big failure is precisely that the actions of a few damage the reputations of the vast majority of decent, hard-working and determined business people in our country. I want to pay tribute to those millions of small businesses and the owner-managers who run them, who provide more than 12 million jobs, create more than half our national output and now generate nine out of 10 of all new business ideas. They have always been the bedrock of our economy. A century or so ago, we were called a nation of shopkeepers. Today, as the world becomes even more competitive and technology changes faster than ever before, small firms matter even more than they used to. Small businesses are much faster on their feet, much more likely to innovate and much closer to their customers, and they matter all the more in this competitive global economy.
  Angus Robertson: I fully endorse the stress that the Secretary of State is placing on the importance of small business in growing the economy. She will be aware that, sadly, powers over the business world in Scotland still remain in this place, especially in the macro-economic sense. Does she agree that growth in the economy is key to helping small business; and, to help other Members to understand the situation, can she tell us what is the growth rate in the Scottish economy at the present time, and whether she thinks that it is adequate?
  Ms Hewitt: It is a great deal more than it would be if the nationalists were running Scotland.
  It is forecast that by the end of the decade the 3.7 million smaller businesses in our country today will have increased to more than 4.5 million. There will be nearly 1 million more of them, with 2 million new jobs between them. We celebrate our entrepreneurs, and no lectures are necessary from the Conservatives for us to understand that it is the Government's responsibility to help them to succeed.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of science and technology, and the success of Galileo at Surrey university, will she share with us some of the thoughts about knowledge transfer that were exposed in the White Paper? If we are to persuade academia to respond in the same way as those in Guildford to the exciting opportunities provided by the search, we must ensure that much more emphasis is placed on the significance of knowledge transfer and the smoothing of the path from the research laboratory to the workshop and the business.
  Ms Hewitt: That is true. As we said in our White Paper, our country has a brilliant record of creating new ideas and new technology, but all too often we have left it to other countries and other people's businesses to commercialise them and create jobs and profits from

  459
  them. We are starting to change that, and our huge investment in science over the past five years—which is in striking contrast to what happened during the Conservative years—is already showing results. The number of spin-off companies has trebled, and the emphasis we are now placing on knowledge transfer will enable far more businesses to take advantage of our science departments.
  Dr. Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend share my pleasure at today's news that the Government have put £90 million—along with, possibly, another £200 million—into nanotechnology? That puts us in the top league in relation to an exciting new technology that will help medicine and other areas of work.
  Ms Hewitt: I am delighted that my hon. Friend mentioned that. Our investment in nanotechnology will ensure the provision of nanotechnology fabrication centres throughout the country, allowing small firms that could not possibly afford such facilities themselves to apply this extraordinary new technology to their products.
  First and foremost, however, Government must deliver economic stability to our businesses. That is precisely what we have delivered. The hon. Member for South Suffolk did not mention the Conservatives' record, but they delivered interest rates that rose to 15 per cent. and devastated entrepreneurs who lost their businesses, their savings and, all too often, their homes.
  John Barrett: Will the Secretary of State listen to small businesses that are genuinely concerned about the amount of administrative time that they spend collecting tax on behalf of the Government? That is the main issue that they raise with me now, whereas they used to raise the high cost of borrowed money.
  Ms Hewitt: Of course we listen to them. Indeed, both the Chancellor and the Paymaster General have taken steps to simplify the system. We have already simplified VAT, which has helped a number of businesses.
  Geraint Davies: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from macro-economics, may I ask whether she agrees that if we are to move from success to success we must instil the entrepreneurial culture in the education system? In the education action zone in New Addington in my constituency, business mentoring has proved successful: pupils have gained experience in work, and have learned how to manage their time, to run with ideas and to come up with products in a structured way. Would my right hon. Friend be interested in visiting Croydon at some point to observe the education-industry interface that is breeding entrepreneurial flair for the future?
  Ms Hewitt: I readily congratulate everyone involved in that initiative. It is an example of the excellent work that is being done in many parts of the country to build much closer relationships between business and industry and our schools. Indeed, as a result of the excellent report from Howard Davies on the subject, my
  460
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is ensuring that every secondary school student will have the opportunity of good work experience that gives them a taste of business.
  What we have delivered for our small businesses is the lowest inflation for 30 years, the lowest interest rates for 40 years and 1.5 million more people in employment. Having said that, it is difficult for our small businesses. It is difficult for every business at the moment with the world economic slowdown, but it is thanks to the decisions that we made on economic policy six years ago that our country continued to grow while others went into recession.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the 1.5 million people who have entered the workplace in the past few years were specifically excluded from the workplace under the previous Administration, including the vast majority of women, who could have provided an enormous contribution and, more important and more dear to my heart, people with disabilities? They were totally ignored under the previous Administration. They never had any hope of employment. They have been liberated into work under this Government.
  Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes an extremely important point about how our action to tackle discrimination in the workplace is freeing people to take up new opportunities and making it easier for business people to recruit the staff they need. I add to her list the young people who were trapped in long-term unemployment during the Conservative years. We have virtually eliminated long-term youth unemployment.
  Mrs. Browning: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hewitt: If I may, I would like to make a little more progress before I give way again.
  The second responsibility we have in government is to ensure that small firms can get access to the funding they need. It was clear that we needed to deal with the equity gap in our country, which in striking contrast to the United States left small companies unable to grow through equity finance. We created regional venture capital funds—more than £300 million of extra capital has been made available. We extended the small firms loan guarantee scheme, listening to small businesses that wanted that extended into sectors such as retail and leisure. Now we are looking at whether we should replicate the small business investment companies in the United States, which were so successful in helping Apple, Compaq, AOL and many others to grow from tiny start-ups into huge world beaters.
  The third responsibility is to ensure that we get the tax environment right. The hon. Member for South Suffolk spent some time on that. We already have the lowest small firms tax rate in Europe. This year's Budget contained a raft of further measures to help small firms.
  David Burnside: In referring to the low tax rate, will the Secretary of State give a commitment on behalf of the Government that there

  461
  will be no increase in taxation through another hike in the national insurance surcharge, which has been passed on to small firms? Can she give that commitment?
  Ms Hewitt: We have made it absolutely clear that the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions that we have asked people to pay is needed to deliver the record levels of increased funding for the national health service. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, compared with the costs either of private medical insurance in the United States or social insurance in France, the 1 per cent. for the NHS that we have asked businesses, employees and the self-employed to pay is very small indeed. For a good health service, it is a bargain.
  Mrs. Browning: Does the right hon. Lady recall the views of the Engineering Employers Federation at the time of the pre-Budget report last autumn? It pointed out that, in this financial year, an additional £6 billion of tax on business was due, equivalent to almost half the amount that business spends on research and development. It warned just before Christmas that that was affecting British competitiveness and driving investment abroad. That is what business is saying about the right hon. Lady's Government's taxation on business.
  Ms Hewitt: I am fairly certain that the figures that the hon. Lady quotes ignore the benefits that we are extending to business, particularly the research and development tax credit, which has been so warmly welcomed and which is supporting exactly the kind of investment that we need.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: It was with great interest that I listened to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) lambast this Administration. Perhaps my right hon. Friend might like to be reminded of what the hon. Lady said on 19 November 1999:
  "I say that after spending three years as a Minister under the previous Government, who tried to reduce regulation on business. We would be the first to say that we did not do very well".—[Official Report, 19 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 250.]
  It would be very nice to hear that reasserted today.
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I shall come to the issue of regulation in a minute. Thanks to the reforms that we have introduced to the business tax system, 150,000 small businesses are no longer paying any corporation tax, and a third of a million have had their corporation tax cut. Today, the Conservatives have dismissed corporation tax as of no concern to small businesses, but it is of huge concern to the nearly 500,000 businesses for which we have cut, or completely abolished, corporation tax bills.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. She will doubtless be aware of the case involving T.P. Madgett and R.M. Baldwin, concerning VAT, on which a UK court ruled in 1998. In a similar case, Berry's Coaches of Taunton want to recover £27,000 of VAT from three years ago, but Customs and Excise says that it is awaiting a ruling
  462
  from Europe. Is it really fair that small businesses should have to wait quite so long to get their own money back?
  Ms Hewitt: I am happy to say that my responsibilities do not include VAT, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General to the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and I should be grateful if he would send me further details on it.
  On corporation tax, I should point out that the company law review that we instigated and published last year is based on the whole philosophy of think small first. As we institute a complete rewriting of our company law framework, we will make it far easier for small businesses to become incorporated and to take advantage of the tax benefits that we have already extended to those smaller companies.
  Our fourth responsibility as a Government is to ensure that business gets the practical support that it needs. Last year—and in just one year—British Trade International helped 28,000 companies to export, many of which were new exporters that are now able to grow their businesses because of our help. I do not know whether the Conservatives would abolish that. Business Link, which was started by the Conservatives, was in a pretty pathetic state when we took over, and there were many complaints from customers. Now, it is helping nearly a third of a million businesses each year to start and grow. We have increased the number of Business Link customers and significantly increased customer satisfaction. Some 1,000 SMART awards, amounting to more than £40 million, will help other businesses in the way that Cooke Optics was helped. Perhaps the Conservatives plan to abolish that as well.
  We listen to our small business customers. They told us to simplify the business support schemes, many of which we inherited from earlier Administrations, and that is exactly what we are doing. They told us to bring together all the information and support available to small businesses—not just from the Department of Trade and Industry, but across government, in the regions and from local authorities as well—and that is exactly what we are doing.
  Our fifth responsibility is, of course, to ensure that the regulatory framework is right and that markets are open and competitive.
  Mr. Prisk: Before the right hon. Lady leaves the subject of business advice and the Small Business Service, I should point out that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has advised me of a serious omission. I hope that the right hon. Lady can deal with this point, as the service is in fact accountable to her. Yesterday, this House discussed on Third Reading the issue of stamp duty land tax, which, according to a number of experts, will cost small businesses—especially retailers—£230 million. Yet the Chief Secretary has advised me that at no time during the legislative process and a year's consultation did the Small Business Service make written or oral representations. Is not that a neglect of its duties? Why did it not participate in that vital process?
  Ms Hewitt: I am not aware of that point, or of what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said about it. Let me check it, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

  463
  The Enterprise Act 2002 has transformed the competition regime that we inherited from the Conservatives—it was, frankly, pretty mediocre by global standards—into one of the best in the world. That is particularly important for start-ups and for small, growing companies, because it makes it easier for them to take on the big businesses and break into new markets. Of course we have to keep addressing the issue of regulation, but let us be clear about what the issue is, and distinguish between fair standards for people at work and the administrative costs of filling in forms on compliance and so on.
  Let us take the example of the national minimum wage. Of course it increased the wage bill for some businesses, but I make no apology whatever about that. I think that it was a disgrace that Britain, the fourth largest economy in the world, was paying its security guards £1.20 an hour. That was happening in my constituency and many others before 1997. However, we introduced the national minimum wage in a sensible way. We brought together employers, trade unions and other groups, and it was decided through that process of social partnership what the minimum wage should be. It was set at a level that ensured that people were not put out of work. I remember the scare stories from the Conservative party before 1997. We heard that the minimum wage was going to cost a minimum of a million jobs, but what have we done? We have delivered the national minimum wage and 1.5 million new jobs as well.
  Family-friendly working is another issue, and the Conservative spokesman complained about the legal package on that. Again, however, we sat down with the CBI, the TUC and small businesses, forming a taskforce through which we all worked together to devise a package on family-friendly working that would work for businesses as well as employees. The hon. Member for South Suffolk appears to have gone to sleep. He is clearly not getting family-friendly working hours, despite the modernisation of the House of Commons, which he probably opposed.
  We have also cut form filling and red tape for 700,000 small businesses through the flat-rate VAT scheme. We have got rid of automatic late penalties for VAT late payers. We have saved 150,000 businesses £180 million a year by raising the statutory audit threshold to £1 million, and before the summer recess, I shall be consulting on whether to raise the threshold even further.
  Lembit Öpik: I accept that some of the Secretary of State's achievements are laudable, significant and beneficial to society. However, is it not a problem that we are becoming a rules-based society, in which everything has to be assessed against specific rules? Naturally, the rules will be pretty extensive. Has the Secretary of State thought of moving closer to a guidelines-based system in which every single opportunity does not have to be predicted? There is probably more good faith in such a system, because although some people will always look for the
  464
  loopholes, most are honourable. The United Kingdom could make do with a lot fewer rules if we had sensible guidelines.
  Ms Hewitt: I have great sympathy for the extremely interesting point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Much of our approach is based on promoting best practice, co-regulation and sometimes giving statutory backing to self-regulation. The new family-friendly package and the new legal standards on family-friendly working for parents are good examples of where we are creating a general legal framework without specifying in great detail what is right for every business—which is, of course, impossible.
  We have done a great deal to improve the regulatory system in our country and proof comes from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which says that we are at the forefront of regulatory reform right across the developed world. Indeed, a forthcoming survey of small businesses by one of our leading banks finds that the amount of time that businesses spend each month on filling in forms and other compliance duties has fallen in the past four years. Of course, we need to keep on doing better.
  I am not happy about the growth in employment tribunal cases. They represent a failure of the relationship between the employer and the employee. The Employment Relations Act 2002 will improve matters, because it will ensure that more disputes are resolved in the workplace, instead of going before a tribunal because the employer has no procedures and sacks someone without bothering to talk to them about what is wrong with their work. It will improve matters by devoting more resources to and placing greater emphasis on conciliation and by giving the tribunals much more effective powers to weed out the weak cases in advance. The Act will also ensure that if people abuse the system—whether they are employers or employees—costs can be awarded against them.
  There is more to do, and if any hon. Member comes across an unnecessary form or an example of bureaucratic gobbledegook, I invite them to send it to me or to my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise and we will deal with it. However, we should not run Britain down. We are the No. 1 destination for foreign direct investment into Europe and, according to the World Economic Forum, we have leapt from No. 7 in the world to No. 3 in international competitiveness. Indeed, as Digby Jones recently said:
  "I would much rather be doing business in Britain than anywhere else in Europe."
  That reflects the Economist Intelligence Unit's findings and a series of benchmarking studies that consistently put us in the top three countries in the world for entrepreneurship and business.
  Mr. Bercow: I have already raised this issue with the Secretary of State on behalf of a constituent of mine from the beautiful hamlet of Singleborough. What assessment has the right hon. Lady made of the effect of the over-burdensome and prescriptive character of the Ofsted inspection process on the supply of mobile child care at conferences and other events? That is an important issue for my constituent.
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and indeed I raised it in the cross-cutting review of

  465
  child care that the Government published a few months ago. We have considered the issue, and I routinely raise the subject with child care businesses in my constituency. Both the work of the cross-cutting review and my own discussions with child care providers suggest that the problem is overstated. The hon. Gentleman may wish to write to me with details of the particular case that he raises, but the assertion that is often made does not seem to be borne out by the extensive inquiries that we have made.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) mentioned the large increases in business insurance premiums and their effects on small businesses. Figures for Northern Ireland show an increase in average business insurance premiums of 28 per cent. for 2001 and a swingeing 49 per cent. for 2002. What advice can the Secretary of State offer to my constituents who run small businesses and who tell me that if that continues, they will be driven out of business?
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, because all around the country small businesses are suffering from increases in insurance premiums. He will be aware of the report that my hon. Friend the Minister for Work recently published on that very subject. The problem lies in the insurance market and the steep fall in stock markets—not only in Britain, but across the world—that makes it impossible for insurance companies to continue to cut premiums and rely on investments. That option is no longer available. Add to that some very big risks and the failure of at least one major insurance company that was big in that market, and you end up with an enormous problem. However, the Government cannot wave a magic wand over the insurance market to deal with those problems. We have worked with the industry to ensure that no small business is left without insurance, a problem that was threatening to happen last year. I think that we have largely dealt with that, and we are now looking to get much more information about why companies are raising premiums as much as they are. We will then see whether we should insist on a longer notice period for renewal of the premiums, so that businesses can shop around more effectively. It is a very serious problem, and we are working with small businesses and the insurance industry to resolve it.
  I shall end by saying that, although it is wonderful to see so many small businesses starting up and growing, we still have much more to do to extend to everyone, in every community in every part of our country, the opportunity to start and grow a business. The start-up rate in our poorest regions is only one sixth of what it is in the most prosperous parts of the country. In the north-east, gross domestic product per head is only half what it is in London, and business research and development is only one tenth of what it is in the south-east.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Hewitt: No, I want to make progress. In the north-east and other regions where business start-up rates are low, we need to ensure that we increase our efforts to
  466
  support potential entrepreneurs and ensure that they get the help that they need to help grow businesses that will generate wealth in their regions.
  We also need to reflect on the fact that the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor has found that we do better than many other developed countries in terms of our start-up rate—[Interruption.] I do not know what I have done to attract this fly. It is obviously very pleased with something that I have done.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Hewitt: No. I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak and I want to make progress.
  Although we compare well with most other developed countries in terms of our business start-up rates generally—and the rates have improved under Labour—we do not do well when it comes to entrepreneurship among women. If women were able to start businesses at the same rate—if they were able to find it as easy to get funded as men—we would have an additional 100,000 new businesses every year. The same applies to some of our minority communities. For example, start-up rates in the Afro-Caribbean community remain low. Too many of our minority entrepreneurs still find that they cannot get the finance that they need, on the terms that they need.
  We have business links and the learning and skills councils working much more closely with the regional development agencies to strengthen the economic development strategies in their regions. We are working with organisations such as Prowess, the women's entrepreneurship support network, to ensure that the potential women entrepreneurs all over the country get the opportunity that they deserve.
  Much has been done, but much is still left to do. However, we must not understate the achievements of this Government. Above all, we must not run down our great British business. I am proud of the 2.5 million new businesses that have started in Britain since 1997. I am proud of the 107,000 new businesses that started in the first quarter of this year—up 12 per cent. on the same period last year, despite the economic downturn. I am proud of the fact that we have the best survival rates, economic environment and regulatory framework for small businesses.
  We in this House should be proud of our small businesses. We should celebrate the work being done by the Government and the public sector in partnership with the private sector to support those entrepreneurs, and I commend the amendment to the House.

  Small Businesses

    DEFERRED DIVISIONS
    Madam Deputy Speaker(Sylvia Heal): I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
    On the motion on Defence, the Ayes were 432, the Noes were nil, so the motion was agreed to.
    On the motion on Immigration, the Ayes were 265, the Noes were 164, so the motion was agreed to.
    [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

  Small Businesses
  Question again proposed.
  5.29 pm
  Brian Cotter: I very much agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), who is rushing out of the Chamber, that there is a need for this debate. I am glad that the Secretary of State is here to listen to it, as a commitment was given some years ago that there would be an annual debate on small business; I hope that we can reinstate that in the future.
  I declare an interest, which is in the register, as managing director of a small business—a manufacturing company.
  One of the strongest calls from small businesses is that Government and politicians should get off their back. They want a business-friendly environment so that they can get on with the job. As managing director of a company, I certainly support that.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman now espouses a policy of getting off the back of business. Can he justify his party's position in Edinburgh, where as part of the coalition it is imposing a 9 per cent. surcharge on business rates for businesses in Scotland?
  Brian Cotter: I am not aware of that particular policy in the devolved area, although I am aware of policies in Scotland that are extremely beneficial for business. Lacking the knowledge to pursue it, that is all I have to say on the subject, but I shall happily look into at another date.
  The Secretary of State will recognise that the backdrop for business is the economy. Yes, the Government have brought stability to the economy and, to date, we have got away from the boom and bust that we experienced under the Conservatives. However, there are great concerns at present. For example, the high value of the pound causes problems for the manufacturing sector. As managing director of a manufacturing company, I very much share those concerns and can speak with personal knowledge of the cable industry, which has suffered badly from the high value of the pound. I have been in business for about 40 years and I have never known a time when so many products in that category were being imported. That is now an established fact owing to the high value of the pound and our economic climate.
  Mr. Bercow: Given that the hon. Gentleman laments the impact of the exchange rate on business competitiveness, will he clear up a little point of uncertainty? Is it the stance of the Liberal Democrats that Britain should enter the euro at ERM mid rates?
  Brian Cotter: I do not want to be diverted to that subject, although I should be happy to spend longer talking about it—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman knows that we have a clear policy on euro entry. The matter relates to the high value of the pound; euro entry should have been looked into four years ago and we should now be advanced in our thinking. The rate will be addressed at the time. I shall proceed with my speech, as other Members want to speak.
  468
  It is worrying to learn from figures published by the Centre for Business Research at Cambridge university that business failures have trebled since 1999. By any standards, that is of great concern. Furthermore, Dun and Bradstreet show insolvency figures as at their highest for eight years. There are worrying signs in the economic backdrop and they have a strong impact on business.
  On top of all that, the UK scores badly in terms of entrepreneurial activity. In the UK, 8 per cent. of the population are currently engaged in business start-ups, whereas the figure is 16 per cent. in Australia and New Zealand, and 12 per cent. in the United States. Obviously, the Secretary of State is aware of that issue, but she must share my concern.
  I will not repeat the arguments about insurance that have been made this afternoon, because the Secretary of State will know that I have made them before. I have tabled an early-day motion on the issue, and I have done a lot of work in meeting the insurance companies, as well as other businesses. I will simply say that the Secretary of State said a moment ago that the problem lies in the insurance market, but the problem does not end there, as that implies that the Government are absolving themselves of responsibility.
  The Department for Work and Pensions eagerly awaited review was published in April, but it was a grave disappointment because it simply rehearsed the problems and spoke about the Government returning to the issue in the autumn. I find that very unsatisfactory, as do businesses, and the Government need to engage in the issue now. Far from businesses being helped to meet their insurance premiums, to which the Secretary of State referred a moment ago, I have an example of a business that has had to pay 40 per cent. extra this year, and it says that it will go out of business if there is any increase next year. So I alert the Secretary of State to the fact that that issue has not been dealt with, and we expect it to be dealt with sooner than the autumn.
  The Government must address other issues, such as business rates. The Government's proposed rate relief scheme will help small businesses to an extent, but only a few of them. The Local Government Bill will set the rate relief threshold at £8,000 of rateable value, so an enormous number of small businesses in England will have no relief at all. The Liberal Democrats' scheme is much more positive: businesses with a rateable value below £25,000 would be given an immediate relief, which would be funded by the biggest companies paying an extra amount. Our scheme would reach between 80 to 85 per cent. of small businesses in the country, so I urge the Government to look again at their scheme, which is only part of the answer to a very big problem.
  The Secretary of State is aware that the small business community is concerned by a lot of issues, not the least of which relates to pharmacies. The Office of Fair Trading report has been promised shortly, in the next few days, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respond. She has said that she acknowledges the problem, but it is very worrying that she continues to say that competition must be brought into the industry. Many people are uncertain about whether she will respect the fact that pharmacies are part of the health service, that they are small businesses and that they need to be given the opportunity to survive and expand.

  469
  A number of issues remain to be dealt with in relation to regulation and red tape, and I wish to make a general comment on the temporary agency workers directive and the working time directive. We need to ensure better consultation when addressing such issues, because businesses are entitled to propose constructive and clear points of concern. The impression given sometimes is that the Government just say, "These rules have been agreed and are being implemented despite what they will do to hit business." In the hope that the Minister espouses the idea that small businesses are the vital engine of the economy, we must hope that the Government will address both the temporary agency workers directive and the working time directive.
  The Government have spoken frequently about the need for joined-up government, and I want to refer to one issue for the Secretary of State's attention. Currently, under the planning legislation going through the House, an issue is raised—it seems very small but it is not—in relation to planning applications and the addition of mezzanine floors to supermarkets, with which I am sure she will be familiar. The Asda Group has identified 40 supermarkets throughout the country that can be adapted in that way. The concern, which I hope she will pass on to her colleagues, is that that can be done without any fresh planning application. Many reports on the issue of small shops and businesses have indicated that large supermarkets are taking more and more of their business away. If there has to be a planning application, that can be monitored, but if not, local shopping centres can suffer badly. In terms of joined-up government, I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will raise that issue with the appropriate Departments.
  Red tape is continually raised as an issue for business, and I agree, with my background in manufacturing, that it is a severe problem. A short while ago, the Secretary of State said that it would be useful to her if people who had examples of red tape or burdens on business brought them to her attention. I want to draw her attention to the experience of a small business in Stockport called Trolex Sensors, which pointed out in a letter that, under existing regulations, it and many other firms must comply with a whole list of requirements. Under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, they are required to fill in the following: a quarterly capital expenditure inquiry, an annual business inquiry parts 1 and 2, a monthly wages and salaries survey, a quarterly stocks inquiry, an annual survey of research and development, an annual register inquiry, an annual inquiry into international trade in services, an annual/quarterly production inquiry, and a sales quarterly inquiry. The Government must justify that list alone. Is it necessary for firms to be burdened with such a list of requirements? In addition, in the case of the company concerned, when it said it had had enough, and refrained from filling in the forms, it was told that it would be referred to an enforcement squad, which I presume would rush in—what action it would take I do not know—and require it to fill out all those forms. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the concerns of those of us in manufacturing and business in that regard.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind—it has been alluded to already—the fact that, in terms of regulation, there can be two solutions. First, sunset regulations can be used more and more in relation to business to ensure that such regulations drop away
  470
  without renewal. Secondly, and most importantly, the Government can ensure—this did not happen under the previous Government, and still does not happen under this Government—that impact assessments are meaningful, accurate and clear, both in the early stages of regulation and when Bills are considered in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I urge the Secretary of State, as I have in the past, to consider introducing an independent system like Actal in the Netherlands, so that regulations could be assessed independently and efficiently from a detached viewpoint. Much as it might seem acceptable for departmental officials to do the work, there would be nothing better than having an independent organisation to examine regulations and ensure that impact assessments are done.
  Much work has been done on regulatory impact assessments. The British Chambers of Commerce says:
  "RIAs did not lead to any regulations being removed from the statute book"—
  of course, that is true. However, the real issue that it mentions is:
  "The quantification of costs and benefits of regulations is also patchy leading to the possibility of these estimates being used to promote"
  regulations rather than alerting people to the problems associated with them. It adds:
  "Costs and benefits for business were quantified in 69 per cent. and 20 per cent. of RIAs".
  The British Chambers of Commerce accepts the benefit of impact assessments, but the work is not being done sufficiently rigorously.
  I shall press on to other matters relating to red tape. Will the Secretary of State address such issues as health and safety? It is laudable that this country has good health and safety regulations, although most hon. Members would agree that some are a little over the top and others should be further enforced. However, understanding all the different health and safety regulations is one of the biggest problems faced by business. The Secretary of State might recall that I said that Liberal Democrats want a single inspectorate operating with a light touch, rather than the plethora of different inspectors who visit businesses to acquaint them with the different regulations. The ministerial response to my suggestion was to ask how a single inspector could possibly understand all the regulations and give advice on them. However, businesses themselves are supposed to understand all the regulations. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the need to re-examine the inspection procedure and consider whether the Small Business Service could institute a service so that firms would be given a better understanding of what they must achieve.
  I read many reports on the Small Business Service. Liberal Democrats worked on the service when it was first proposed, but I am disappointed that it is not as we envisaged. When I visited the Department of Trade and Industry to meet Ministers, I was somewhat disconcerted to learn—perhaps I should have known—that the service was based in an office down the corridor.

  471
  Our understanding was that the Small Business Service would be rigorous, independent, robust and detached from the Government. We thought that it would have a critical frame of mind and more connection with business than the Government. Notwithstanding the difficulties that the Government faced while getting the service up and running properly, I am gravely worried that it is too much under their control.
  We need to reduce the burden on business and increase the possibility for business to influence the Government and to know exactly what is in the arena for business. That is why Liberal Democrats want decentralisation to be stepped up and more work to be done through regional government, in due course, and regional development agencies. I am worried about the make-up of several RDAs. Although they want to be representative of business, they should have a democratic aspect so that they are representative of the electorate. The RDAs are reasonably effective in some areas, but not at all in others. I urge the Minister to consider the structures associated with the RDAs to ensure that business is properly represented. A new organisation, Business West, has been established in my part of the country. It combines the chambers of commerce in an endeavour to influence the RDA locally. We need to help business organisations to influence the Government effectively.
  There is still a problem of red tape. In February 2002, the Government promised 250 measures to reduce the burden placed on business. I asked what progress was being made, and for a description of them. The problem with Governments is that some of the things they do sound good—they are doing this, that and the other—but there is no clear answer to what is going on beneath the surface. Despite asking for details of those 250 measures, I was given only two or three examples. In her response, the Paymaster General also said:
  "In Budget 2003, the Chancellor announced that the Government had identified over 500 … regulatory measures"— [Official Report, 19 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 574W.]
  Those included 250 to do with business. Perhaps the Secretary of State can help me to get the details of those measures. If they do exist, can they be implemented soon? They are part of a scheme that the Government introduced to deregulate business and to reduce the burdens on it.
  I welcome the debate. I hope that the Government ensure that we have such a debate every year and that there is an annual report on the impact of regulations on small business. Liberal Democrats have called for that for a long time. I cannot understand why that request should not be granted. Every year we should re-assess how regulations have affected business. A system of sunset clauses would enable us to abandon regulations that are not helping anyone. Again, I express concern about the latest figures on insolvency, which is three times the 1999 level. The Secretary of State must be worried that the signs for the economy and small business do not look good. I hope that we hear more about that.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. John Battle: I, too, welcome the debate, especially the words in the amendment that acknowledge the crucial role of small businesses. The Secretary of State amplified that in her comments. The amendment also contains the phrase:
  "applauds the Government for improving access to finance for small … businesses".
  I want to explore that access to finance in the context of what my right hon. Friend said about start-up rates in poorer neighbourhoods and the need to increase small business activity among women and ethnic minorities, and in communities that still have high unemployment.
  Perhaps it will help if I say a little about the small business characteristics of my constituency. My approach is not to focus on the macro-figures, but to see how the micro-economy matches up to those macro-figures. I want to look at recent Government initiatives, such as community interest companies, and explore new ideas for supporting small businesses which could radically decentralise the provision of services and goods and start to build a local, sustainable economy, even in inner-city neighbourhoods.
  To give the House a snapshot of my constituency, I can describe it as a series of tightly knit urban villages. Armley, Wortley, Bramley, Stanningley, Farnley, Burley and Kirkstall see themselves not as Leeds, but as having their own identities. My constituency forms a wedge, like a pizza slice, from the business area of the city centre out to the south-west. The problem is that the people who live in that wedge have always had problems getting into Leeds because it is south of the River Aire, the canal and the railway, and there are only three points at which one can cross the canal and the river. We have what the planners now call geophysical barriers.
  In practice, my constituency has been cut off from the city centre and, as a result, in the 20th century it developed as a semi-autonomous region within the city. It was characterised by small family businesses, mostly with fewer than 20 people, engaged, in particular, in engineering, printing, textiles and distribution. Those firms were located on industrial sites with street fronts clustered around those urban villages, so local people grew up and went to work in a family firm nearby.
  Some of those firms are still with us. They include Pennine Castings, Browns of Bramley, which is a fourth-generation suit-making firm, and Aagard Hanley's, a quality plastering business. F.J. Rogers, which makes organ pipes and sells them worldwide, has been there since 1897. There are new small businesses in the new technologies, such as Northern Instruments, which makes industrial thermometers, and MEI, a medical industrial engineering company, and there are new restaurants, including the brilliant, award-winning organic Millrace. By and large, however, there has not been a small business renaissance in the neighbourhood.
  As a result, the challenge that we face is that, although the Leeds economy as a whole has been renewed and reinvigorated, and companies that work in the new technologies and the finance and service sectors have replaced larger, traditional manufacturing companies, there has not been a great expansion in local, family businesses in Leeds, West in the last 10 years. That

  473
  means that there is now higher than average unemployment. More important, however, is the lack of aspiration and the loss of the skills involved in setting up a small business that used to be passed on through the family.
  The challenge is to revive that tradition, to reignite the entrepreneurial spark to rebuild our economy locally, rather than to hope for salvation from one major investment in central Leeds. As the detailed ongoing surveys in the "Life in Leeds" features in the Yorkshire Evening Post have illustrated, we cannot all easily travel into the centre of Leeds and cash in on the booming sector of the economy. In addition, call centres in Leeds will not provide high levels of employment for ever. The voice recognition chip will displace many call centre jobs in the next 10 years.
  What can we do to develop the momentum behind a vibrant local economy and build economies in those urban villages from the ground up? Can we revive the tradition of the small family business? We have resources, and we spend and invest money, but as the New Economics Foundation has argued, we suffer leakages of our money because it goes elsewhere—it is spent and invested outside our neighbourhood. The foundation's paper "Ghost Town Britain: The threat from economic globalisation to livelihoods, liberty and local economic freedom" argued that we are in danger if local economies decline, reducing our neighbourhoods to ghost towns. I therefore welcome the Government's consultation paper, which was published in March and invited responses to proposals on community interest companies by the middle of June. In a remarkable piece of integrated government, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor launched the paper, which was entitled "Enterprise for Communities: Proposals for a Community Interest Company." It builds on both the DTI's work on social enterprise and work in the Prime Minister's strategy unit on private action and public benefit, and floats the idea of a new type of company, which I should like to explore.
  The document suggests that community interest companies should be set up to pursue local economic objectives, regenerate poorer areas, empower local communities and introduce innovative local services. Not only are community interest companies a means for raising capital for the public good locally but their assets such as building and land are dedicated to that good. It is suggested that those new companies could invest in community transport, fair trade, child care provision, leisure and social housing. They could make the delivery of local services more dynamic and focused on the needs of local communities and provide new opportunities for new forms of partnership, both public and private.
  We need new social enterprises. The Government have set up the Phoenix fund, and there are community development finance institutions and community investment tax relief, but they need to be pulled together under a local neighbourhood banner if there is to be any sustained local economic development. We should develop local economic communities, clustered around a few streets in those small urban villages. Perhaps community investment companies could provide that overarching umbrella. They could pull initiatives together and form a new framework for new positive
  474
  partnerships with local government. They could experiment by building up capacity and developing sustainable businesses at the local level.
  May I make a few suggestions? We should take a radical look at local service provision, including care of the elderly, the sick and children in our neighbourhoods. Why should meals on wheels, cooked centrally and chill-frozen, be brought into our neighbourhood from somewhere miles away? Could we not use the cooking skills of someone in our own street to provide those meals and save transport costs? Can we not provide more local child care and after-school care, perhaps in a neighbour's home? We could provide proper training and pay people to do work in the neighbourhood that they live in, thus radically decentralising statutory provision. Similarly, we could look at recycling projects and the management of waste facilities.
  We could do much more locally and look, for example, at local shared transport schemes in the neighbourhood. Why can we not get the steel shutters off boarded-up shops and reintroduce new locally owned community shops, such as health food and healthy living shops, providing goods and services for the local community on the doorstep? We should look again at security and insurance. Instead of every household taking out individual insurance, why not develop community insurance schemes, which would not only reduce premiums and organise the collection of pooled payments but release capital for local investment in neighbourhood safety and care schemes? We could even invest in local broadband schemes as a new security tool. We should look at radically reshaping investment and fund local services to meet local needs. We should pull together assets and resources so that they are focused much more on the locality. Community interest companies could be used as a catalyst for that.
  In conclusion, I urge the Department to consider how those ideas can be translated into practice. It could set up a unit, and consider in detail the way in which pilot schemes could pull such initiatives together. My constituency offers fertile soil for small business development, of which we should take advantage. "Enterprise for Communities" states:
  "The promotion of enterprise, in every part of society and every corner of our country, is at the heart of Government's agenda. Entrepreneurial talent is essential to deliver social justice, locally and nationally."
  I agree, but we need integrated action to try that out in practice. It can be done, but we need to demonstrate that.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Archie Norman: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) not only because he made a thoughtful and constructive speech, but because he referred to an area south of the River Aire in Leeds to which I hope I made some minor contribution, though perhaps not in a small business capacity.
  I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, which does not relate directly to small businesses, but which is relevant, none the less.
  The Secretary of State made a glossily optimistic speech. I understand why she did so and why she wants to portray the state of small business in an optimistic

  475
  light, but it was totally unreflective of the opinion of small business organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, and of the Institute of Directors. If small business people read her speech, the effect will be to emphasise the gulf that exists between the political and Government world and the business world. It is a gulf of culture and understanding, which is becoming increasingly serious.
  I shall concentrate my remarks on regulation, an issue that is misunderstood by Governments of both complexions. It is viewed as an issue of individual regulations, the deregulation taskforce and so on, but the problem is much more profound. It is a chronic problem, owing to the nature of government in this country—the fact that we have Government who systemically add to the regulatory burden, because of the nature of our political system. Few Ministers get promoted for other than adding to the statute book. It is not glamorous to withdraw legislation or introduce light-touch legislation. It is glamorous to appease some lobby group and bring in new regulations. Also, we have the additional burden of European regulation, which is introduced and enforced, often against the wishes of Governments and parties of any complexion, in a form that lacks proper regulatory scrutiny in the House.
  Regulation is a chronic problem that requires systemic solutions, and unless we address ourselves to that, nothing much will happen. The difficulty has affected successive Governments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was quoted as acknowledging. The regulatory burden grew under the last Conservative Government as well, but it has accelerated dramatically under the Labour Government. Under all Governments over the past 10 years, we have spoken of deregulation, better regulation taskforces and the deregulation taskforce, on which I served, but all those measures are like standing in the way of an avalanche armed with a toothpick.
  It is no good trying to find a bit of regulation that one can liberalise or remove from the statute book. That will not help, because the volume of incremental regulation far outweighs anything that can be removed, and what is removed tends to be innocuous detail, whereas what is imposed is substantive and cost-additive. It is worth bearing in mind the quantum of what has happened over the past five years. I am not making a partisan point; there is a serious problem affecting our competitiveness.
  In the recent IOD survey, 84 per cent. of small businesses stated that the payroll burden on them had increased significantly, and 93 per cent. said that the burden of employment law had increased significantly in the past five years. There have been 19,332 new regulations in the past five years. Whether that figure is exactly right I do not know, but the number has been substantial. The estimated cost, according to a firm of lawyers, Penninsula, is £21 billion over the course of five or six years. However one estimates it, the cost is considerable. In the past five years the rate of introduction of new regulation on business has been 53 per cent. up on the previous five years, which is substantial. The impact on business is progressive and cumulative. The effect is to reduce the gene pool of new start-ups and small businesses. That is not in anyone's interest. The 2002 figures for the small business
  476
  population are not available, but the DTI statistics for 1995 to 2001 show that the population of businesses in this country was stagnant at about 3.7 million. That means that there was also no increase in our capacity to generate innovation and growth. The one thing that we know about 2002 is that there has been a significant acceleration in the mortality rate of small businesses, as some 16,000 went out of business—the highest level since 1994. That is partly due to the general economy, but it is also due to the impact of regulation.
  We also know that the fastest growing part of the economy today is the public sector and public sector expenditure. What does the Minister think is the impact of public sector investment on the small business community? Public sector procurement is very small business-unfriendly. The amount of red tape, including all the ISO 9000s and other qualifications that businesses have to complete to supply to the public sector, is a major deterrent. Typically, the public sector is very risk-averse in its procurement. As a result, it tends to reinforce the competitive power of big business, not small business. The DTI could do a great deal to improve that situation.
  The hon. Member for Leeds, West also referred to call centres. I was looking the other day at the statistics on call centre competitiveness worldwide. We now have among the most expensive call centres in the world. We may think that that is based on a comparison with India; indeed, our costs are three times those in India. However, this country now operates call centres at a higher cost than the United States and Canada. That is substantially because they are employment-intensive services. This country has imposed employment costs and rigidity on a peaking and troughing type of business. As a result, we are now completely uncompetitive. The consequence relates not only to cost. It is important to recognise, although we now have regulatory impact assessments and so on, that the consequence of regulation for business is profound, as it affects the culture of entrepreneurship, the attitude to innovation and the pace of change. It is in that regard that the competitive damage is especially serious.
  Of course, we think that each regulation is individually warranted and defensible. The Secretary of State referred to family-friendly working practices, which are difficult to argue against and which most business people favour. However, the cumulative impact is to make our businesses more sclerotic. Although I favour family-friendly working practices and can see that there is a strong case for them, I point out that that is not what they are doing in South Korea. The consequence is that, in each instance, we must ask ourselves how we will compare with the new overseas competition and what the regulation will do to future profitability, investment and employment. That is what will determine whether people have rewarding careers and jobs. It is a question of whether we are competitive, not what legislation we have.
  The first thing to recognise about regulation is that it almost invariably reinforces economies of scale. Big business can afford whatever regulation is imposed. When I was running Asda, we reckoned that, to introduce a new Asda brand own-label product on the shelves, we had to go through 17 different items of legislation. I had a department to do that work, but a

  477
  small shopkeeper or someone with a little chain of shops would not have had a prayer in respect of the administrative, legal and other support required. The net result is that we could introduce own-label products at a lower price for our customers, but the small retailer could not.
  That is an illustration of how all regulation, however well meaning, and including food labelling and so on, will reinforce the role of the established larger company and limit the capacity of the little guy to compete. The same is true in relation to health and safety, fire and building regulations, on which companies can employ any number of experts, whereas the little business would have to employ some expensive lawyer from outside and simply cannot afford to do so.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: I am very interested in my hon. Friend's remarks. Is he not saying that larger businesses can, on the whole, offload and absorb some of those costs, but smaller businesses have only a small number of options—first, to make people redundant, secondly, to go bankrupt and, thirdly, to pass on the increased costs to the consumer?
  Mr. Norman: That reinforces my point; my hon. Friend puts it succinctly.
  Regulation not only affects economies of scale but slows the pace of innovation. It means that it is much harder to introduce new products in line with other countries and that it is much harder to produce technical innovation. We have such a backlog—an archaeology—of legislation on the statute book that a lot of it is of absolutely no relevance today, but rather slows the pace of change. For example, the prescribed quantities legislation that was introduced in the 1920s still limits the size and weight of goods that can be sold. Products such as flaked cereals, ground coffee, and even bottles of wine can be sold only in certain sizes. One is not allowed to sell loaves of bread other than in weights of 600 g and 1,200 g, so it is illegal to sell a 900 g loaf of bread. I know that because at Asda we once wanted to sell 900 g loaves, so we had the great idea of selling 600 g with 300 g free. Then, of course, the trading standards officers prosecuted us. I make the point in a humorous vein, but it illustrates the fact that such regulation slows the pace of innovation and change and erodes the entrepreneurial culture, and it all has a ratchet effect. Our problem is that we lay legislation on legislation, and it all goes back a very long way—so far back that, for instance, all small shopkeepers who want to sell a pheasant have to have a game licence. That presumably relates back to something to do with poaching in the last century or the century before that, but it is completely irrelevant today and it should go. The trouble is that it is on nobody's priority list to make it go.
  It is a question not only of the legislation on the statute book but of enforcement. In this country we are world-beaters when it comes to enforcement. We employ armies of enforcers who are expert in making sure that little businesses either go out of business or adding to their costs. As a result, we have very high standards. Although that is entirely desirable, we often enforce the means, not the ends. I can go into any supermarket or food shop in Holland or France and within five minutes find things that would be illegal in
  478
  this country. That is not because they are selling unsafe food, but because of the way in which we enforce our regulations.
  The situation is getting a lot worse; it has accelerated over the past five years. Even now, legislation is reaching the statute book that will be very damaging in accumulation. We need an approach to regulation that is systemically different—not just picking away, but a profoundly new approach. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) said, it must be based on proper regulatory impact assessments. In some cases, regulatory impact assessments are a complete disgrace; they must be externally audited so that we know that they are objective. We also need sunset clauses; a limit on the cost of form-filling and bureaucracy that the Government are entitled to impose on business without compensation; the ability to appeal against excessive and life-threatening enforcement; removal of the archaeology in the shape of a mechanism for sweeping away the outdated legislation that is no longer relevant; and proper scrutiny of European legislation—not just the legislation itself, but the way in which it will be enforced in this country.
  I make these points not in a partisan way but because I feel that the Secretary of State's speech missed the point. We have a growing problem in this country: a decline in the competitiveness of small businesses and the rate of innovation. That must be tackled in a profound way to provide systemic solutions to a chronic problem.
  6.18 pm
  Dr. Ian Gibson: I have a different tale to tell. As I wing my way through East Anglia and, indeed, the rest of the country and other parts of the world, visiting not only science-based small businesses but other small businesses, I can sense that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive. It is a time for small business to get excited and to expand. It is recognised that by the end of this decade some 2 million jobs will be created in the sector in areas such as biofuels, which are prominent and growing in small businesses in East Anglia, biotechnologies and nanotechnologies. Carbon and energy production will be another growing area. Through business links, the Government have interacted with about half a million small businesses—twice as many as two years ago. Seven policy strategies, which I have no time to describe, have been published and are being enacted.
  Innovation is the key for science-based small businesses. We should concentrate on helping them not just to start and survive, but to innovate and grow. In a recent report on energy and an earlier one on engineering and physical sciences, the Select Committee on Science and Technology examined emerging engineering and physical science research by universities involving industry and its interaction with universities. Development of such knowledge to create a well-designed product that meets a market need gives rise to problems. Bringing about a conjunction of technology with market assessment is almost exclusively the job of industry, and is far more expensive and risky than research. All the evidence suggests that that part of the innovation process is seriously underfunded, and is not provided adequately in engineering and physical

  479
  science-based companies. Market research and the provision of demonstrators of the final product are recognised as being critical to innovative success. Support for small businesses in particular is vital at that crucial stage.
  Let me say something about spin-out companies, which can be seen in clusters. In research parks all over the country, innovative and entrepreneurial skills are developing. A new spirit is alive in the land. A higher education-business interaction survey showed a 22 per cent. increase on the previous year in the creation of spin-outs, with 248 graduate start-up companies and 69 staff start-ups. The number of staff in the higher education institutions' commercialisation offices had increased to 1,500 from a very low base. We may still be a bit behind the United States in terms of product development, but the Department of Trade and Industry's chief economic adviser on science tells me that in the past year there have been more spin-out companies.
  Some problems are ascribed to red tape, but not the red tape that Conservative Members have described. It is when universities become active in the field of innovation that things begin to happen. The number of bright young people who are trained to use their brains for marketing purposes and to interact with industry, and who are excited by the prospect, is growing almost daily. In Leeds as elsewhere, new companies are beginning to spark and to develop. The White Paper deals with that.
  Mr. O'Neill: I raised this point earlier, but my hon. Friend is going into more detail. British universities are variable in terms of knowledge transfer. This may seem slightly regulatory, but might it not be valuable to apply it more consistently, and to allow more liaison between individuals who are responsible for it? Alternatively, universities could be grouped, geographically or according to discipline, so that they could work to common standards to achieve a critical mass that would facilitate knowledge transfer.
  Dr. Gibson: I entirely agree—regional interaction between universities through regional development agencies is a whole new unexplored territory.
  Mr. Kerry Pollard: A recent survey by the Royal Bank of Scotland suggested that the eastern region, which my hon. Friend and I both represent, was the only region that was growing rapidly. Is that not due to the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit in our small business sector?
  Dr. Gibson: Indeed. In our region, it is not all about Cambridge university; it is about Cranfield—
  Mr. Pollard: Hertfordshire?
  Dr. Gibson: Yes, and all the other new universities that are coming onstream and interacting. The higher education White Paper is not just about tuition fees and top-up fees; it is about the interaction between academia and industry. Richard Lambert, ex-editor of the
  480
  Financial Times, is charged with feeding that White Paper with information from the study that he is carrying out. The work that he has released so far suggests that the position is not as bad as we think. We tend to think that academics are closeted in their ivory towers, but he says that there are signs of that interaction beginning to emerge. There is much more to do, but we can see the signs of that happening. The report will be extremely important.
  Universities that have high research ratings seem to have the largest number of spin-out companies, so there is a correlation between research, function and good teaching, producing bright young brains to engage not just in further academic research but in the industrial exploitation of those ideas. We must welcome that.
  To me, chemistry has always been the most boring subject in the world—dull people, always drunk on Friday and Saturday nights. The students never did much, but the Royal Society of Chemistry has published a report. Three groups were asked to complete a spinout questionnaire: university technology transfer officers, heads of chemistry departments, and individuals involved in spin-outs. Twenty-nine UK chemistry departments have been involved in 65 spinout companies in the past few years. What does the Royal Society say are the inhibitory factors? It is not red tape.
  Mr. Pollard: Does my hon. Friend accept that we need to support not just the big scientific research but small research, which also has spin-outs? I am thinking in particular of small business research at Kingston university.
  Dr. Gibson: I agree. The other night, I was at the Institution of Chemical Engineers prize-giving ceremony at Alexandra palace. An amazing number of small businesses were vying for simple little prizes, but there was great excitement. It was hard to distinguish between all the enterprising projects in the oil and engineering industries.
  The Royal Society report discovered after the discussions with all the groups I have mentioned that the major factor was encouragement and funding from the university, making spin-out activity a priority in the university. The White Paper on higher education will look at that as well. Another factor was support from the head of the department, saying "This is what we are going to do." That galvanises activity, enthuses the people in the department to take their ideas forward and makes the spin-out company possible.
  Another factor was flexible working arrangements, so that the academic with the idea could get support and help, and get on with the business of moving the project into industry. The Royal Society said that those factors made it successful. One must have success and role models in the department, the university and the region. That is beginning to work. Another factor was mentors from industry to guide people in the department so that they could move their research forward.
  Of course, there is pressure on those people, too: the research exercise. They must still be distinguished academics. They must keep research in the top flight. They must get research grants. If there is one red tape problem, it is filling in the forms to get money from

  481
  Europe and elsewhere. Academics are good at filling in their expense forms—there are no problems there—but when it comes to filling in research grant forms from Europe, they have great problems and it drives them insane. They sometimes complain about the journey from the car park to the university being too long, but that is just a fringe activity in terms of what is happening and the entrepreneurial skills.
  Formal training is going on with young people, and the higher education White Paper will develop that. It will move things forward at a great rate. The Government's incentives and interactions with banks are helping spin-out companies and making them work together—there are spin-out companies across the land.
  I do not want one spin-out company in the part of the world that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) represents. I want 50, fighting for the same space, talking to each other, drinking coffee together, coming up with sparky ideas. We have not touched the enthusiasm and intelligence of this country in that area yet, so I look forward in the next year to more spin-out companies. I want to see the Americans coming over here from California because we are good at it.
  One thing may be important, and my hon. Friend the Minister may want to say something about it—I would welcome it if he did. We may need regulations on intellectual property. Who owns the patents? Should it be the university or the person who makes the discovery? What about the business that expands it? How does one develop that kind of relationship? That is a real issue. In the United States, the Bayh-Dole Act 1980 helped to solve that issue. It drove on US technology transfer. I hope that the Government will consider the need for such provision to ensure that new technologies push forward.
  Mr. Pollard: My hon. Friend mentions the USA, which is held up as a model of excellence for small businesses. Does he realise that in this country it takes but a day to set up a new small business, yet in France and Belgium it takes eight weeks, in Germany it takes six weeks, and so on? That is what we are doing to encourage our small business sector and to ensure that it is easy for people to start small businesses.
  Dr. Gibson: Absolutely, and the same is true of products that have to be regulated and ratified. In the medical world, which I understand a little, the interaction of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, in assessing whether a product is ready and safe for the market, is extremely important. We are not quite as fast as the Belgians in such matters, but we are getting there. We are learning to regulate speedily, and to ensure that our products are the best and the safest. So I welcome the Government's exciting initiatives.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Duncan: I welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to this important debate. As has been said, it is truly astonishing that this Labour Government are somewhat picky in terms of which manifesto commitments they choose to honour. They could have honoured the manifesto commitment to have an annual report on small business issues without unduly troubling the usual channels.
  482
  I have 12 years' experience in business, although at a different end of the spectrum from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). I hope that I can contribute something to the debate, perhaps in the form of a reality check. Some of my colleagues in the small business community would be totally astonished to read the Government amendment to the motion, which
  "welcomes the steps that the Government has taken to make it easier than ever before for people to start their own business",
  and states that
  "the Government has created a pro-enterprise tax environment".
  Those comments would cause considerable consternation in the small business community, and rightly so.
  Small businesses are a vital part of our economy that we cannot choose to ignore lightly. I was struck by the new report by the Federation of Small Businesses, which suggests that without small businesses we would have no economy at all. Research shows that between 1995 and 1999, the net number of jobs created by small firms was 545,000, compared with just 218,000 created by large companies. Even more important, according to the report more than 1.5 million jobs were lost in established firms during that time, but new firms created 2.3 million jobs. That is the "churn" effect of business: as old businesses mature and eventually tail off, jobs are replenished, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, from the gene pool of new businesses.
  How do we create the next generation of new businesses? Frankly, we make it worth their while. Many in entrepreneurial circles believe that currently, the effort is not worth their while, given the endless taxation, regulation and means-testing of benefits. As a result, the benefits to those with ideas for starting micro-businesses in particular are very marginal.
  This issue is important because business start-ups are stagnating. I refer the Secretary of State—as I tried to do at the beginning of the debate—to the position in Scotland, which is in stark contrast to her somewhat complacent opening remarks. The Scottish Government's review of the business birth rate strategy shows that business start-ups in Scotland have been in steady decline since 1997. The number has fallen from 24,000 in 1997 to a disappointing 16,000 in 2001. That is a 31 per cent. decline in the number of new businesses in Scotland. The Secretary of State did allude to the fact that there is a lower propensity to create small businesses outwith the south-east of England, but the fact is that the situation is getting worse. Outwith the south-east of England, fewer and fewer people are trying to set up new businesses.
  Of course, part of the reason why we need continually to set up an increasing number of new businesses is that we are losing an increasing number at the other end. In Scotland, 2,500 businesses were liquidated or declared bankrupt in the first half of 2002—an increase of almost 15 per cent. on the previous year. Why are businesses being regulated? It is in some respects because their eye has been taken off the ball in respect of having to cope with the endless stream of regulations from the Government.

  483
  Every time I visit a small business in my constituency, I am struck by the marginal effort—the late night effort—that has to be taken into account when dealing with regulations. There is a belief within Government circles that introducing regulation will only have a marginal effect in itself, but the simple fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, that it has a cumulative effect. Another regulation is another half hour every month to complete a burden that can be so destructive of a small business's ability to compete in its marketplace.
  On a visit to a small business in my constituency, I was struck by correspondence that described the chaos produced by having to deal with the Government's new system of tax credits. The horrendous effects of that change on those in receipt of tax benefits have been well documented, yet exactly the same chaos has ensued for businesses seeking to administer the system. In my constituent's case, the business employs a relatively small number of people, who have to act as the Government's Benefits Agency in implementing the changes consistently. Significantly, they have to disburse the funds before they receive them back from the Government. In some cases, including that of my constituent, it is a burden that small businesses could well have done without, as it severely impacts on their ability to conduct what they exist to do—generate business and income for themselves and their community.
  I was struck by the dramatic nature of the figures on regulations—summed up by the fact that there are 14.8 new regulations every day. Scotland also has a Scottish Executive, which has implemented an additional 1,309 statutory instruments since it was created. That amounts to a level of regulation that, frankly, we can do without. Scottish business is being unnecessarily burdened and put at a competitive disadvantage, which inevitably has an effect on our wider economy. The Scottish economy is underperforming in the UK. Indeed, the Scottish economy has underperformed in the UK economy in every single quarter since 1998. We have lagged far behind the UK average for the past five years. The Scottish economy has expanded by less than 12 per cent. compared with nearly 19 per cent. at UK level. As Scottish Members know, the Scottish economy has been in decline for the past five successive months.
  As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter), the position is made considerably worse because his Liberal Democrat colleagues colluded with the Labour-Liberal Executive to do away with the uniform business rate policy introduced under a Conservative Administration, which had provided a level playing field far Scottish business. The first thing that that Executive did on reaching Holyrood was to abolish it, to the extent that we now have a 9 per cent. surcharge on business in Scotland. That is unacceptable, because we end up with poorer businesses in Scotland and disincentives north of the border.
  I conclude by alluding to one further issue, whose importance cannot be overestimated for the future—broadband, which has been mentioned in passing. My constituency is rural and none of my constituents is able to receive broadband services. There will come a point
  484
  where two-speed Britain will become even more obvious than it is today. Businesses in my constituency do not have access to broadband services, so they cannot compete on a level playing field. Regenerating rural areas through the development of small and micro-businesses will not be possible without access to those services, so I urge the Government to take the extension of broadband far more seriously, particularly for the small percentage who do not have access and for whom there is currently no prospect of gaining access. It is an unacceptable position, which the Government should address.
  Businesses in my constituency and throughout Scotland are operating with one hand tied behind their back. They are administering regulations left, right and centre for the Government and at some point that will have to stop. Small businesses deserve a fair deal.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: First, I wish to declare my interests, which appear in the register. I also wish to welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) to the shadow DTI team. Both have substantial business and industrial experience and will add much to what we are doing.
  This has been an excellent short debate, with some well-informed contributions, many from Members who have business experience and have read balance sheets in anger. In that connection, I refer to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter), who has much experience as a small business man, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), a distinguished former Minister at the Department who gave us a colourful tour of his constituency, complete with an explanation of geophysical barriers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who probably has more large business experience than any other hon. Member. I am sorry that I had to miss the start of the speech by my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), but no one in the House knows more about knowledge transfer, so whenever he speaks on business matters he is always listened to—as, indeed, he is listened to whenever he speaks in Norfolk. We all know that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) has had much experience in different businesses and his comments about Scotland were worthwhile and constructive.
  I also wish to pay tribute to the various small firms groups that lobby Members assiduously. They include the Federation of Small Businesses, under the inimitable Stephen Alambritis; the Forum of Private Business, for which Garry Parker is extremely energetic in telling us what his members feel; the all-party small business group, under John May and Alan Cleverly; and the CBI small business team, under Matthew Fell. They all do a very good job of ensuring that we are properly briefed.
  One key theme that kept recurring in the debate is the ever-growing burden of red tape and tax on small businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) pointed out, that burden falls disproportionately on small businesses. He mentioned the total burden of £20 billion and pointed out that, proportionately, the cost to very small businesses of

  485
  complying with employment legislation is up to 50 times more than it is for larger businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells pointed out, using his Asda experience, more regulation normally helps bigger firms in their competition with smaller firms, because of the way in which the burden falls. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) pointed out that, on average, small businesses now spend between 25 and 28 hours a month dealing with paperwork.
  It is not the individual burdens, the different regulations and statutory instruments and new taxes that are show stoppers or deal breakers by themselves, but it is the combined, collective and accumulated weight that is now causing every business grave concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, there is now a real cultural problem. There is also a systemic problem, because of the ratchet effect. My hon. Friend put it colourfully when he said that we are tackling an avalanche with a toothpick.
  On that point, Martin Temple of the Engineering Employers Federation said recently that the accumulated burden of regulations and taxes is now destroying jobs. He stated:
  "Manufacturing competes globally and the government has a clear choice between protecting our competitive advantage, or continuing the trend of the last few years of the gradual erosion of our flexible, low-cost environment.
  If we continue to make the UK a less welcoming environment for manufacturing companies"—
  and small businesses—
  "then business will simply vote with its feet and the movement abroad of our manufacturing base will accelerate."
  When we raise the point about red tape and burdens with the Government, they tell us that, because unemployment is still so low, it does not really matter. It does matter, though: 660,000 jobs in manufacturing have been lost since 1997. The recent CBI trends survey showed that 40 per cent. of small firms experienced a drop in new orders over the previous four months, and 39 per cent. said that output had declined. Jobs have been lost, but what about the thousands of jobs that small firms could have created had they not been deterred from taking on extra staff?
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk and his team went to Manchester the other day and met a number of small business men. When we asked what their two main concerns were, they cited the recent increase in national insurance contributions and tax, and the cost of taking on more staff. There is therefore an opportunity cost in the jobs that have been lost and in the ones that were never created in the first place.
  Are the Government listening? New burdens are still being placed on business. The Criminal Records Bureau has just announced very big increases in its charges for vetting care homes personnel. I received a letter dated 16 June from a well-known care and nursing home in my constituency. It stated:
  "Without consultation and almost without notice, the CRB is about to start charging nearly three times more than it does currently for checking the records of our future employees."
  This excellent proprietor goes on to say:
  "There is one further very sore point to raise with you. Originally, the statutory regulations required all nursing homes to complete statutory checks on all their staff by April 2003.
  486
  However, because the CRB was struggling so much to meet its responsibilities, we were asked to postpone having these checks done until October 2004. Ironically, we will now have to pay dearly for our co-operation on this. We will now be charged the much higher new fee for checks which would previously have been carried out a much lower fee."
  We are talking about an extra cost to the care homes sector of £14 million. That is another burden on business that will be appearing in the very near future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) referred to a matter that was also raised by a number of other hon. Members—the great increase in the number of industrial tribunal cases. Last year, there were 130,000 tribunal cases in this country. How many more will there be this year?
  The Secretary of State talked about the work-life balance, and people's right to flexible contracts. That is a minefield: if an employer fails to follow the procedure to the letter, the employee has recourse to an industrial tribunal. The fear shared by many Opposition Members is that we are talking about a disgruntled employees' charter.
  What action is the Department taking? There are some well-intentioned schemes. We support the small firms loan guarantee scheme, but have the Government delivered joined-up government on behalf of small businesses through the Small Business Service? Has that service been, throughout government, a proper champion of small businesses? If it is to act as a genuine voice for small businesses at the heart of government, surely the service needs to report direct to the Prime Minister, and to be separate from the DTI? The Opposition feel very strongly that much of the service's £400 million budget needs to be properly evaluated, and put under closer scrutiny.
  Many different schemes are covered by section 8 of the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1982. Although the Secretary of State said recently that there has been proper evaluation of the small firms loans guarantee scheme, what about the regional venture capital funds, the UK high-tech fund, and the community development finance institutions? What about the bridges fund and the community development venture fund? I am not saying that those are bad schemes, but no proper evaluation has been done. When will the Government perform that evaluation?
  My final point is very simple. The Secretary of State's hands are tied—by other Departments that keep putting more burdens on business, and by Europe. The Conservative Government put a huge amount of effort into successfully negotiating an opt-out from a jobdestroying social chapter. Within days of taking office, the Government gave up the opt-out. In respect of the agency workers directive, the CBI stated recently that, had we kept the opt-out, all the fuss over the directive would have been irrelevant, as Britain would have sat on the sidelines while our European colleagues "squabbled away".
  Why cannot the Secretary of State make the day of every small business man in the country and say that the Government will renegotiate our social chapter opt-out? Unless the Government take radical action to reverse that trend, small businesses will never receive a really fair deal. That is why I urge hon. Members to support our motion.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I join the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) in congratulating his colleagues who have been promoted to the Front Bench. I pay tribute to Britain's 3.7 million small businesses, which are responsible for generating £1 trillion in our economy and employ 12 million people.
  I give thanks to the organisations that represent them and that have become my close advisers: the British Chambers of Commerce; the Federation of Small Businesses, especially its driving force, its chair, John Emmins; the Institute of Directors; the CBI SME Council and the Forum of Private Business. I also thank the Small Business Service, which in three short years has made a real mark on behalf of businesses for Britain. Incidentally, the SBS produces an annual report; I think that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) suggested that it did not. The Small Business Council also produces reports and, in November last year, we produced cur own report, "The Way Forward", which was widely welcomed by small businesses.
  I like to get out of the Department of Trade and Industry every week if I can and I visit small businesses throughout the country, so I have a good understanding of the problems that they experience. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said that the Forum of Private Business had told him that its members expected lower growth than at any time since the Labour Government came to power. Although that vexes me, it is in stark contrast to the situation a decade ago, when the forum expected no growth at all. Its membership was falling and its members were going to the wall.
  Several contributors to the debate made claims about the volume of companies going bankrupt, but I think that their figures were from Conservative central office, rather than from Barclays and others who have conducted proper surveys. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) said that the stock of businesses was reducing. That is not true. The latest Barclays figures state that start-ups in the first quarter of 2003 totalled 107,000—12 per cent. up on the same period last year. Those are important facts.
  Mr. Norman: The Minister may be aware that he is misquoting me. The stock of businesses is not just a function of the new businesses created but also of the number of fatalities—people who have gone out of business. I was quoting figures not from Conservative central office but from the DTI, which show that the stock of small businesses is stable—there has been no increase in the last five years.
  Nigel Griffiths: I have the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He is being rather selective. On closures, the most recent annual figure, which indeed comes from the DTI, is 435,000. That is considerably less than the comparable figure a decade ago in 1992 when more than half a million companies went to the wall; the same number went to the wall in the previous
  488
  year. In fact, the start-up market is healthy and, even better, the survival rate is the best for a decade. The House should take those important facts into account.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Is the Minister proud of his record in Scotland, where 31 per cent. fewer businesses are being set up this year than at the start of the Labour Administration?
  Nigel Griffiths: It is important that companies and practices in Scotland parallel the best practices in the rest of the United Kingdom, and I am happy to showcase them.
  The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale stated, first, that there was no annual report on small business, and he was wrong. Secondly, he criticised the Government's broadband policy, but did not acknowledge that £30 million is going to regional broadband projects. That includes a substantial sum for Perth, the Western Isles and south-west Scotland, if not for his constituency. Thirdly, he said that it was more difficult now than ever before to start a business because of red tape, but he should consider the problems that people face. The Inland Revenue has now produced a form for start-up businesses—it is a five-page booklet, but we inherited a 44-page booklet.
  Again, the figures for the regulations and statutory instruments that are now produced are greatly in our favour: 1,452 general SIs were produced in the most recent year; 10 years ago, the figure was 1,692. In 10 years, there has been a substantial drop in the number of new regulations, so we do not take lessons on new regulations from the Opposition.
  Mr. Prisk: Is the hon. Gentleman denying figures that come directly from the Library, which clearly show that, under this Government, the number of regulations has gone up by 50 per cent.?
  Nigel Griffiths: Absolute rubbish! I have the figures in front of me, and I have quoted them. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hear the total, in case he thought that I was being too specific in referring to general SIs, I shall add in the local SIs. The figure now is 2,221. The figure that we inherited is 3,291, and the figure for 10 years ago is 3,359.
  The difficulty of starting a company was mentioned, but let me quote a previous, respected figure:
  "when this reaches the point where you may need 28 separate licences, certificates and registrations just to start a business, then I say again: this thing must stop."
  That was the noble Lord Major, speaking at a Conservative party conference in 1992.[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not a lord."] He is a noble person anyway.
  It now takes one day and less than £85 to start up a business in Britain—our record is among the best in Europe. It is interesting that, in a motion that seeks to undermine small businesses, the Conservative party pays no respect to the position of small businesses, the role that they have played and the help that they have been given. Compared with when we took office, people in 700,000 fewer small businesses have to fill in VAT forms on their tables on Sundays, because we have raised the VAT threshold. In addition, raising the

  489
  statutory audit requirement to more than £1 million has helped 150,000 small businesses. Small businesses have made a real difference to this country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made a very powerful plea for ensuring that there are more social enterprises and that more is done in line with the Phoenix fund and other regional funds to help not only small businesses to start up locally, but local communities too. When I launched the OneLondon initiative yesterday, I was able to pay tribute to a Brixton-based company that was refused money—
  David Maclean: In order to save the Minister's career, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 343.

  Division No. 273]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Allan, Richard

  Dodds, Nigel

  Amess, David

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Bacon, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baker, Norman

  Fallon, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Flook, Adrian

  Barker, Gregory

  Forth, rh Eric

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Francois, Mark

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garnier, Edward

  Bercow, John

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gidley, Sandra

  Boswell, Tim

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Goodman, Paul

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Brazier, Julian

  Grayling, Chris

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Greenway, John

  Burnett, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burnside, David

  Gummer, rh John

  Burstow, Paul

  Hague, rh William

  Butterfill, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Abingdon)

  Cameron, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Heath, David

  Barnet)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Chidgey, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Chope, Christopher

  Hermon, Lady

  Clappison, James

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Holmes, Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Collins, Tim

  Howard, rh Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Jack, rh Michael

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Stamford)

  Keetch, Paul

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Howden)

  Inverness)

  490

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Selous, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lamb, Norman

  Simmonds, Mark

  Lansley, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

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

  Leigh, Edward

  Kincardine)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Loughton, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Streeter, Gary

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Stunell, Andrew

  Maclean, rh David

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Syms, Robert

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Atcham)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mercer, Patrick

  Thurso, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Coldfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moore, Michael

  Trimble, rh David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Norman, Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Viggers, Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Walter, Robert

  Öpik, Lembit

  Waterson, Nigel

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Ottaway, Richard

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Page, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Wiggin, Bill

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Willetts, David

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Redwood, rh John

  Willis, Phil

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Wilshire, David

  Rendel, David

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  (Macclesfield)

  M-Kent)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ruffley, David

  Mr. Mark Field and

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mr. John Randall

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bell, Stuart

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Benn, Hilary

  Ainger, Nick

  Bennett, Andrew

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Berry, Roger

  Allen, Graham

  Best, Harold

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Darwen)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Blunkett, rh David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Austin, John

  Borrow, David

  Baird, Vera

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Banks, Tony

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Battle, John

  Brennan, Kevin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Beard, Nigel

  Wallsend)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Browne, Desmond

  491

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burden, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burnham, Andy

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Challen, Colin

  Hain, rh Peter

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Fatrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Havard Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Chryston)

  Rhymney)

  Clelland, David

  Healey, John

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coleman, Iain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heyes, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Sefton E)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Urmston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  David, Wayne

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Dawson, Hilton

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Denham, rh John

  Jamieson, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dismore, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Hartfield)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kemp, Fraser

  Efford, Clive

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Khabra Piara S.

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kidney, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ewing, Annabelle

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Farrelly, Paul

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bow)

  Fisher, Mark

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Flint Caroline

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Follett, Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  & Rye)

  Lepper, David

  Foulkes, rh George

  Leslie, Christopher

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  492

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rammell, Bill

  Love, Andrew

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Bellshill)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  McCafferty, Chris

  Anniesland)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  MacDonald, Calum

  NW)

  McDonnell, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  MacDougall, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McFall, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruane, Chris

  McKechin, Ann

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McNulty, Tony

  Chester)

  MacShane, Denis

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Salmond, Alex

  McWalter, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  McWilliam, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Shettleston)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Merron, Gillian

  Finsbury)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Miller, Andrew

  Lunesdale)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mole, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Moran, Margaret

  Southworth, Helen

  Morgan, Julie

  Spellar, rh John

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Rachel

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mountford, Kali

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Stringer, Graham

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

  Organ, Diana

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Owen, Albert

  Tipping, Paddy

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pearson, Ian

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Picking, Anne

  Trickett, Jon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Truswell, Paul

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kemptown)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pound, Stephen

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  E)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Dinefwr)

  Ward, Claire

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watts, David

  493

  White, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Baillieston)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Yarmouth)

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Winnick, David

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Wyatt, Derek

  C)

  Wishart, Pete

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Vernon Coaker and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Charlotte Atkins

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 185.

  Division No. 274]

  [7:14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Alexander, Douglas

  Chryston)

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Coaker, Vernon

  Darwen)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cohen, Harry

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Colman, Tony

  Austin, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Baird, Vera

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Banks, Tony

  Corston, Jean

  Barnes, Harry

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beard, Nigel

  Crausby, David

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cruddas, Jon

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Bell, Stuart

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Berry, Roger

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Best, Harold

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Betts, Clive

  David, Wayne

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davidson, Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Borrow, David

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Denham, rh John

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Dismore, Andrew

  Wallsend)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doran, Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burnham, Andy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Etherington, Bill

  Caplin, Ivor

  Farrelly, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Caton, Martin

  Fisher, Mark

  Challen, Colin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Follett, Barbara

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  494

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  & Rye)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Linton, Martin

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Love, Andrew

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Gilroy, Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh, S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Grogan, John

  McDonnell, John

  Hain, rh Peter

  MacDougall, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McFall, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hanson, David

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McNulty, Tony

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  MacShane, Denis

  Rhymney)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Healey, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heppell, John

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heyes, David

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Shettleston)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Merron, Gillian

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Miller, Andrew

  Sefton E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mole, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Julie

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mountford, Kali

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Highgate)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hatfield)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Owen, Albert

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Picking, Anne

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Plaskitt, James

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kidney, David

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Bow)

  E)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Prescott, rh John

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lammy, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Purchase, Ken

  Lepper, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rammell, Bill

  495

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Sutcliffe Gerry

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Bellshill)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Anniesland)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Tipping, Paddy

  NW)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Rooney, Terry

  Trickett, Jon

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Truswell Paul

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Ruane, Chris

  Kemptown)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Chester)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Salter, Martin

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sawford, Phil

  Ward, Claire

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Watts, David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  White, Brian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Singh Marsha

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Skinner Dennis

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Wills, Michael

  Finsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Lunesdale)

  C)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Southworth, Helen

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Spellar, rh John

  Baillieston)

  Squire, Rachel

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Yarmouth)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Stringer, Graham

  Margaret Moran

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Barnet)

  Bacon, Richard

  Chidgey, David

  Baker, Norman

  Chope, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Barker, Gregory

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Collins, Tim

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Conway, Derek

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cotter, Brian

  Bercow, John

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Blunt, Crispin

  Stamford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Howden)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brazier, Julian

  Dodds, Nigel

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Burnett, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Burnside, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Westminster)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Flight, Howard

  Cameron, David

  Fook, Adrian

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Forth, rh Eric

  496

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Dinefwr)

  Francois, Mark

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Garnier, Edward

  Pugh, Dr. John

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Redwood, rh John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Rendel, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Grayling, Chris

  M-Kent)

  Green Damian (Ashford)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Greenway, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gummer, rh John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hague, rh William

  Ruffley, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Harvey, Nick

  Salmond, Alex

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heald, Oliver

  Selous, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hermon, Lady

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Holmes, Paul

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

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Kincardine)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jack, rh Michael

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spring, Richard

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Keetch, Paul

  Steen, Anthony

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Streeter, Gary

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Syms, Robert

  Lamb, Norman

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lansley Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lidington, David

  Thurso, John

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tredinnick, David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Trimble, rh David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Maclean, rh David

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Malins, Humfrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Walter, Robert

  Atcham)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maude, rh Francis

  Watkinson, Angela

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whittingdale, John

  Mercer, Patrick

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Mitchell Andrew, (Sutton

  Wiggin, Bill

  Coldfield)

  Willetts, David

  Moore, Michael

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Moss Malcolm

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Murrison Dr. Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Norman, Archie

  Wilshire, David

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Öpik, Lembit

  (Macclesfield)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Wishart, Pete

  Ottaway, Richard

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Page, Richard

  Young, rh Sir George

  Paterson, Owen

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. John Randall and

  Mr. Mark Hoban

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House agrees that small and medium-sized businesses are crucial to the prosperity of the nation and will be responsible for many of the new jobs and much of the future innovation in the economy; welcomes the steps that the Government has taken to make it easier than ever before for people to start their own business; acknowledges that the Government has created the economic conditions of macro-economic stability and low and stable interest rates in which small business can grown and prosper; believes that the Government has created a pro-enterprise tax environment; and applauds the Government for improving access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses, removing unnecessary regulations and providing world class business support.
  Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, as you know, the House passed a draconian and very tight programme motion on the Hunting Bill for its recommittal to the old Standing Committee, requiring that Committee to report by Monday next week. The first opportunity for the Programming Sub-Committee to meet, for the convenience of the Chairman and the Clerk, was at 6.15 this evening.
  The Programming Sub-Committee met, it was not a particularly easy meeting, and the motion was controversial. Eventually, at about 6.50 this evening it was agreed that the Committee would probably meet at 9.25 am tomorrow, and the Clerk left the Committee Room to ensure that the cards were put on the board so that members of the Committee were aware of the decision of the Programming Sub-Committee. At that stage, it was an informal decision on which no vote had taken place. It was an attempt to ensure that hon. Members were aware of the fact that the Committee would meet tomorrow.
  I have just been to the board and the cards are still not there, so no member of the Committee can know formally that the Committee is to meet tomorrow, at what time or where. Furthermore, the time of the meeting has been changed from the usual time of 8.55 am to 9.25 am. There will be considerable confusion tomorrow morning, as a result of the excessively tight programme motion. As no formal notification has been given to members of the Committee that the Committee is to meet, can it properly meet?
  Mr. James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is that not symptomatic of the fact that, contrary to any precedent that I can find in "Erskine May" or anywhere else, the recommittal of the Bill to Committee has taken far less time than any previous recommittal and is greatly more controversial than other recommittal? Most recommittals are only for technical matters that need to be corrected by the Committee. This is the first occasion that I can find, in any precedent that I have looked at, on which such a controversial and difficult matter has been returned to the Committee in this way.
  Giving us only two days in which to table amendments, write speaking notes and consult outside bodies is an extraordinary way to treat the matter. Symptomatic of it is the fact that the Clerks have asked for extra time tomorrow morning. They have asked us to sit at 9.25 am to allow them extra time to get the
  498
  amendments, and so on, in order before the Committee sits. Surely it would be more proper for us to come back to the House to request that the Committee sit next week, so that we have more time properly to consider the difficult amendments to such a controversial matter?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): May I say to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that the House has taken a clear decision on recommittal, and that is not for the Chair to comment on this evening? With regard to the cards that were the subject of the first point of order, that is entirely a matter for the Chairman of the Committee. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), and I understand that every effort is being made to get the cards in place as quickly as possible. We must now move on.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We understand that tomorrow the Government intend to publish a White Paper that will contain major policy announcements about the future of the national lottery. We further understand that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is to give a press conference and a major speech on the matter, but given previous rulings by Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would deprecate it if such announcements were made at press conferences and on the "Today" programme, but not through a statement in the House. Have you had any indication that the Secretary of State intends to make a statement to the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no information as far that point is concerned, but Mr. Speaker has made his views on these matters very clear on many occasions and the hon. Gentleman has now put his point firmly on record.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If what my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) says is true, it would be very helpful and reassuring to the House if you were prepared, through your good offices, to let it be known to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that there should be no question of her touring the studios or giving a press conference before coming to the House in order to make herself available to be questioned about the White Paper, which is, by definition, a major policy statement. Mr. Speaker has repeatedly made it clear—he did so recently—that on policy statements above all, the Secretary of State must come to this House first. It would be helpful—I do not think that this is an unreasonable request—if you now made that very clear, to ensure that the Secretary of State is under no illusions about the views of Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only repeat to the right hon. Gentleman the point that I have already made. Mr. Speaker feels extremely strongly about these matters and I have no doubt that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the points that have been made.

  Small Businesses
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) and Order of 4 June,
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
      That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in Budget 2003 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—[Margaret Moran.]
      Question agreed to.

  Endometriosis
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
  7.31 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: I am delighted to have secured this debate on the treatment of endometriosis. I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, and tonight's debate coincides with a mass lobby that was held this afternoon in Westminster Hall. It was organised by the two charities that work with sufferers of endometriosis—the National Endometriosis Society and the SHE Trust.
  I must begin, however, by blaming my constituent, Shelby Thomas, for my presence here tonight. If it had not been for Shelby, I would still be as ignorant of this gynaecological condition as the vast majority of the population and, I have to admit, some of the medical profession. It was Shelby who wrote to me describing how endometriosis had devastated her life. She asked me to become involved in lobbying for more resources and helping to raise awareness of this debilitating condition. Believe it or not, until today I had not met her face to face. We had corresponded by letter and often spoken on the telephone, but we never managed to meet up until she made the long trek down to London today to attend the mass lobby in Westminster Hall. I am delighted that Shelby and her friend Amanda, who is also from Aberdeen, were able to stay for the debate. They have a sleeper to catch and I hope that they will still make it, but they are in the Gallery now listening to this debate.
  It was thanks to Shelby that I innocently wandered along to the inaugural meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis two years ago. Even more innocently, I found myself being elected as chair to the group. I felt a complete and utter fraud, as I knew so little about endometriosis at the time. I knew little about its causes and effects, and about what could be done to alleviate the worst of its symptoms. It is said that a year is a long time in politics, and I now know so much more about the condition that I am even more determined to do everything I can to help ensure that sufficient resources are available for diagnosis, treatment and awareness raising.
  Endometriosis is a gynaecological condition that affects 2 million women in the UK. It is often an extremely painful disease, especially during menstruation and after intercourse. Sufferers can experience infertility, fatigue, relationship problems and depression. It can frequently lead to lost days at work. Consequently, sufferers can lose their jobs and have to deal with the financial insecurity on top of everything else. Yet this crippling disease, which is so common and affects so many women in our communities, is little known or understood.
  There is a lack of knowledge about endometriosis that ranges not only from those of us in this place, but to educators, the medical profession and young women who may suffer from the condition but have never received an accurate diagnosis.
  Shelby Thomas's story is typical. If I may, I will explain a wee bit about her background. She suffered pain from the age of nine, but it was not until she was 27

  501
  that she was diagnosed as having endometriosis. When she visited her general practitioner, she was told, as so many are, that it was merely bad period pains and that she would have to learn to live with it. Eventually, she was referred to a gynaecological specialist, but that specialist—a woman, who she thought would feel more sympathy—was as unsympathetic as her GP. It was not until she insisted on seeing another consultant that she finally received the right diagnosis. At the age of 28, she had a hysterectomy; now, aged 31, she is post-menopausal. That is not an untypical story, and it reflects the difficulty, first, of getting the level of pain that is being suffered taken seriously, then of getting an accurate diagnosis of what exactly is the matter.
  I asked for tonight's Adjournment debate not only to bring this widespread but little heard of condition to the attention of the House, but to ask the Government to end the situation whereby it takes seven years on average for an endometriosis sufferer to be accurately diagnosed. That is an awful state of affairs, and it is leading to prolonged and unnecessary suffering by endometriosis victims. I ask the Government to provide the necessary investment to end that lack of awareness in the health service and particularly, if the Minister is able to do only one thing, to concentrate that funding on GPs. They are the first line of service. It is to GPs who women with severe gynaecological pain first present, and we depend on GPs to think that it might be more than just a severe period pain. If GPs and practice nurses are made aware of endometriosis and what its symptoms are like, hopefully more women will be referred to an endometriosis or gynaecological specialist much more quickly, so that one of the treatments can start.
  There is no cure for endometriosis, but there are some treatments, not all of which work for every person. Once a woman overcomes the first hurdle in getting an accurate diagnosis, two types of treatment may be possible. The first is drug therapy, whereby endometriosis sufferers are given hormone drugs that mimic pregnancy or the menopause to prevent the growth of the endometriosis. Often, however, the endometriosis grows back and the sufferer has to undergo another course of medication or surgery. The second option, surgery, can be very radical. Sometimes it is keyhole surgery, but as often as not it is open surgery and, again, it is not necessarily the end of the matter because the endometriosis can grow back. A well balanced diet can also sometimes alleviate the symptoms of endometriosis.
  Since I became chair of the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, I have heard the testimonies of many sufferers who have described the combinations of surgery and drug therapy that have been used, but have brought them no relief. Just this afternoon, after a lobby in Westminster Hall, we held a meeting in one of the Committee Rooms upstairs, where, as women told their story, other women frequently found themselves in tears because the story was all too familiar to them all. It was the story of being told that all they had was a bad period pain and that they should grow up and stop being such a wimp; of the difficulty that they have with relationships and the understanding that is required of their husbands and partners; of the search for an effective treatment; and, worst of all, of the constant pain that is often never relieved.
  502
  I want to pay tribute to the two main charities that carry out the work with endometriosis sufferers—the National Endometriosis Society and the Simply Holistic Endometriosis Trust, which is better known as the SHE Trust. Their work is complemented by that of many local organisations, all of which offer services and support to those with the condition—for instance, free all-year confidential helplines, usually staffed by volunteers. They have UK-wide support groups, and provide replies to medical questions from endometriosis experts. It is quite difficult for women in rural areas, or areas where no member of the gynaecological team may be an endometriosis expert, to obtain such information. They also offer self-management and volunteer training courses. There is, of course, the website that everyone has nowadays; there are publications and information leaflets; and the groups organise national endometriosis health days and lobbies of Parliament. There is a tremendous amount of voluntary support, and it is thanks to the hard work of those organisations that endometriosis is finally getting on to the health agenda.
  One of the all-party group's initiatives of which I am very proud is our organisation of a seminar at the end of April last year. We invited a number of GPs, gynaecologists, researchers, nurses and endometriosis sufferers, as well as parliamentarians, to engage in a much needed sharing of information in Portcullis House. It was a very successful day: it focused people's minds, and enabled them to concentrate on what they wanted the Government to do. We were lucky in that the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), was able to attend before being transferred to the Home Office in the recent reshuffle.
  This was the first time that a Minister had attended an endometriosis event, and many of us remarked that that represented a sea change: at last the Government were prepared to act positively. Indeed, the Minister described endometriosis as a key issue for Government—citing its long-term nature and the fact that the waiting time for accurate diagnosis was staggering—and said that medical training and awareness must be a top priority. She also said that specialist centres were still on the agenda for consideration. I invite the new Under-Secretary of State for Health to associate herself with those remarks, and to assure us that that is still the Government's position.
  A number of suggestions were made at the seminar, and we hope that they will be translated into action in the coming year. One was the establishment of national treatment centres to provide specialist help. Arguably the most important point, however, concerned the need for a national framework. That has worked very well in the context of diseases such as cancer, as we have seen in England and Wales and—although perhaps not in quite the same way—in Scotland.
  There was a great deal of discussion about the need to raise awareness of the condition among women and health professionals—particularly school nurses, who can explain to young girls what may be going on in their bodies and not be dismissive when they present with severe period pain. It was felt that charities involved with endometriosis needed support, and that there should be a mechanism allowing a consistent programme of dialogue between doctors, consultants,

  503
  the national health service, voluntary organisations and parent forums. The all-party group played its part in organising that first seminar, but we hope to arrange more in the coming years—perhaps dealing with different aspects of the condition.
  Inevitably, there was the ubiquitous request for extra funds—funds for research, and for treatment and awareness-raising. The Minister has listened patiently. I hope she will ensure that endometriosis moves up the priority list when it comes to deciding on NHS funding. The well-being of many women with the condition depends on that.
  7.44 pm
  John McDonnell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). Many women came here today to tell us their stories, which were heartrending. This is the third lobby that we have had, and on each occasion women have left the Palace of Westminster with a little more hope than they had when they arrived. The hope with which they left today was that a Minister who had already expressed her concerns about the condition, and who would respond to this debate, would work with us and concentrate on the issues on our agenda in the coming year.
  The all-party group has established itself around that agenda this year. There are several key factors for us now. First, the awareness campaign is crucial. We thought that one of the most effective ideas would be for local organisations, working with their national organisations, the NES and the SHE Trust, to work in harmony with the Department in developing an awareness campaign, using their own resources, of course, but with a little additional resource from central Government. That programme of work could be effective in raising awareness not just among the medical profession but among all others who come into contact with sufferers.
  Secondly, we want to develop a research programme in our work for the coming year. Already we have identified, in debate after debate and discussion after discussion, the lack of research into the condition and the paucity of resources to research it. Although this is a plea for additional resources, we feel that, in its impact on the overall economy, it will be cost-effective. Too many women and families are losing days at work as a result of the condition; in fact, they are losing whole careers.
  We have also suggested work to develop treatment centres, but the important thing for us is to get the condition on the agenda of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Many arguments have been advanced that it is not a life-threatening condition, so it has not been given the priority of other conditions. We have heard today of the experiences of many people and their families, where it has become life threatening, particularly because of its effect on people's mental health and the risk of suicide as a result of the condition.
  We urge that priority be given to the condition. We know that the Government are sympathetic. We want to work directly with the Government through the all-party group and with the national organisations to
  504
  prepare a programme of work for the coming year, which will raise the hopes and spirits of the many women who have suffered from the condition.
  7.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) on securing the debate on this important subject. It is a subject to which she has devoted considerable time and energy as chair of the all-party group on endometriosis. What makes it all the more fitting is that today, as she has mentioned, is national endometriosis awareness day. There has been much activity around Westminster as a result. I was particularly struck by her account of how she came to be involved in the issue. I recognise the fact that it is often through our constituents that our attention is drawn to these important subjects.
  Endometriosis is the second most common gynaecological condition in this country; it is second only to uterine fibroids. It affects up to about 2 million women. It is estimated that between 3 and 10 per cent. of women aged between 15 and 45 years have endometriosis. In women who have difficulty conceiving, the rate rises to about 25 to 35 per cent. It is a condition that remains with a woman intermittently throughout the reproductive years of her life. For many women the continuing recurrent pain and other symptoms can make life difficult or even intolerable.
  This is a puzzling illness steeped in myths. Many theories have been put forward as to what causes the condition. The fact is that we do not know. Symptoms can range from mild discomfort to disabling and crippling symptoms in its later stages. As my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) have mentioned, it is a disease that can have lasting effects on a woman's ability to conceive, to work and to maintain relationships. We cannot afford to underestimate the importance of endometriosis and its effects on many people.
  Women can develop endometriosis at any time, although it is extremely rare for it to be diagnosed following the onset of the menopause. Outdated ideas about who is likely to have endometriosis are unfortunately still common. There remains a belief that it is an illness of career-oriented women over the age of 30, although we appear finally to be moving on from the school of thought that believes pregnancy will sort it out.
  Endometriosis is not always easy to diagnose. The poignant stories that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South has told highlight that. The NES has estimated that it can take up to seven years for a woman to be diagnosed. That is a staggering statistic and simply not acceptable in the NHS of the 21st century. It can mimic or accompany other causes of abdominal pain, such as irritable bowel syndrome. It is also important to exclude pelvic inflammatory disease, also a cause of pain and suffering in many women. Laparoscopy, the examination of the pelvic area through a small incision into the abdominal cavity with an instrument with attached light, is the only sure way of diagnosing endometriosis. It is important for everyone concerned that endometriosis be recognised early, referred for treatment and handled sensitively.

  505
  I could list the many treatments available, but I want to leave aside the medical management of the disease and its symptoms, the opportunities for surgery and the use of the contraceptive pill, because there are other points that I should like to concentrate on in the 10 minutes that I have left.
  A lot of women are looking to complementary therapies to help alleviate the symptoms. The Department has commissioned the Prince of Wales's Foundation for Integrated Health to publish information for patients on the safe use of complementary and alternative medicines. That will include advice on how to choose a regulated and competent practitioner.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South and for Hayes and Harlington made particular reference to the need to increase knowledge, understanding and awareness of this issue. We certainly support GPs' increasing their knowledge of endometriosis. At first pass, endometriosis may not be an obvious diagnosis; however, there are clear pointers that GPs should be able to recognise. They should certainly always think of endometriosis in cases of prolonged painful periods, painful penetrative sex and unexplained infertility. And they must refer women with such symptoms for a laparoscopy at the earliest opportunity. Early diagnosis is essential for this condition.
  I know that the all-party group and the NES would like to see more awareness campaigns on endometriosis, particularly for younger women, who are increasingly showing symptoms of this disease. I am delighted to announce that we will fund the NES to produce two information leaflets. One will be aimed at raising awareness among women and encouraging those with symptoms to discuss them with their GP. The other will be specifically for GPs, highlighting the symptoms to enable GPs to identify them and to refer women for diagnosis and appropriate treatment. This is a very positive step forward that I hope will be seen as a continuing indication of this Government's commitment to improving the lives of women with endometriosis.
  Today, women rightly expect to receive more information about their health, and they are keen to access information on individual health problems. Armed with such information, they want a proper and full discussion about the options that are available to them. Of course, it is important that a woman discuss endometriosis fully with the doctor providing her care. Self-help groups do play an important part, however, and we should not underestimate the importance of patient support groups, and of the patients themselves working together on a voluntary basis, in raising awareness of endometriosis and providing support for others in the same situation. Indeed, it is invaluable for a woman to find someone else—whether at the end of a
  506
  phone or face to face, as has happened today—who can appreciate what she is going through from personal experience.
  Many of these self-help groups are organised and supported by voluntary organisations that help women who suffer from endometriosis. I should like to acknowledge their role in providing support and advice for such women, and the role played by individuals in setting up those groups and advancing the issues that we are discussing. The NES is the only body in the country to devote itself exclusively to this matter. It works tirelessly to encourage and sustain mutual support among sufferers through its network of support groups. It encourages greater awareness of the condition and its consequences among the medical profession and the general public. I am delighted to say that the Department of Health works closely with the NES and with other organisations such as Women's Health and Women's Health Concern, which offer help and a range of information services to endometriosis sufferers. Indeed, they receive financial support for the good work that they do through our section 64 grants scheme.
  I hope that my comments have emphasised the Government's continuing commitment to services for endometriosis. We do recognise, however, that there are good examples of best practice work being undertaken, and that there is a long way to go before we can establish good communications between every doctor and patient. I know that the NES, in particular, would like more complex cases to be treated in a limited number of tertiary centres, with more general care being given in secondary centres. I am aware that some specialist clinics treat advanced cases of endometriosis, but those have been developed locally in response to need, as opposed to being organised nationally. Such specialised commissioning is available only for a few very rare conditions that have to fulfil strict conditions. I would be happy to consider the NES's views, but I would need to be convinced that this was the best way of organising those services.
  As I said earlier, we shall be addressing the issue of raising awareness of endometriosis among both women and general practitioners through the development of the information leaflets. I know from what my hon. Friends have told me this evening and from what I have already read and heard, that this campaign and the organisation for awareness are central to ensuring that yet more women do not have the experience—and the resulting trauma, both physical and mental—of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. I hope that the leaflets will be of enormous benefit both to sufferers and to GPs and will result in quicker diagnosis and a better quality of life, which we all want for all the women who suffer from endometriosis.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eight o'clock.

  Deferred Divisions

    DEFENCE
    That the draft Armed Forces (Review of Search and Seizure) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 28 April, be approved.
    The House divided: Ayes 432, Noes 0.

    Division No. 270]

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Anisworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Amess, David

    Caplin, Ivor

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Casale, Roger

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Caton, Martin

    Darwen)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Challen, Colin

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Barnet)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Chidgey, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Clapham, Michael

    Austin, John

    Clappison, James

    Bailey, Adrian

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Baker, Norman

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Barker, Gregory

    Pentlands)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Carke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Barret, John

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Chryston)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Beard, Niger

    Clelland, David

    Beckeet, rh Margaret

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Collins, Tm

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Colman, Tony

    Beith, rh A.J.

    Conway, Derek

    Bell, Stuart

    Cooper, Yvette

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Bennett, Andrew

    Corston, Jean

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Cousins, Jim

    Berry, Roger

    Carnston, Ross

    Best, Harold

    Crausby, David

    Blair, rh David

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cunningham, Jim (Coverty S)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Blunkett, rh David

    Curry, rh David

    Blunt, Crispin

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Borrow, David

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    David, Wayne

    Brady, Graham

    Davidson, Ian

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Brazier, Julian

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Howden)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Browne, Desmond

    Dawson, Hilton

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dismore, Andrew

    Burden, Richard

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Burnett, John

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Burnham, Andy

    Dodds, Nigel

    Burns, Simon

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Burnside, David

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Burstow, Paul

    Doran, Frank

    Burt, Alistair

    Doughty, Sue

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Cameron, David

    Duncan Smith, rh Iain

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    508

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Howard, rh Michael

    Edwards, Huw

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Efford, Clive

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Sefton E)

    Evans, Nigel

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Fabricant, Michael

    Urmston)

    Fallon, Michael

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Field, Mark (Cities of London &

    Hutton, rh John

    Westminster)

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Illsley, Eric

    Flight, Howard

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Flint, Caroline

    Jack, rh Michael

    Flook, Adrian

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

    Follett, Barbara

    Highgate)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Jamieson, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

    Jenkin, Bernard

    & Rye)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Foulkes, rh George

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Hatfield)

    Francois, Mark

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Gapes, Mike (Ifford S)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Gardiner, Barry

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Garnier, Edward

    Keetch, Paul

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Gerrard, Neil

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Kidney, David

    Gidley, Sandra

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Gilroy, Linda

    Bow)

    Goggins, Paul

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Goodman, Paul

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Greenway, John

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Grieve, Dominic

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Grogan, John

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Gummer, rh John

    Lammy, David

    Hague, rh William

    Lansley, Andrew

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Hammond, Philip

    Leigh, Edward

    Hanson, David

    Lepper, David

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Harvey, Nick

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Rhymney)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Heald, Oliver

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Heath, David

    Lidington, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Loughton, Tim

    Hendrick, Mark

    Love, Andrew

    Hendry, Charles

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Heppell, John

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Hermon, Lady

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Hesford, Stephen

    McCabe, Stephen

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    McCafferty, Chris

    Heyes, David

    MacDonald, Calum

    Hinchliffe, David

    McGrady, Eddie

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hodge, Margaret

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Holmes, Paul

    McKechin, Ann

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    McNulty, Tony

    509

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    McWalter, Tony

    Anniesland)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Mallaber, Judy

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Ruane, Chris

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

    Ruddock, Joan

    Atcham)

    Ruffley, David

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Shettleston)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of

    Martlew, Eric

    Chester)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Salmond, Alex

    Mercer, Patrick

    Salter, Martin

    Merron, Gillian

    Sanders, Adrian

    Michael, rh Alun

    SarNar, Mohammad

    Miliband, David

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Miller, Andrew

    Sawford, Phil

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Coldfield)

    Selous, Andrew

    Mole, Chris

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Moore, Michael

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Moran, Margaret

    Sheridan, Jim

    Morgan, Julie

    Simmonds, Mark

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Singh, Marsha

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Murrison Dr. Andrew

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Soley, Clive

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Southworth, Helen

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Spring, Richard

    Olner, Bill

    Squire, Rachel

    Öpik, Lembit

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Organ, Diana

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Ottaway, Richard

    Streeter, Gary

    Owen, Albert

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Page, Richard

    Stunell, Andrew

    Paice, James

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Paterson, Owen

    Syms, Robert

    Picking, Anne

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Plaskitt, James

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Pound, Stephen

    Timms, Stephen

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Tipping, Paddy

    E)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

    Dinefwr)

    Tredinnick, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Trickett, Jon

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Trimble, rh David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Truswell, Paul

    Rammell, Bill

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Randall, John

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Redwood, rh John

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Rendel, David

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    M-Kent)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    510

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas

    Waterson, Nigel

    (Macclesfield)

    Watkinson, Angela

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Watts, David

    C)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Wishart, Pete

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Worthington, Tony

    Willetts, David

    Wray, James (Glasgow

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Baillieston)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Yarmouth)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Young, rh Sir George

  NOES
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  NOES

    IMMIGRATION
    That the draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 5 June, be approved.
    The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 164.

    Division No. 271]

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

    Alexander, Douglas

    Pentlands)

    Allen, Graham

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

    Chryston)

    Darwen)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Clelland, David

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Colman, Tony

    Austin, John

    Cooper, Yvette

    Bailey, Adrian

    Corston, Jean

    Barnes, Harry

    Cousins, Jim

    Barren, rh Kevin

    Cranston, Ross

    Bayley, Hugh

    Crausby, David

    Beard Nigel

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Bell, Stuart

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Benn, Hilary

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Bennett, Andrew

    David, Wayne

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Davidson, Ian

    Berry, Roger

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Best, Harold

    Davies, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Blair, rh Tony

    Dawson, Hilton

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Blunkett, rh David

    Dismore, Andrew

    Borrow, David

    Dobbin Jim (Heywood)

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Donohoe, Brign H.

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Doran, Frank

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Browne, Desmond

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Burden, Richard

    Edwards, Huw

    Burnham, Andy

    Efford, Clive

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Flint, Caroline

    Caplin, Ivor

    Follett, Barbara

    Casale, Roger

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Caton, Martin

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    & Rye)

    Challen, Colin

    Foulkes, rh George

    Clapham, Michael

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Gardiner, Barry

    511

    Gerrard, Neil

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    McKechin, Ann

    Gilroy, Linda

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Goggins, Paul

    McNulty, Tony

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Grogan, John

    McWalter, Tony

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hanson, David

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Rhymney)

    Marshall, David (Glasgow

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Shettleston)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hendrick, Mark

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Merron, Gillian

    Heppell, John

    Michael, rh Alun

    Hermon, Lady

    Miliband, David

    Hesford, Stephen

    Miller, Andrew

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Mole, Chris

    Heyes, David

    Moran, Margaret

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morgan, Julie

    Hodge, Margaret

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Sefton E)

    Olner, Bill

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Organ, Diana

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Urmston)

    Owen, Albert

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Picking, Anne

    Hutton, rh John

    Pickthall, Colin

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Illsley, Eric

    Plaskitt, James

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Pollard, Kerry

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Highgate)

    Pound, Stephen

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

    Jamieson, David

    E)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Hatfield)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Rammell, Bill

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow

    Kemp, Fraser

    Anniesland)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Kidney, David

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Ruane, Chris

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

    Ruddock, Joan

    Bow)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Chester)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Salter, Martin

    Lammy, David

    Sarwar, Muhammad

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Sawford, Phil

    Lepper, David

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Leslie, Christopher

    Sheridan, Jim

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Singh, Marsha

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Love, Andrew

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Soley, Clive

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Southworth, Helen

    McCabe, Stephen

    Squire, Rachel

    McCafferty, Chris

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    MacDonald, Calum

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McGrady, Eddie

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    512

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Watts, David

    Timms, Stephen

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Tipping, Paddy

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

    Trickett, Jon

    C)

    Trimble, rh David

    Worthington, Tony

    Truswell, Paul

    Wray, James (Glasgow

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Baillieston)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Yarmouth)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Wyatt, Derek

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Garnier, Edward

    Amess, David

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Baker, Norman

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Barker, Gregory

    Goodman, Paul

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Barrett, John

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Greenway, John

    Bellingham, Henry

    Grieve, Dominic

    Blunt Crispin

    Gummer, rh John

    Brady, Graham

    Hague, rh William

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Hammond, Philip

    Brazier, Julian

    Harvey, Nick

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Hawkins, Nick

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Heald, Oliver

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Heath, David

    Burnett, John

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Burns, Simon

    Hendry, Charles

    Burnside, David

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Burstow, Paul

    Holmes, Paul

    Burt, Alistair

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Howard, rh Michael

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Jack, rh Michael

    Cameron, David

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Keetch, Paul

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Barnet)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Chidgey, David

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Clappison, James

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Collins, Tim

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Conway, Derek

    Lansley, Andrew

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Curry, rh David

    Leigh, Edward

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Howden)

    Lidington, David

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Dodds, Nigel

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Loughton, Tim

    Doughty, Sue

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Duncan Smith, rh lain

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Evans, Nigel

    Malins, Humfrey

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

    Fabricant, Michael

    Atcham)

    Fallon, Michael

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Field, Mark (Cities of London &

    Mercer, Patrick

    Westminster)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

    Flight, Howard

    Coldfield)

    Flook, Adrian

    Moore, Michael

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Francois, Mark

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    513

    Öpik, Lembit

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

    Ottaway, Richard

    M-Kent)

    Page, Richard

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Paice, James

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Paterson, Owen

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

    Ruffley, David

    Dinefwr)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Salmond, Alex

    Randall, John

    Sanders, Adrian

    Redwood, rh John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Selous, Andrew

    Rendel, David

    Shepherd, rh Mrs Gillian

    Robathan, Andrew

    Simmonds, Mark

    514

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Spring, Richard

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Streeter, Gary

    Waterson, Nigel

    Stunell, Andrew

    Watkinson, Angela

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Syms, Robert

    Willetts, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    (Macclesfield)

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Wisher, Pete

    Tredinnick, David

    Young, rh Sir George

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Burma
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.
9.30 am
Mr. lain Luke: This is a debate that I, and many others, have been trying to secure for some time. It was the reason behind my question to the Leader of the House on 12 June during business questions. In requesting such a debate, I drew his attention to the concerns of 250 Members from both sides of the House, and of people throughout the UK, about the subject of early-day motions 1296, 1311 and 1316, which relate to the taking into protective custody of Aung San Suu Kyi. Since then, the number of Members who have signed those early-day motions has grown to 335, which is more than half the membership of the House. I am therefore grateful that Mr. Speaker has used his discretion to select this topic for general debate.
It is good to have an opportunity to raise concerns that are held by hon. Members of all parties about the continuing oppressive regime in Burma. In 1990, that regime removed, and has repressed ever since, the legitimately elected Government of Burma, and it stifles and puts in prison anyone who dares to campaign for a return to the democratic ideals that were so overwhelmingly endorsed in elections. Outwith the three early-day motions that I have mentioned, during this Session another five have been tabled, subscribed to by 316 Members. They all give voice to the concerns that we all feel about how the military regime maintains power. Eight early-day motions over a parliamentary Session is testimony to the depth of feeling in the House about the circumstances of Burma.
Events during the past month have meant that today's debate comes at a crucial time. Since the taking into protective custody of Aung San Suu Kyi, after a year of what could be called relative freedom, we have witnessed a swift return to retrenchment and repression. We need to renew our efforts and commitment both here at Westminster and further afield to sending a message to the regime—however isolated it is—that enough is enough. It should now stand aside to allow the country it so severely misgoverns, the people it so brutally represses and the ethnic groups it so viciously attacks and abuses to achieve what they undoubtedly deserve and desire: democratic normalcy.
I hope that today's debate will give added urgency to the efforts of our Government and of our allies to unite and apply the pressure that they can collectively muster on the military regime that has illegally controlled Burma for such a long time. As the secretary of the all-party group on democracy in Burma, I am especially glad to lead the debate. Unfortunately, the chair of the group, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who has been active in this field, cannot be with us this morning because of constituency business.
76WH
One of the prime reasons for establishing the all-party group was to act as a focus for parliamentary efforts in a campaign to bring about a peaceful change to the way in which Burma is governed. As ordinary parliamentarians, we want to do all we can to encourage the early establishment of a viable, democratic Government based on parliamentary democracy. That is a cause that Nobel peace prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, with her brave long-term commitment to, and consequent long-term imprisonment for, the campaign for freedom and democracy in Burma, has done so much so selflessly to advance. With her release just a year ago from arrest, when she spoke of a new dawn, we all hoped that change was coming. Her recent arrest and imprisonment in the notorious Insein prison, and the crackdown on her party, the National League for Democracy, and other groups campaigning for democratic change show how misplaced those hopes were and make it clear that there is now a need for a trumpet call to further action.
It is right at this stage, on the threshold of new activity, that I pay tribute on behalf of the all-party group to the many groups and individuals outside Parliament who have done so much in past decades to keep alive the cause of Suu Kyi and her fight for democracy in Burma. I also acknowledge the assistance and stimulus given to the all-party group by the Burma Campaign UK, which has done so much to spearhead a very successful disinvestment campaign in the UK.
I also publicly thank all those individuals, local Amnesty International groups and Church-based organisations that have contacted me in the past six months to draw to my attention and to that of the group the plight of the thousands of individuals unjustly and illegally imprisoned because of their belief in and support of the ideals of human rights and popular democracy. Unfortunately, they suffer for their beliefs and are jailed in notorious prisons throughout Burma. We hope to draw attention to their situation at the meeting of the all-party group next week to be held jointly with the all-party group on human rights, at which Mark Farmaner of the Burma Campaign UK will lead a discussion on human rights in Burma.
I wish to make very clear our respect and appreciation of how my hon. Friend the Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the officials who staff the south-east Asia desk in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the ambassador in Burma have handled the current crisis and have attempted during my time as a parliamentarian to bring pressure for change on the military regime.
I also personally thank my hon. Friend the Minister for intervening to arrange an opportunity for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar and me to meet the Burmese ambassador. We are now in touch with his office and hope to be able to raise with him directly in the next few weeks our concerns about the plight of all those who are imprisoned in Burma, but specifically Suu Kyi. We also hope to take the opportunity at that meeting to clarify the comments of the Burmese Foreign Minister, U Win Aung, who spoke about Suu Kyi's imminent release at the recent meeting of the Association of South East Asian Nations in Phnom Penh.

77WH
In making these points, I realise that the UK can do little on its own to effect real change, but the Government can follow the good advice given by UN Special Commissioner Rezali to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar and me when we met him during his last visit to the UK. He said that we must put whatever pressure we can on Burma's major trading partners, the ASEAN countries, to build on the attitudes that they were beginning to display at their last meeting, which, while falling short of direct criticism of Burma, made it clear that they were unhappy about the recent repressive acts embarked on by the Burmese Government.
In the words of ASEAN's secretary-general, Ong Keng Yong, all ASEAN members would like Suu Kyi to be free to do what she would like to do. She has made it very clear that she would like to bring about democratic change in Burma, and that is something that all members of ASEAN can support, as we do. As an all-party group, we hope—again, through the good offices of the FCO—to have an early opportunity to raise our concerns with the ambassadors in London of ASEAN countries. They hold regular meetings to discuss areas of common concern, and we hope to put to them the case for their added involvement in bringing about democratic change in Burma.
Through colleagues and friends in the European Parliament who are sympathetic to our cause, the all-party group hopes to spread that kind of lobbying through all the member states of the European Union so that MEPs do the same thing to the ambassadors of the ASEAN countries in their countries. That, I hope, will bring about a change of attitude in the ASEAN group.
I also hope that the Government will take up the matter again with Burma's closest trading partners, India and Bangladesh—who are not members of the ASEAN group—with whom, I believe, we have some influence. The circumstances in India and Burma could hardly be more different. They came to independence within a year of each other, but India has prospered from 50 years of stable democracy, while Burma has been stifled and has regressed in 40 years of military oppression.
In parallel with the initiatives in international diplomacy, the Government should give more prominence to the promotion of the disinvestment campaign being waged by the Burma Campaign UK. In that context, we welcome the Prime Minister's strong reply to a question put to him during Question Time last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin). He suggested that there was a need to take a stronger line with British companies investing in Burma.
The next target in the campaign is clear: it is the company with the biggest British investment in Burma, British American Tobacco. We need to campaign jointly to persuade that company to disinvest. No one could have put the arguments for disinvestment better than BAT's vice-chairman himself, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). He made the point forcefully in a letter to a constituent, in which he said that he
"sometimes feels uncomfortable about investment"
78WH
in Burma, and that the problem in Burma arises
"when companies start collaborating with an extremely unpleasant regime which is totally contrary to our notions of civil liberties and democracy".
Surely, the events of the past few weeks show that the regime cannot get any more unpleasant; nor can the activities and ideology—if there is one—of the Government of General Than Shwe be viewed as anything other than totally contrary to all the notions of civil liberties and democracy that we hold dear in this country. It is now time for the board of BAT and its vice-chairman to do the right and honourable thing, put principle before profit, and take the decision to disinvest from Burma today. Anything that the Government can do to aid us in our campaign will be very welcome.
I would like to deal with the plight of the numerous ethnic groups, who make up more than 20 per cent. of the Burmese population, and who have faced years of genocide and repression by the regime. As a group, we are being kept closely in touch with the continuing brutal campaign against these groups by the Burmese army—which is partially being undertaken, it appears, to create the economic infrastructure to enable western industrial concerns to make a profit out of their trading relationships and partnerships within that country. As a consequence, hundreds of thousands of people have been dispossessed, forced to flee and take refuge in the refugee camps just over the border in Thailand. I am sure that some hon. Members who contribute today will be able to give personal accounts of their visits to those refugee camps. Many of the NGOs that attend the all-party parliamentary group meetings are involved in providing aid and advocacy for the refugees and the separate ethnic groupings.
Whatever happens as a result of our campaign to bring about the restoration of democracy, whether it succeeds or fails, the groups and their welfare must continue to be a priority for ourselves as parliamentarians and for the Government. When change is achieved, as it surely eventually must be, the rights, aspirations, autonomy and welfare of all Burmese people and all the minorities there must be safeguarded and protected by law and by a new constitution for a new Burma, which we wish to see rising like a phoenix from the ashes and the poverty of the present anarchic economic system of military government.
My first awareness of Burma came from my father's wartime reminiscences, as a Burma Star veteran who fought at Kohima, crossed the Irrawaddy, and ended up in Mandalay, in what was often referred to as Slim's forgotten 14th Army. Burma and its domestic situation continue to be a distant, forgotten area of interest for many in the UK and throughout the world. Having said that, I readily acknowledge the consistent efforts of the present Government to reverse that situation. I hope that they take encouragement from this debate and from the constructive suggestions made on how to proceed, and on how parliamentarians can assist them.
I am glad to have been able to set today's debate in motion. I look forward to hearing the contributions of the many Members who have come along to take part, and the Minister's considered, concluding reply. The campaign goes on. In conclusion, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to thank Mr. Speaker for using his discretion to allow this very important debate to go ahead today.
9.45 am
Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke). He was right to ask for this debate, which is long overdue. I am delighted to be able to contribute.
I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman said, so I shall try not to repeat it. Much Government and international concern about Burma has been focused on the plight of the pro-democracy movement and the arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. While those are very important issues, relatively little international focus has been given to the systematic atrocities inflicted by the Burmese military on the Karen, Karenni and Shan ethnic peoples, so I shall focus on that issue.
The atrocities include summary executions, rape, forced relocations, destruction of villages and crops, and forced labour. More than 650,000 Karen, Karenni and Shan have been internally displaced and more than 200,000 refugees have fled to Thailand. They initially had good treatment from Thailand, but I think that the Thai Government now need to refocus on the treatment given to those groups on the Thai-Burmese border. They should ensure that they are not seeking to extradite them back to the Burmese military regime, where they will suffer atrocities in the border region, and that the international community can get food and medical aid to the internally displaced people there. I thank the Thai Government for what they have done, but I ask them to look at what is happening at the moment. They have lost a little focus, and perhaps they could refocus on the humanitarian problems.
Many displaced people are hiding in the jungle with little or no food or medicine, and they are sometimes shot on sight by Burmese troops. I can think of no other country in the world where so many displaced people are subjected to a shoot on sight policy, which is utterly unacceptable. The human rights group the Jubilee Campaign believes that the systematic atrocities against ethnic minorities by the Burmese military amount to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined under international law. I agree with that assessment. Burma's regime is not only anti-democratic, it is also an evil, criminal regime, which has committed and continues to commit serious crimes under international law. I have visited some internally displaced Karen people in Burma, and was appalled to hear their first-hand witness accounts of the many atrocities that their people have suffered.
The British Government and European Union have measured progress in Burma mainly by focusing on whatever improvements have taken place in political developments, including the release of political prisoners and progress in democratic reforms. While those are very important, the prisoners represent fewer than 1,000 people and it is deeply disturbing that the British Government are not treating the systematic atrocities against the Karen, Karenni and Shan people as just as important, particularly in view of the hundreds of thousands involved. Those people might not have a voice or international clout in the way that Aung San Suu Kyi and the political prisoners have, but each life is important.
In the Foreign Office's human rights annual report 2002, the last two lines of the section on Burma state:
"We shall continue to respond proportionately to political developments in Burma. But should progress stall or fail, our policy will…harden."
80WH
There is reference only to political developments and not to the possibility of hardening British policy on Burma because of the military regime's atrocities against the ethnic minorities. Ministers have not been in the Burmese jungle recently, as I have, but they will be aware of witnesses' reports of the atrocities and deprivation experienced by hundreds of thousands of people from ethnic groups in the Burmese jungle.
The Government have refused to accept that the Karen, Karenni and Shan are facing genocide, but curiously they have never given detailed or clear reasons why. It is not enough for the Government to claim, as they have in the past, that Amnesty International has not called the human rights abuses genocide. Amnesty's researcher on Burma stated clearly only last week that he has not investigated whether it is genocide. Amnesty has simply not addressed the issue. If the Government believe that there is no genocide in Burma, they should give detailed reasons for that conclusion, including reasons for believing that the legal definition of genocide given in the 1948 convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes of genocide does not fit the facts of the Karen, Karenni and Shan situation, which I can testify to because I have seen it at first hand.
For many years, unarmed Karen, Karenni and Shan civilians have been deliberately killed by Burmese soldiers in what is clearly a blatant breach of common article 3 of the Geneva convention, which specifically prohibits the killing of civilians who do not take an active part in hostilities. Those atrocities have been well documented by the UN special rapporteur on Burma and by several independent human rights groups, including Amnesty International, the Jubilee Campaign, the Karen Human Rights Group and the Shan Human Rights Foundation. It is, therefore, obvious that war crimes are being inflicted on the Karen, Karenni and Shan, and that in itself should be enough to justify the UN Security Council setting up an international criminal tribunal to try Burma's military regime. That would certainly focus the regime's mind. Furthermore, the International Labour Organisation in its report on Burma states that the systematic use of forced labour amounts to a crime against humanity. That gives us yet another reason why an international criminal tribunal on Burma could and should be set up.
With the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Italian Foreign Affairs Minister, Margherita Boniver, said that the European Union will consider in detail the possibility of submitting the issue to the UN Security Council. The Government should ensure that any such considerations by the EU include submitting to the UN Security Council the State Peace and Development Council's systematic atrocities against the ethnic minorities. While the plight of Aung San Suu Kyi and political prisoners in Burma is grave—we all know that and want to do something about it—the situation of the Karen, Karenni and Shan is much worse, with rape, torture and summary executions being typical of what they must endure, not to mention the destruction of their villages, which drives them into a jungle existence without proper food, education for their children or medical care. I spoke to a child who looked about nine or 10, but was 14 and had never had a day's education. They do not even have clean water. I met that child as she was walking two miles to collect water in an old petrol can.

81WH
The solution to the desperate plight of the ethnic minorities is not simply to wait until democracy comes to Burma. No one knows when that will happen, and it may take some time. The ethnic minorities are engaged in a daily and desperate struggle to survive, and they need our help now. Thousands have died as a result of Burmese military atrocities, and thousands more will perish unless the international community acts right now to put maximum pressure on the Burmese regime to stop the killings.
European Union sanctions against Burma should be linked not only to the Burmese regime's conduct regarding political prisoners and democratic reform, but to its stopping its atrocities against ethnic minorities. It should be given a clear message by the British Government and the EU that unless it stops the atrocities, sanctions will get a lot tougher. Furthermore, the Government should urgently raise the plight of the Karen, Karenni and Shan at the UN Security Council, where they should lobby for a global arms and investment embargo against Burma. The British Government should also ban all new investment by British companies in Burma, as has been done in the US, and call on the UN Security Council to set up an international criminal tribunal to try the Burmese regime for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East rightly mentioned BAT in his speech. The chairman of BAT, Martin Broughton, told the media,
"We'll do business in countries if it is legal to do so."
That proves the hon. Gentleman's point that nothing short of a legal ban on investment will stop British companies. Exhortations from the Prime Minister will help, but they will not stop those companies, as the chairman of BAT has said.
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The hon. Gentleman is talking about British companies, in the plural. From my inquiries, I am not aware that more than one British company—BAT—is involved.
Bob Spink: I acknowledge the Minister's point. Premier Oil has withdrawn, but it withdrew because of economic pressures and not because of exhortations from the Government. If the Government had a formal policy to make it illegal for companies to trade with Burma, it would give a clear signal to the international community and to Burma. It would also give a signal to countries near Burma with which we trade such as Thailand. Without strong sanctions, it is difficult to get the Burmese regime to take our concerns about human rights and democracy seriously. Short of military force, the only sanctions are a criminal tribunal or trade sanctions, and I encourage the Minister to think about them carefully.
The Burmese regime has made great play of the release of political prisoners and the secret dialogue with the National League for Democracy. However, we must focus on what is happening to the ethnic minorities in the jungle as a result of abuses by the Burmese military. Formalised trade sanctions and an international
82WH
tribunal are the best ways to protect ethnic minorities and to force the military regime to democratise, which would allow us to move forward in Burma.
9.58 am
Joan Ruddock: I want to endorse much of what has been said. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on securing this extremely important debate.
My hon. Friend referred to BAT, and I shall continue in that vein before considering general sanctions. BAT's Burmese subsidiary is Rothmans of Pall Mall Myanmar. As the Minister said, it is the only British company involved in Burma, and it appears to be oblivious to the atrocities. It is a 60:40joint venture with Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings, which is owned and controlled by Burma's military regime, so the company is directly involved in the most intimate sense in supporting that regime and working in collaboration with it, and its finance is linked with the regime. That is reprehensible, and I was shocked to learn that the deputy chairman of the company is one of our own: the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I hope that he will listen to this debate and that, as a right hon. and learned Member, he will have to take account of the seriousness of the need to disinvest in Burma at this critical time.
BAT pays factory workers just 23p a day. The UN defines anyone living on less than 60p a day as living in extreme poverty. There can be no doubt whatever that the claims that are often made by international companies that they are putting much-needed income into the country just do not ring true. We are talking about slave labour in a country that endorses slave labour, and an industrial zone upgraded in 1996 to involve child labour, which the House has consistently condemned.
The Burma Campaign UK estimates that the joint venture earns the regime $400,000 a year. Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's democratic movement, has called on companies to stay out of the country. She said that foreign investment funds the regime and helps to keep it in power. It is on that point alone that I rose to speak. We can no longer merely threaten Burma with sanctions: we must impose them. The time when we can expect the regime to respond to threats and requests has passed. We know how difficult it has been even for the UN envoy to get permission to see Aung San Suu Kyi in prison.
I know, and I am sure that the Minister will tell us, that the UK is very concerned and wants to do more than the European Union has been willing to do. Our position has been that we should move within the EU as the most appropriate body through which to impose sanctions on Burma, but we have not been helped by the positions of Germany, France and Italy. I trust that their leaderships are beginning to change their views, given the current situation.
As we have already heard from the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), the EU is far behind the United States. It is not the norm for me to ask for our Government to follow the United States in foreign policy, but I certainly do so this morning. The US imposed sanctions in 1997. All new investments in Burma were banned by the US as long ago as 1997. That

83WH
was done with what I think was the largest majority vote—97 to one—in the Senate. The US has no doubt at all how serious the matter is.
The US Government have hinted that they will ask the UN Security Council to deal with Burma, but I urge our Government not even to wait for that to happen. I hope that it will happen, but let us not hesitate. Let us agree that the UK, as a permanent member of the Security Council, can refer the matter of Burma for action to that body. Article 39 of chapter 7 of the UN charter permits the imposition of economic sanctions, and has been used to impose them in the past—for example, in Haiti in 1993 and Southern Rhodesia in 1965. That can and should be done again in Burma.
As we all know, sanctions can impose great burdens on the peoples of the countries involved. That happened particularly tragically in Iraq. In South Africa, however, the effect of sanctions and all the political pressure certainly bore results over a period. Burma is neither South Africa nor Iraq. The Burmese regime would probably crumple fairly quickly if there were international targeted sanctions. We must certainly try for that, and I believe that the United Kingdom can lead the way. We must bear it in mind not only that BAT is in an appalling collaboration with the Burmese regime, but that many companies that have invested in Burma export their goods into the west. For all we know, many goods are coming into this country that were made in Burma.
Burmese exports include oil, gas, timber, gems, minerals and garments. Parliamentary questions have been asked in the House without success to find out which goods are imported into the United Kingdom from Burma. Can my hon. Friend the Minister give us any intelligence about that, because it is additional to the fact that a major British company may be collaborating with the regime? We ought to know such information, because retailers and wholesalers who are engaged in the trade should be named and shamed. It is unacceptable that garments and other goods made by slave labour—by people under the tyrannical regime—should be coming into this country. I want to know such information, because I do not wish to purchase anything that comes from Burma, and I should like to know that I am not doing so.
I know of the worries of my hon. Friend the Minister, the representations that he has made and his great commitment to end the horrible situation in Burma. However, we can take steps within the European Union and the Security Council. Should they not produce targeted sanctions—the result that we hope for—I urge the Government to follow the unilateral action that the United States has taken and impose an investment ban on Burma.
I pay tribute to my close friend, Glenys Kinnock MEP, who has done a great deal within the EU. Even now, she is striving to ensure that the matter is placed at the top of the agenda. I also pay tribute to the children at Edmund Waller primary school in my constituency, which I visited recently. They had chosen Aung San Suu Kyi as one of their world heroines. We discussed her and looked at photographs. There are 100 different mother tongues in my constituency. It was extremely touching that girls and boys from all ethnic groups were thinking about an individual who was so far away from them and their experiences, but whom they could identify as an
84WH
extraordinary woman fighting for the democracy and freedom that we all hold dear in this country. It is a credit to children, especially primary school children, that they can have such a vision and want, as we do, the Burmese regime removed from the face of this earth.
10.8 am
Dr. John Pugh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on securing this crucial and timely debate. As a member of the all-party group on Burma, I wish to underline one or two things that have been said and flesh out others that have not been stressed loudly enough. We are debating not only a battle for democracy, but a battle against pure violation of democracy. We must remember that the election was won by the National League for Democracy in Burma in 1990 with 82 per cent. of the vote. I am sure that almost everyone here would regard that as a good democratic victory.
As has been said, we are witnessing a spectacle of appalling suffering genocide and abuse of human rights. The hon. Gentleman said that such a situation was, in some ways, remote from our problems. One thing that was perhaps not stressed enough is that this appalling regime is one of the world's major exporters of opium, which ultimately ends up on the streets of our countries. In a sense, its problems indirectly become our problems.
There seems to be an intractable problem, because the regime has an army of 400,000 people but few external threats with which to deal. One is reminded of the Marcos regime in the Philippines, which had a similar profile, and we know how long that lasted. We ought to be in no doubt that all hon. Members wish for regime change for all the right reasons, as I am sure the Government do. Although that aim is entirely laudable and should be supported by every parliamentarian, the means of achieving it seem rather difficult to identify. The EU has stiffened some of its sanctions and America has pursued a robust path of sanctions. I believe that 20 American states more or less outlaw any firms that have any commercial dealings with Burma. I am sure that the United Nations could be moved further to condemn the Burmese Government.
However, using the trade lever has a limited effect because Burma's major trading partners are, by and large, not those that stand for a tradition of democracy. It trades with China and the eastern bloc when routes to the west are barred. The House must welcome Japan's move—it has withdrawn $70 million in aid from Burma, which is no doubt making life more difficult for the Burmese Government. We must do everything we can to endorse such behaviour.
Sadly, the levers that we can pull to secure regime change, which we all want, are limited. However, that is no excuse for not pulling hard on those levers that we have. We in this country need to point to and praise the attitude of those firms that have, at commercial cost and by virtue of having some conscience, withdrawn from dealings with the Burmese regime. There is a laudable list of such firms, which includes Texaco, Levi-Strauss, Motorola, Heineken, Carlsberg, Amoco, C&A, Triumph International, and so forth. Just as we must point out good behaviour, we must, as hon. Members have done, heavily underline those who have not quite

85WH
got the message. That applies to British American Tobacco—not only its board, but its shareholders and anybody who has a stake in the company. If there is to be regime change, for which we all heartily wish, it will be secured not by debate in this place but by a long-term global campaign. If this debate contributes a small amount to that, it will do a lot of good.
10.12 am
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I enter this debate as a newcomer, without anything like the long experience that some hon. Members have of this subject. Some of my constituents have been coming to me about this matter for some time. Eventually, I decided that it was time to find out what they were on about. I am convinced, partly through receiving tutorials from experts and partly through reading about it, that there is a problem with our approach to the matter. Some element of that has emerged in this debate.
Two valuable strands have been contributed today. First, there are those who are concerned about how to achieve, or promote and foster, regime change in a country where democracy is being denied and in which a notable proponent of democracy is being treated abominably—the House considers that to be so. Secondly, we have heard, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), a powerful account of the dreadful treatment of large numbers of people from the ethnic minorities in Burma.
When we talk about the pressure that could be exerted, which hon. Members have described most poignantly, I have a dreadful suspicion that we might help to achieve only part of what we desire. I imagine that the pressure being brought, and the greater pressure that might be brought, to bear could succeed in persuading the current regime to make way, gracefully or gracelessly, for a democratic regime, which would be a major advance.
However, it is not clear to me from what I have been told and what I have read—perhaps the Minister will offer an analysis that disproves it—that the result of such a regime change will necessarily be to displace the power of the army so completely that fears about the second strand of concern, the appalling acts against ethnic minorities, will be allayed. 'There might be an improvement, perhaps even a seismic improvement, in conditions for the Burman population through the achievement of democracy, but if the army retain sufficient control and a vested interest in what my hon. Friend described as genocide, that genocide could continue, notwithstanding its being in a moderated and modified form.
There is a grave danger that the House and the civilised world will go quietly to sleep about Burma. We will celebrate the arrival of Aung San Suu Kyi as the ruler of a democracy but appalling things may continue to be done against the minority groups for some years, and no one will be paying much attention to them. I exempt hon. Members who are present in the debate. My hon. Friend financed his own trip into the jungle, which he will not forget. I fear, however, that the subject will go off the media's radar. I see the Minister shaking his head and I take comfort from that. I am delighted to sense that the Government are alive to that possibility.
86WH
It is extremely important that the two strands of the debate are brought together to ensure that increased pressure is exerted to achieve both aims, not one at the expense of the other.
Mr. Luke: I am sorry I did not raise it in my contribution to the debate, but the right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there is a Government in exile based in America, who are working with the many ethnic groups that have separate representations to consider the post-military government situation. That is relevant to the right hon. Gentleman's point, because it is one step in bringing about military regime change but, as he rightly said, the rights and autonomy of the ethnic groups in Burma are the second strand of the issue. Little attention has been paid to that, but it is on the agenda in other places where the nascent Government of Burma are considering the prospect.
Mr. Letwin: That is enormously reassuring. However, although the matter is in the public arena, it is said that the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech about it in the House of Commons and I fear today's debate may show that to be so. I doubt that we will read the observations that have been made today in the headlines tomorrow. Those headlines concern themselves with Aung San Suu Kyi and the fate of democracy in Burma, but there is a discrepancy in the amount of public attention paid to each side. It is enormously heartening if hon. Members and the Government clearly see the need to keep both strands together and to advance on both fronts as in due course it may encourage the media to take an equal interest in them.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have spoken to Aung San Suu Kyi on several occasions in recent months. She is very concerned to ensure that the two issues are linked and to resolve the question of democracy. She is also committed to reaching an accommodation with the Karen and the Shan. There is no doubt that the resolution of the process of reform and democracy should also lead—Aung San Suu Kyi is conscious of this—to a resolution of the appalling atrocities that have been committed against ethnic minorities.
Mr. Letwin: I am even more heartened by that and I am grateful to the Minister for intervening. I apologise for the fact that I shall have left the Chamber by the time he speaks at the end of the debate.
I have no reason to doubt what the Minister said about the motive of the Government or Aung San Suu Kyi. It would be absurd for me to pretend that I have the slightest understanding of the intricacies of the relationship between a forthcoming democratic regime in Burma and the military authorities. I do not. My speculation may, therefore, be wholly false. However, I have worked in several countries in that region, and some in sub-Saharan Africa, with and for the Governments of those countries, which were to a greater or lesser extent democratically established.
On one occasion—it would be wrong for me to name the country in question—I took the military secretary to the Prime Minister out for a drink to understand why none of the things that were being decided by the Prime Minister in my presence were happening. Memorably,

87WH
he told me, "We keep her very busy. We take her from parade to parade. We try to make sure that she never notices that nothing that she says ever happens." Democratic regimes in countries where there are powerful military authorities that do not have the same blessed relationship with the democratic regime as we experience do not find it easy to deal with that pattern of behaviour.
For a new, tenuously established democratic regime, there is a risk if the military is sufficiently alienated that the benefits the regime will convey to the country by being democratic will be undone by a coup. That tension is often difficult to resolve. I do not doubt the Minister's motive or that of San Suu Kyi. It is heartening to hear what he said. I hope that if we help to achieve the first step, it will also be the policy of Her Majesty's Government to keep an eagle eye on the matter, and to strengthen the democratic regime against possible military interference.
Bob Spink: I support my right hon. Friend's theme. He is wise to raise the spectre of a democratic solution while atrocities by the military against ethnic groups continue. That would not be unprecedented. In Indonesia, there were democratic elections in 1999, but the atrocities against the people of West Papua by the Indonesian military continued for a number of years. In a regime with a strong military presence and strong separatist movements, which then has democratic elections, there are all the ingredients for such problems. My right hon. Friend is right to follow that line.
Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the Minister. I am delighted that there appears to be a considerable degree of consensus on the issue. That is heartening and I hope that the Government will be able to make the media understand the matter in the same terms.
10.23 am
John Barrett: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on his success in securing the debate this morning. He and I entered this House at the last general election, and from the contributions he has made in the past two years, I know of the interest he takes in international affairs and his commitment to human rights in Burma and elsewhere in the world.
Like other hon. Members, I have agreed with everything that has been said until now. I will not repeat the issue raised about British American Tobacco. A number of hon. Members agree that it is going to be difficult to have a major impact through sanctions alone because of the relatively limited amount of direct trade that Britain and the US have with Burma. We must increase pressures on neighbouring countries that are trading far more with Burma.
Joan Ruddock: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would not be possible to get UN sanctions, to which China would have to adhere? It is my understanding that China has never voted against proposals concerning Burma. We might be able to persuade it to abstain, and not to stand in the way. What does the hon. Gentleman think of that possibility?
John Barrett: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Exerting pressure on countries such as China and other major trading nations that trade with Burma may be another way forward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, it is not only legitimate trade that we should note; it is the impact of opium on our streets. Whether it is products in our shops or opium being traded illegally, we are all affected and we must continue to raise the issue, and today's debate does that.
When I first saw the title of the debate, "Democracy and human rights in Burma", I was tempted to suggest that it be changed to, "What democracy and what human rights in Burma?" As the hon. Member for Dundee, East pointed out in his opening remarks, and as we heard from others who have contributed to the debate, there is precious little in the way of human rights in Burma and, by any definition, democracy is nonexistent. Gaining 82 per cent. of the vote should be just reason to form a Government and to be in a position of influence; it is no reason for someone to be locked up in a prison cell.
Our debate serves to highlight the considerable parliamentary interest in Burma, which is shown also by the seven or eight early-day motions relating to Burma that have been tabled since the beginning of the year. Perhaps the most significant is early-day motion 1311, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), which has now received the support of as many as 219 right hon. and hon. Members. They are quite right to be concerned. The story of Burma remains an immensely sad one; not only because of the fact that, despite its rich natural resources, it is a very poor country, but because of the religious persecution that was mentioned earlier, the use of child labour and the other human rights breaches that occur all too frequently.
It goes without saying that Liberal Democrats totally deplore the detainment of the leader of the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi. The Minister is quite right to put as much pressure as he can on the relevant authorities for her release. The idea that she is being held in a two-room hut in a prison just outside Rangoon for her personal protection would be almost laughable if it were not so serious. Some hon. Members have mentioned that she was released from house arrest in May of last year. However, it is important to dispel the myth that she was free to roam as she wished between her release then and her capture one month ago.
Despite being told that no restrictions would be placed on her, she and her NLD team were faced with the most intense intimidation tactics and harassment as they tried to travel around the country. As others have said, promises of some political reform being made upon her release were broken, although I accept that hundreds of political prisoners were released; perhaps only to be further persecuted outside the prison cell. Nevertheless, as we have heard today, Burma's human rights record remains nothing short of shocking.
The unprecedented decision of the International Labour Organisation three years ago to take measures against Burma because of its continued use of child labour was a significant step. However, since that decision was taken, the ILO governing board has found

89WH
little progress, the Burmese authorities being unwilling to tackle the exploitation of child labour and the starvation rates that were mentioned earlier in the debate.
Perhaps the most disturbing of all the images that we see are those of young children being signed up as part of the Burmese military forces, where they are mistreated. Today, Burma has by a long way the highest number of child soldiers in the world. I strongly recommend to hon. Members the report of Human Rights Watch into child soldiers in Burma entitled "My Gun was as Tall as Me". It is hardly light reading. It gives a chilling but accurate description of how children as young as 11 are brought into the army, where they are subjected to beatings during training by their commanders and refused contact with their families.
One story in the report caught my eye. It was by an 11year-old boy, who said:
"On my journey, there was a checkpoint. The police stopped the car and checked ID cards. I couldn't show one. I was too young to have an ID card…the police said: 'You all have to go to jail for six years for not having an ID card.' Then they sent me to the police station and put me in the leg stocks. They kept saying, 'You have to decide. You can join the army or go to jail.' And then they gave me time to think. They could see I was only eleven but if the police give a boy to the army, they can get pocket money from the army, 3,000 kyat and two tins of rice. They gave me from 8 am until the afternoon to decide. I didn't want to go to jail for six years so I joined the army."
Those are frightening and frequent stories; stories that one would not expect to be told in 1903, let alone 2003.
However, as others have said, it is not just the children who are suffering. Ethnic minorities in Burma have faced the most malicious and violent treatment by the Burmese authorities, forcing cross-border tensions with neighbouring Thailand, to where many of those being persecuted flee. The statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees made clear the international outrage over the way that minorities such as the Karen, Shan and Karenni were being treated, as the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned earlier.
Again, such outrage is justified. The Shan Women's Action Framework, in conjunction with the Shan Human Rights Foundation, published a report documenting the systemic rape of women and young girls in the Shan state by the Burmese army. The report not only described how most rapes were carried out in front of other officers, but revealed that one quarter of the attacks ended in death. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) would have liked to be here this morning to raise this issue, but unfortunately she cannot be here owing to other parliamentary business. Those atrocities may not involve weapons of mass destruction or threaten our security, but we in the international community cannot stand by and allow such shocking attacks to happen.
As a member of the International Development Committee, I make no apology for bringing into the debate the major humanitarian problems that have been allowed to develop. Burma is gripped in the stranglehold not only of HIV, which has now reached epidemic proportions, but of malaria and tuberculosis. Since I am one of those people who believes that education plays a
90WH
great part in preventative health care, I am concerned that less than 1 per cent. of gross domestic product is spent on health and education in Burma, one of the lowest levels in the world. I very much welcome the commitment that the Department for International Development has made; some £10 million alone for HIV/AIDS preventative measures.
However, I wonder if there is still room for the Government to take a greater role on such matters, yet without associating themselves directly with the regime. In DFID's 2003 Departmental report—a Comprehensive 157-page document only one paragraph related to Burma. Moreover, Burma got a mere one sentence mention in the Foreign Office annual report, on page 74. Perhaps there is an opportunity for the Government to bring Burma higher up the agenda, although I appreciate the work that has already been done. Without wishing to break the political consensus that has emerged this morning, I think that the Government, who have been so focused on countries such as Iraq and Iran, would do well to focus more on countries such as Burma and Zimbabwe, where people are facing serious breaches in basic human rights.
There have been a lot of strong statements from Foreign Office Ministers and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary himself. That was reiterated just last week by the Prime Minister in an answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin). However, the time for words must be coming to an end and the time for action is long overdue. However, we in the Liberal Democrats very much welcome the action that has already been taken, particularly through the strengthened EU position. Of course, we should not trade in arms or any other equipment that could be used for repression in Burma. Travel bans and sanctions need to be introduced as appropriate but, at the same time, we must ensure that all action that is taken seeks to minimise the impact on the ordinary Burmese people, who have already suffered too much under that terrible regime. Perhaps there is still action that the Government could take, although I regret that there is still not consensus in the UN Security Council on the issue. I hope that the Government will continue to work hard to forge such a consensus, so that the international community can stand united and say that the practices occurring in Burma are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
10.34 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on securing this debate, which is very timely. The debate this morning has been extraordinarily good and on an important subject that should concern us all. Recent events in Burma have served to underline what we have known for some time: that the regime is intent on preserving its power, whatever the cost to Burma and its people.
I have particular memories of Burma, having visited it some years ago. It is a beautiful place, with breathtaking landscapes. Its people practise a particularly peaceful form of Buddhism, which has enriched the landscape with many stunning temples. The Burmese are a gentle, good and proud people, and deserve better than the Government whom they now have.

91WH
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East for talking about minorities in Burma. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) dealt most graphically and powerfully with their tragic problems, and we owe him a debt for his insights.
Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is no longer present, but he made a valid point about bringing the various strands together. I could not but wryly observe, however, that Potemkin village syndrome can also apply in quite advanced democracies.
In 1993, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—as he now is—warned of
"a brutal and despotic regime that cares nothing for human rights".—[Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol. 222, c. 330.]
He was talking not about the regimes of Robert Mugabe and Saddam Hussein but about Burma's junta. There was widespread support for his view and for the action taken by John Major's Government in July 1991 to instigate an EU arms embargo on Burma. In 1994, the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Alastair Goodlad, said:
"As the situation has deteriorated, the United Kingdom, with our European Union partners, has taken a leading role at the United Nations general assembly and at the Commission on Human Rights, to gain consensus support for tough resolutions calling for the unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders and in denouncing the human rights violations reported by Professor Yokota."—[Official Report, 21 July 1994; Vol. 247, c. 632.]
His words demonstrated that the then Government were taking the issue seriously. Unfortunately, the situation continued to deteriorate, and too little was done then or in the ensuing years to resolve the problem.
We have heard about the democratically elected leader of the Burmese people being imprisoned once again. On 31 May, she and 19 other members of the National League for Democracy were arrested. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said, the regime's claims that she had been taken into protective custody have been rubbished, and we have learned that at least 70 people lost their lives in the attack.
As we have heard, Aung San Suu Kyi is being held in a particularly notorious prison. She can be detained without access to her family or lawyers for 180 days at a time, and for up to five years, with no prospect of appeal. That is a grotesque violation of her human rights. Every parliamentarian should find it profoundly shocking that the democratically elected leader of a Government is being denied access to her electorate. I cannot believe that any hon. Member could fail to be moved by the plight of this utterly remarkable woman, by her incredible stand against the forces of tyranny, which constantly rage against her, and by the appalling way in which she has been treated.
Despite the situation, Aung San Suu Kyi remains an inspiration to her people. In the face of personal hardships, she continues to pursue a peaceful path and she has not been tempted by violence. Unfortunately, the peace process that she and the UN ambassador have been pursuing is failing, despite their good will and sincere efforts.
On 12 June, Colin Powell wrote that
"the time has come to turn up the pressure"
92WH
on Burma's junta. I want now to consider how that might best be accomplished, and I freely acknowledge the Minister's efforts in this regard. Foreign investment can undoubtedly have a positive effect in many developing countries, but to be blunt, the opposite appears to be true m Burma. Foreign investment has provided the regime with the money that it needs to cling on to power and has enabled it to double the size of its army. A country of only 47 million people, with no external enemies, has one of the largest armies in Asia. At the same time, the people of Burma have become poorer, as resource allocation—based on political prerogatives instead of social need—continues to be debased.
It has been argued that ending investment will hurt the people of Burma. That must be avoided, as their suffering is already so great. However, it is vital to understand that Burma is a mainly agricultural country, with 75 per cent. of its population living in rural areas. The energy sector benefits the regime and foreign companies. Similarly, the gem and timber trades benefit regional commanders and the regime's business associates. The garment industry is 90 per cent. owned by the regime. The vast majority of rural and urban dwellers are not involved in those industries, so the money that they make is not spent on the people by a benevolent regime but used to prop up a tyrannical one. Though investment flows have dropped dramatically since 1998, future revenue from those ventures will help the regime to neglect and postpone essential reforms. On 19 June, the Minister made a commitment that the
"international community will not stand idly by while the military regime continues to abuse the democratic and human rights of Aung San Suu Kyi and the people of Burma."
If the Government are truly intent on keeping that promise—I accept the Minister's sincerity—they must make a concerted effort to limit commerce. Taking up the powerful point of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan R uddock), Britain should press for a UN Security Council resolution calling for an end to all investment in Burma so long as the military regime remains in power, arid for sanctions on certain Burmese exports, including oil, gas, timber, gems, minerals and garments.
The Minister will be aware that in opposition his party backed targeted investment sanctions. I make no political point, but can he confirm that that is still its position in government and tell us what steps are being taken to implement that policy in conjunction with others? The United States and Italian Governments have hinted that they will press for a new resolution. Does the Minister agree that if the UK took the initiative now, the added momentum might compel the Security Council to take action on Burma? Should we not use the strength of UK-Chinese relations to achieve such co-operation? What discussions have the British Government had with other Security Council members on the prospect of a new resolution on Burma?
In the absence of Security Council agreement, we should like to see Britain push for an EU investment ban. I have discussed the idea with representatives of the Governments of other EU member states and there is widespread support for it. Historically, the EU common position has been weaker than the UK might have wanted, and unless recent events have shifted thinking on Burma, the EU will lag behind US policy. Does the

93WH
Minister share my concerns, and will he confirm that the British Government will be pressing for EU Ministers to put Burma on the agenda of the Asia-Europe meeting, or ASEM, in Bali on 23 and 24 July?
Burma's military regime shamelessly calls itself the State Peace and Development Council, but it fails US State Department grades on human rights, trafficking in persons and drugs, and international religious freedom. As we speak, more than 1,000 people are detained in Burmese prisons for political reasons. There is hope of strong action. There are signs that the ASEAN countries have had enough of the broken promises and abuses of the regime. As the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) observed, last week, Japan cut off aid in a hugely symbolic move. What aid do we give to Burma, if any, and is there scope to copy the Japanese? Wider international pressure would, I hope, lead to the immediate and permanent release or Aung San Suu Kyi. However, we must not be content with that. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in hoping that the new focus on Burma—and there is a new focus on Burma—can be a catalyst for the release of all political prisoners there; for National League for Democracy offices and universities to be reopened; for the SPDC immediately to end extra-judicial killings, systematic rape and political intimidation; and for a genuine democratic process to emerge, leading towards a Government elected by the people and ruling for the people. That is exactly what is not happening in Burma at the moment.
10.45 am
The Minister for Trade and estment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) for providing the opportunity for us to discuss an issue that is very important not only for Britain but for the whole international community. I know of his strong support for democracy and human rights in Burma, from his work with the all-party group. I am also aware of the wide support that the campaign for democracy and human rights in Burma, including the campaign for human rights for ethnic minorities in that benighted country, enjoys on both sides of the House.
In common with all those who have spoken today, I am deeply concerned about the recent events in Burma. In recent months, the Government have been working hard to encourage dialogue between the regime in Burma and the National League for Democracy. I used to speak regularly to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi about that, but my repeated attempts to speak to her since her detention on 30 May have been rebuffed by the regime.
We had received information that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was being detained in Insein jail. We are today picking up reports from a French press agency that she has been moved from Insein jail and is now elsewhere. The reports appear not to know where, and whether they are entirely true, I cannot say. We are attempting to get further information from our sources. Clearly it is a matter of enormous concern that a Nobel peace prize winner who has become a personification of the worldwide campaign for human rights and democracy should be detained by a brutal regime such as that in Burma.
94WH
I am inspired by Aung San Suu Kyi's resolute commitment to the peaceful pursuit of her objectives in Burma. She embodies the hopes of the people of Burma, commanding respect and admiration inside the country and throughout the international community. Large crowds have flocked to her in every corner of the country to which she has travelled. The generals know that those crowds demonstrate the true wishes of the people of Burma. The people want the leaders for whom they voted overwhelmingly in 1990. By its repressive actions, the regime betrays its fear of "the Lady", as she is universally known in Burma. It says that Aung San Suu Kyi has been detained for her own protection. In fact, she is being detained for the protection of the regime against the people.
The regime's malign rule in Burma is clear for all to see. The generals have no ideology other than the maintenance of power and the cynical abuse of that power for their own purposes. Human rights abuse against ethnic minorities, as detailed by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), and against the Burmese people themselves, is the regime's chosen instrument for enforcing its position. Ethnic minority groups in Burma suffer the abuses and the destruction of their human rights disproportionately, through extrajudicial killing, forced labour, rape, forced relocation and even the burning of entire communities.
The British Government have been at the forefront of international efforts to press for an end to human rights violations in Burma. Successive resolutions, cosponsored by the British, have been passed in the UN General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. We also helped to lead the way for the International Labour Organisation to implement measures against Burma because of the scandalous use of forced labour there.
The regime might seek to sweep such concerns under the carpet by routinely banning foreign reporters and denying international access to large parts of Burma, even by the United Nations. However, we shall continue to draw attention to the harsh reality of its rule. With its litany of other faults, the regime's economic incompetence and ignorance are often overlooked, but it is important to highlight the sheer incompetence of the regime, which is having such a detrimental effect on the people of Burma. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East compared Burma with India, and we see there what damage such a regime can do to the economy, driving its people into poverty. A country that is rich in human and natural resources is being driven towards economic disaster. It is a shocking and unnecessary road to ruin. Why is the old rice bowl of Asia struggling to feed its people? Why has foreign investment dried up? Why are the few companies still investing in Burma voting with their feet? Premier Oil, for example, is withdrawing its support.
Trade with and investment in foreign countries, even those with democratic shortfalls, is not inherently bad for human rights and democracy in those countries. However, in Burma, the regime cynically manipulates trade and investment to help to support its continued misrule and for personal gain. Those factors are specific to the regime, which is why, as the Prime Minister made clear in the House last week, we do not believe that to trade with or invest in Burma is appropriate while the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of

95WH
its people. We are making that clear to British companies, and this morning I shall meet the chairman of British American Tobacco, which was saddled with a problematic investment in Burma as a result of a merger in the 1990s.
The Government do not encourage tourists to visit or companies to invest in Burma. I shall take to my meeting with the chairman of BAT the views of both Government and Opposition Members who have expressed serious concern about a company continuing to have investment in Burma. I shall be able to report that to the chairman, to whom I shall be speaking within the hour.
The Government are committed to having serious discussions with BAT and anyone else involved in trade with Burma. I was particularly concerned at the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) that some other companies may be purchasing garments in Burma to import to the United Kingdom. I shall certainly look into that and see whether we can find ways of speaking to those companies, if they are British companies.
In 1998, the late Derek Fatchett wrote to travel associations in Britain explaining why the Government were concerned about their encouragement of travel in Burma. In the light of the deteriorating situation there, I propose to write to all travel organisations with any links with tourism in Burma. There are very few of them, but if any are involved, we shall target them and ask them not to allow, encourage or participate in tourism in Burma. Some people go to Burma for their own reasons, and we want to discourage them from doing so.
We need a wide strategy to deal with the problem and our approach has been that when Burma has moved towards reform and democracy, we have encouraged it. For a period last year, with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and the increasing freedom that was being given to her, it looked as though the process was under way, but it then stalled. There was no explanation, and radio silence from the Burmese regime. We did not know why it had suddenly stopped the process, and it was clear in my conversations with Aung San Suu Kyi that she did not know why. However, it did stop and went into reverse, so we must ensure that we send an even clearer message. Over time, the regime will find that the international community will tighten the restrictions on it.
As a number of hon. Members have said, we must ensure that sanctions do not hurt the Burmese people whom we are trying to help, and are specifically targeted against the regime's leaders, and we will seek to get that balance right. However, if the regime starts to carry out reforms and to move towards democracy, and it enters into discussions and frees Aung San Suu Kyi, we will take that into account as our policy develops. There is a clear strategy of encouragement for reform, if it is taking place, but a clear view that a failure to reform will not be ignored by the international community.
We have taken a strong EU common position, which contains an arms embargo, and bans on defence links, on high-level visits, on the sale of items that can be used for repression and torture, and on non-humanitarian assistance, as well as an assets freeze and travel ban on the regime, its families and their cronies. Many hon. Members have mentioned action against Burmese
96WH
exports, and we have already taken some action in that area. The EU has suspended Burma's trading privileges and we have written to all British employers and workers groups informing them of the use of forced labour in Burma and advising them to have nothing to do with Burma.
As an initial step after the latest crackdown by the regime, the EU strengthened its common position on 16 June. I stress that that was an initial step and that we are actively considering with partners what further action may be necessary if the regime does not see sense soon. UK and EU action to date has been effective, and we must therefore continue to act in partnership with the EU and others around the world. UK diplomatic, trading and investment links with Burma are already very limited, but a collective approach will be needed to achieve a further significant tightening of pressure. We are talking to the Americans about how that can best be done, and we welcome the strong statements by President Bush and Colin Powell. We also welcome the very firm position taken by the Japanese, who have announced that they will cease all economic assistance to the regime because of its recent actions. We are actively consulting them and other major players, including the Chinese and Indian Governments.
If we were to fail to get a resolution in the Security Council, the Burmese regime would see it as a victory. We must therefore proceed with care by talking to the Chinese and other countries to see whether we can achieve consensus to allow us to take further action in international forums such as the UN. Let there be no doubt that we are seriously concerned about the matter and that we will be making those inquiries. I shall be travelling to China this month, where I shall talk to the Chinese about that other issues, and I shall also be in Washington in the next couple of weeks, where I shall talk to the Americans about that and other issues. I shall also be going to the Association of South East Asian Nations summit in Bali, where I will talk to Burma's neighbours about the need for them to show that they, too, care about the human rights situation of not only the people who support Aung San Suu Kyi but the ethnic minority communities, which have been subjected to continual atrocities.
The message must go out from the House that Members of all parties will not allow the issue to die. Aung San Suu Kyi's position will remain at the forefront of our efforts. We will also make sure that the deep worries that exist in the international community are not left as words but are followed up by actions, which means that clear messages must be sent. The way in which the economy of Burma has developed must be addressed, but the regime and its leaders will find that the international corimunity will target them and their cronies for further sanctions.
Burmese democracy enjoys overwhelming support in Britain and throughout the world because it embodies our, British, core hopes and values, too. The Burmese people want nothing more than what we want for them and have for ourselves: freedom and the ability to determine their leaders, rather than having to rely on a bunch of dictators and old generals. The time for change in Burma is now. We want to use all the pressure that we can to secure that change.

National Walking Strategy
11 am
Andrew Bennett: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the need for a national walking strategy. I should declare that I am a vice-president of the Ramblers Association, although I get no particular benefit from that.
I want to have a whinge. I almost said a quiet moan, but actually I want a noisy moan. I want to press the Government on why they feel ashamed about walking. More than 12 months ago, there was a document in the Department for Transport setting out a national walking strategy, but for some reason—whether Ministers were worried that they might be known as the Minister for silly walks or whether the Government were worried that they would be seen as a nanny state if they promoted walking—the Government sat on it. Now, the document is back as a consultation document: "On the move: by foot". The Government have not had the courage to take things forward.
I realise that I am being a little unfair on the new Minister. He has been in the job for two weeks and we cannot expect him to have a grip on the issue. When I saw him this morning tucking into two eggs and some rashers of bacon, I thought that perhaps he was the Minister who would get a grip on walking and make it a success story, rather than a problem story, for the Government.
Let us be clear. The statistics suggest that people in this country are walking less and less. I have some doubts about the statistics, but they certainly do not show that people are walking more than they did in recent years. My doubt about the statistics is that people are asked to indicate how they travel. If someone goes to the supermarket, drives a short distance in the car and then walks right across the car park, round the aisles of the supermarket, back across the car park to the car and drives back home, that counts as a driving trip, even though the distance covered by walking may be greater than that covered by driving.
Even if we were to get rather better statistics, they would not show that people in this country are walking more. If the decline is not proven, we know, at least, that we have not reversed the trend. We need to be quite clear that if people walk less and less, they will be born with wheels, rather than feet. The situation is tragic. We have known for so long that encouraging people to walk is good for them.
What have the Government done? They have had a good document on walking in a pigeonhole somewhere in the Department for 12 months. On Monday, almost by stealth, they put out another consultation document: "On the move: by foot". Where was the publicity? I understand the difficulties for Transport Ministers. If they talk about airports, there are at least two opinions. If they talk about railways, it is not a particularly good news story. Traffic congestion is not a particularly good story. However, the Government have a good story to tell about walking, if they want to tell it. Why did the Secretary of State not launch the document? Why did Ministers not make a great deal of effort? The current document is somewhat feeble, but the document on which it was based would have made a significant difference. It was a document that the Government could have been proud of.
98WH
Why has it taken so long to produce this little mouse of a document? Surely in the past 12 months, instead of sitting on it, the Government could have introduced something positive. What about a little bit of money? I realise that it is difficult to find money for transport, and in many ways the whole point of the walking document is that we do not need particularly huge amounts of money. We need to ensure that the money being spent by local authorities is spent in a way that serves the primary purpose and encourages walking. It is particularly worrying that there has not been an effort to persuade local authorities to spend more money to make walking more attractive.
A national walking board would allow us to set standards of good practice throughout the country. Some local authorities have a good story to tell—some of them are mentioned in the document—about making walking attractive. What about a national website that shows what good practice could be? "Talking Walking", the sixth national walking conference, is being held on Friday. I can understand why the Minister cannot go to the conference, but someone from the Department could have gone and sent the clear message that the Government believe that walking is a good idea.
Why is walking a good idea? First, it is fundamental to improving the health of the nation. It is crazy to spend large amounts of money on the national health service to remedy the problems of heart conditions and the like, when we could make a big reduction in the number of people suffering from such problems by encouraging them to walk for 10 or 15 minutes a day. Certainly, two periods of walking of 10 to 15 minutes a day make a significant improvement to people's health. That would be good value for money. One of the achievements of the Government has been to ensure that money that was being spent on problems such as unemployment has been saved to be spent on positive things. Why is the Department for Transport not doing the same thing? If it spends a bit more money on walking, it will improve people's health and reduce the bill to the NHS.
The Government should be hailing how enjoyable walking is, in the countryside and the urban setting. One can leave this building and walk around the streets of Westminster, as many MPs do, and there are some fantastic buildings to look at. The paving and the views make it an attractive environment to walk in. It gives people a sense of place, and it lifts their spirits, provided that when they are walking around they do not have to dodge traffic, and their safety is not at risk.
Not only is walking good for individuals' health, and enjoyable, but it makes a significant difference to the environment. The more people walk, the less they need to use their motor cars, or even public transport, which reduces emissions and the problems of global warming. It is a clear environmental plus for the Government.
That takes us to the question of social cohesion. It is sad that in many places one sees only the odd person walking, which does not give one that sense of community. If one walks out of the house to the local shops, one is more likely to communicate with neighbours, even if it is just a nod to them. That gives people the feeling that they belong to a community. It is a social action, as opposed to getting into a car—a cocoon in which people travel individually.

99WH
We know that the more people walk, the safer the streets become, because crime tends not to occur if there are lots of people, or witnesses, about. It makes sense to encourage people to walk. It makes the environment more attractive and safer.
The key question is why the Government do not have more enthusiasm for walking. Why are they not getting on with the promise they made to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and the Regions in 2001 that there would be a national walking strategy? It is amazing that more than two years later the Government are still asking questions. The questions in the document are nice, but we already know the answers. We need courage and boldness from the Minister to stop consulting and take action. We need clear guidance for local authorities on what good practice is. There are some examples of that in the document. However, one need only leave this building to see appalling examples of walkers being almost herded into cattle pens, and of zigzag crossings where pedestrians can only cross half the road because priority has been given to the motorist and not the walker. The motorist travels quicker, so why not give priority to the group of people who move slowest: the walkers. That makes common sense.
There is the question of road surfaces. In most local authorities, money tends to be put into keeping roads, not footpaths, in a good state of repair. I have the crazy situation where constituents demand that a road be improved and made smoother and that potholes are filled in, and a week later they are asking for traffic-calming measures. It would be much better to spend that money on making footpaths attractive for people to walk on.
There are also planning issues. The Government have a good record, and the Deputy Prime Minister has worked hard to get across the concept of regenerating city centres. I approve of all of that. However, a key to that must be to encourage people to walk from their homes to their places of work and leisure. That means that more town centres must give priority to walking. I was once told that if Trafalgar square were pedestrianised, it would cause chaos. As far as I can see, it caused a lot of difficulties while the work was being done, but has produced an attractive space where people can walk. My only disappointment is that the whole of Whitehall was not turned into a pedestrian area. That might have encouraged the Prime Minister and other Ministers to walk across to the House, rather than shoot across in vehicles that do not get there any quicker.
My hon. Friend the Minister should be talking to other Ministers. In Stockport, walking is being put on prescription, so to speak, because it is clear that walking is good for people's health. If a doctor, rather than a Minister or an MP, tells them to do it, people take more notice on the whole. We must get the message across that walking is good for people. I ask the Minister to make walking his crusade. He has an opportunity in a difficult Department to come up with some wins. I do not expect him to stroll down from Harrow into the centre of London, but I should like to see him walking around—coming out of his Department to champion walking.
Finally, I want the Minister to give a short message to the "Talking Walking" conference—the sixth national conference. He should say something to allay the disappointment resulting from this document, make it
100WH
clear that the Government take walking seriously and think it plays a part in our transport strategy, and also make it clear that very soon a national walking strategy will be in place.
11.14 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) on securing the debate, not least on the day when Trafalgar square has finally been opened in all its pedestrianised glory. While it is still in my mind, I should like first to respond to my hon. Friend's last point: I will try to ensure that I, or another Minister, will get a message to the conference on Friday to show our support for this endeavour.
I have to say that I have known my hon. Friend for a long time, and I have never heard him whinge or moan. When we are talking about the supposed lack of progress, or otherwise, on a particular policy, that would be a clear and legitimate reason for complaint, but I have not heard any whingeing or moaning. I denounce as silly those people who see this debate or any serious discussion about walking as some latter-day manifestation of John Cleese and the ministry for silly walks, because walking as a key means of transport is an important subject. Therefore, to those who say that it is Pythonesque, I say that such a comment says far more about them and their stupidity than it does about a very important matter.
I would gently part company with my hon. Friend on the comment that the Department for Transport sat on the document for 12 months while nothing much happened. The Government are wedded and committed to a comprehensive walking strategy but want that strategy to be, precisely as I said, comprehensive. The document may have been with the Department, but to do the job properly and achieve a detailed walking strategy, the work by its very nature must cross Departments. That is what has happened in the past 12 months.
My hon. Friend will know that more than 700 people attended 11 seminars on the matter between June and November last year. Those meetings inform much of what is in the discussion paper "On the move: by foot", which is not feeble or a mouse of a document. That is what has been happening to develop the specifics of the strategy, but he will know—I certainly do, not least because I was parry to much of it in a previous incarnation—that much has gone on across Departments to set the groundwork for proper development and improvement of the lot of pedestrians and walkers. One thinks particularly of the Government's liveability agenda, with which I had much to do in my previous position.
There have been discussions with the Department of Health on objectives for improving health, preventing disease and increasing physical activity among disadvantaged groups; with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office to ensure measures to improve personal security; and with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has developed policies to improve the quality of urban walking routes for tourists and to promote Britain as a destination for those who enjoy walking. In addition, the Departments

101WH
for Education and Skills and for Transport have been working to improve the safety and sociability of journeys to school, many of which should be by foot rather than by road, thereby cutting out congestion caused by the school run. My hon. Friend was entirely right to mention urban regeneration, social inclusion and other dimensions of the subject.
We believe that issuing a single document that addresses current barriers to walking and sets out all the relevant policies and initiatives to help to get them over will greatly assist all those who seek to improve the quality of the local environment and to promote a greater willingness to walk more. We want to ensure that the walking strategy that emerges fully reflects much of the cross-governmental work, not least the ODPM's liveability agenda. The discussion paper complements many of the aims and initiatives of that agenda, and people travelling on foot will benefit from the substantial funding that the Government have committed to improving the quality of local communities and public spaces Surely, it is not sufficient to exhort and encourage people to walk more often if they have to walk through battle zones or areas that are entirely pedestrian-unfriendly, whether urban or rural.
My hon. Friend asked about a national walking target—or perhaps he did not, but I shall discuss it anyway. There are two reasons why the Government remain of the opinion that there is no need to adopt national targets. First, we consider it difficult to relate them to everyday life—for example, walking 250 miles per person per year. Secondly, our aim is to improve conditions. We want people to decide for themselves whether to take advantage of the improvements. As was underlined by much of what my hon. Friend said, at present people do not have that choice. We must address the problems if an area is a battleground, if it is a real hardship simply to walk to the local shops or school or if physical barriers put people off walking.
We are finalising arrangements with Transport for London, the London Walking Forum, Living Streets and the Centre for Alternative and Sustainable Transport to fund and develop the partnership website for walking, which will provide comprehensive information on walking, including news on publications, conferences and training, good practice, job opportunities, and a forum for advice and an exchange of views. It will target mainly practitioners but also provide a valuable resource for the public.
Andrew Bennett: When?
Mr. McNulty: Imminently, I am told, or very shortly. We would prefer to see how the website evolves before making a commitment to national or regional forums. My predecessors met representatives of the walking lobby at regular intervals to discuss this and other matters and I am more than happy to continue to do so.
On funding, the substantial increase in investment made available to local authorities through the Government's 10-year plan will enable a major expansion of schemes to make conditions easier and safer for pedestrians. All local traffic authorities have
102WH
been asked to develop a local walking strategy as part of their local transport plans, which should identify gaps in the local infrastructure and improvements needed in footway networks.
In the first LTP annual progress reports, many authorities identified progress on providing more pedestrian routes and improving safety and integration with other transport modes. Over the five-year period of the first LTPs, local authorities estimate they will deliver 650 km of improved footways, walking routes and pedestrianisation schemes, and 91 km of new footways or footway improvements were established by local authorities in 2000-01. I am keen to ensure that what local authorities say they will deliver by means of the local transport plans is actually put in place. I am equally keen to work with colleagues across the Government to ensure the integration of the other elements that feed into the process. It does not always mean a lot of money, as my hon. Friend suggested, but care and thought, for example about the design of street furniture, traffic signage and so on, to improve conditions and fundamentals such as the friendliness of walking in urban streets and townscapes.
We will work closely with the Department of Health. The discussion paper emphasises the benefits of regular walking for improving personal health and fitness. Evidence of its effectiveness in improving general health and preventing disease is compelling, as my hon. Friend said. Walking is the easiest way to meet the recommended half hour of exercise each day. Last year, the Department supported a series of regional seminars for transport and health professionals on the health and environmental benefits of walking. As an aside, I say that eggs and bacon are part of the Atkins diet, which is working very well for me. All I need to do now is to take exercise too and I shall be the fitter for it.
In respect of road safety and traffic management, walking close to fast traffic can be a frightening and unpleasant experience as well as being potentially dangerous. Many of the measures that are needed to improve the quality and convenience of the walking environment should also have a positive effect on improving safety. Conversely, in order to get more people walking, roads and footways must be made safer and more welcoming.
It is a constant battle, but we must recognise that there should be a better balance between the needs of pedestrians and those of vehicles, which the future design, construction and management of roads must reflect. We plan revised guidance on measures such as reduced traffic flows, lower driving speeds and road space allocation, which can all play a part in improving conditions for pedestrians. Our discussion paper seeks views on what works and what does not.
My hon. Friend may well be right to say that the answers to much of what is in the document are apparent. However, we need to discuss matters one more time with key groups and individuals to ensure that we have things right and that our role at the Department for Transport dovetails with the extensive work being done by Departments across the piece.
Andrew Bennett: I am not very happy about the extra consultation. When will it be over? When will a national walking strategy be published?
Mr. McNulty: I cannot give my hon. Friend specific dates, but given where it starts from, the previous documents and the work done throughout Government in the past year, I hope that this round of consultation will be swift and that a better and more comprehensive strategy will emerge more quickly because of it. If, subsequent to this debate, I can respond with greater clarity, I shall write to him.
My hon. Friend made an important point about land-use planning and the planning system, which I spent much time dealing with last year. Our discussion paper emphasises the importance of good planning and urban design. It takes account of the latest policy developments.
Planning policy guidance note 13 on transport seeks to ensure that new developments and basic facilities are within easy walking distance, and that development patterns encourage walking. PPG6 on town centres and retail developments advises on the location of retail and leisure facilities, and workplaces in town centres. PPG3 on housing gives guidance on increasing housing density, so that access to shops and other services is easier. Those guidance notes are being reviewed in detail by the ODPM.
Over the past four months since the publication of "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" on 5 February, we have increased the profile of public realm, public space and liveability. They are crucial to enhancing the conditions in which pedestrians and walkers must operate. We are aware that successful and sustainable communities are those that are characterised by clean, safe, attractive streets, parks and open spaces—areas where people want to live, work, play and walk. My hon. Friend will know that the ODPM has committed £201 million over three years to improve the quality of parks and public spaces. That will include a new liveability fund to replace some of the resources that local authorities have lost over the past few years, details of which are in the "Living Places" report that the ODPM published last November.
104WH
Several schemes under the public space and liveability heading are of real concern to those interested in walking.
Following on from my hon. Friend's exhortation about speaking to other Ministers, there is an intergovernmental group on public spaces, as part of the living places initiative. It broadly encompasses many themes in respect of public realm parks and open spaces and will recapture much of the urban realm for those who want to walk. The group meets for the first time on Monday. It will draw in a range of different Departments to which he alluded. There are some excellent schemes in the liveability pot, not least a new unit, CABE Space—the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment—which will deal specifically with the public realm and environmental issues. It was launched on 12 May—by me, I hasten to add.
The sum of £30 million has been committed to a community enablers scheme entitled "Living Spaces". It was launched on 29 May—again by me, but in a previous incarnation. Groups such as the friends of parks and open spaces can place bids from £1,000 to £100,00 to regenerate, recapture and reinvigorate public spaces. That is important for walkers because, given its present state, the public realm—a cemetery, a space of some description or a park—may inhibit walkers. We are keen to see how the "Living Spaces" programme unfolds. It will be headed by Groundwork and the ODPM. It will mean that many of the pedestrian walkways that are currently degraded will be brought back into the public realm, and thus back into use by walkers.
We are serious about developing a walking strategy. As I have outlined, we want it to he key and central to all that we do. I hope that people take the discussion paper and the truncated consultation period seriously, so that we can all work together in partnership to ensure a walking strategy that is needed and desired for the betterment in health of everyone in the country.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Schools Funding
2 pm
Mr. David Laws:I am pleased to have secured this important debate on schools funding. It will mean a lot to many people, not least given this year's funding settlement, which has caused problems in schools throughout the country. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), to the debate. I am slightly disappointed that the Minister for School Standards is not present. He gave a widely reported speech yesterday in which he promised to be "self-critical" when examining the causes of this year's schools funding crisis. I should have liked him to be here today to be self-critical and to admit the source of some of the problems experienced by schools this year. However, I am sure that the Under-Secretary will explain the Government's position excellently.
Before I raise some of the more uncomfortable points, I wish to welcome the fact that it was announced yesterday that two schools in my constituency, Holyrood school in Chard and Wadham school in Crewkerne, have been granted specialist school status. I welcome the additional money that will, as a consequence of that, go into the two schools. I congratulate their head teachers and staff on the hard work that they put into the bid, especially Mr. Maurice Hicks, the head teacher at Holyrood school and Gillian Gee, the head teacher at Wadham school.
On a gloomy note, I talked this morning to other head teachers in my constituency, among them Mr. Jones, the head teacher of Preston secondary school. If the Under-Secretary has been especially well briefed for today's debate, he will certainly know that Preston secondary school and Westfield school were awarded specialist school status last year. Preston secondary school was tremendously enthusiastic about that because it means that additional capital and revenue funding comes on stream. The school was optimistic, anticipating that this year it would be able to expand budgets, spend more on capital projects and deliver better education as a consequence. We can imagine the disappointment felt at that school now, after discovering that its budgetary position means that it has to implement staff cuts, such as four teacher redundancies this year and the non-replacement of several staff who may be retiring. In addition, some of the school's plans for expansion have had to be put on hold, and £50,000 of capital funding has had to be taken out of the budget to protect this year's budget for the other teaching staff. Moreover, a £50,000 deficit on the school's budget this year will create carry-forward problems into next year.
The problems experienced by Preston secondary school, in spite of the new money received as a consequence of gaining specialist school status, have been experienced by many other schools throughout the country this year. Those problems will have a real impact on the delivery of education. However, this debate is not designed primarily to focus on the problems created by this year's funding difficulties. It is designed to enable us to consider the effects of the spending review for the next two financial years,
106WH
2004-05 and 2005-06, and to find out what the Government will constructively do to deal with the problems in schools.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that in their funding plans for the next two years the Government deal with issues relating to the lowest-funded authorities, such as Poole and Dorset, to make sure that the base funding per pupil is sufficiently high that the teacher and classroom assistant to pupil ratios are restored?
Mr. Laws: It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She makes powerful constituency points in the same robust way as she always does. I hope that the Minister has heard her comments and takes them on board in the funding settlements for the next two years.
Before we consider the funding problems facing the Minister in 2004–05 and 2005–06, we must examine the impact of this year's financial problems if we are to understand the nature of future challenges. I shall touch upon the problems in finances of many schools, and explore some of the causes of those financial difficulties.
When the issue of funding first arose, the response of Ministers was intriguing. Initially, their response was to deny that there were any funding difficulties in schools; then, it was to blame local education authorities; at least now there seems to be some degree of acceptance by Ministers that it is the way in which they allocated funding and did not understand the pressures on school budgets that led to difficulties. In what is likely to be a pre-election year next year, we hope that Ministers will pay attention not only to the head teachers and school governing bodies complaining about the funding settlement, but to the impact on public opinion of the downturn in school budgets this year.
The Minister is no doubt as aware as anyone of recent opinion polls, such as that in The Guardian on 25 June this year. The article stated:
"Labour has dramatically lost its reputation with voters for improving schools and education in the past three months … Back in March, when the Guardian carried out its annual public services survey, education was the only area where the voters said they could see real improvements coming through. But the results of this month's ICM survey show that the impact of the schools funding crisis and the row over tuition fees has led to a sudden loss of confidence in the government's record on education."
I hope that that, combined with representations from head teachers, will help to concentrate the Government's mind on schools funding over the next year. I expect that most hon. Members who have similar experiences to mine in their constituencies would agree that the widespread perception in schools and among the public is that the Government have made a mistake with schools funding this year and lost some of their reputation for improving funding.
I dare say that in the time that the Minister has been at the Department for Education and Skills, he has visited a good many schools. I, too, have visited some, although they have mainly been in one part of Somerset. I suspect that the Minister has been further afield—I certainly hope so. My experience of visiting schools since the Labour Government came to power is of head

107WH
teachers and teachers saying two things: first, that there is too much bureaucracy in the Government's education reforms; and, secondly, that the funding position is gradually moving in the right direction. This year, however, they are not saying that. The change is reflected in today's press, in which I read that one Labour MP has been forced to donate one day's wages to ease the financial crisis at his local primary school. One article states:
"The staff of Ashby Primary in Leicestershire said the plan had started as a joke but had taken hold when it emerged that there was no money for school library books."
This year that school faces a £38,000 shortfall.
Those types of problem are reflected throughout our constituencies. Preston secondary school in my constituency is having to make redundancies. It is not the only example its problems are reflected in other secondary schools in the constituency. I shall briefly quote from a letter that I received from Mr. Glynn Ottery, the head teacher at Stanchester community school in my constituency; he has also been chairman of the Somerset Association of Secondary Heads. In the letter, dated 28 April—as the crisis in schools funding was beginning to emerge—Mr. Ottery wrote:
"The situation in Somerset is very poor indeed-the worst school budget I have had in 12 years of Headship! I would estimate that two thirds of secondary schools in Somerset are in real difficulties."
The letter continues:
"There will be some teacher redundancies in the secondary sector in Somerset this year … many schools are avoiding redundancies by raising class sizes-often above 30."
Mr. Ottery goes on to explain that the effect of this year's financial problems is not being felt in terms of reductions in teacher numbers alone. Many schools are trying to cushion the effects of this year's crisis: in the hope that the Government will resolve the situation between now and next year, they are cutting other items of the budget. Mr. Ottery's letter describes some of the cuts at his school. He says that there will be less money for books and equipment in some departments, significant cuts in teacher professional development and training, a reduction in learning support assistants for children with special educational needs, and cutbacks in other capital expenditure, including on ICT.
Mr Ottery's letter continues:
"This year's budget is desperate, and for the first time I simply do not have enough money to run my school. There is no doubt we will significantly overspend by the end of the financial year. More worrying is that the Government's budget is for a further two years."
He worries greatly about how schools such as Stanchester will make up next year for the deficit that has been created this year.
Mr. John Horam: One problem that exacerbates the difficulty is the number of centrally funded schemes—many of which are important to a school, such as support for exclusivity problems—that have suddenly ended so that there is no longer any central funding. If they come to an end when a school is struggling for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman is outlining, that is a double difficulty.
Mr. Laws: I entirely agree. I will describe later what I believe to be the sources of this year's funding problem. I wanted to start by identifying some of the impacts that that has had on the education sector.
108WH
Let me quote from another letter, which I received from a primary school in my constituency, to show that these problems are reflected not only in particular sectors such as secondary education, but right across the board. The problems at South Petherton Church of England infants school are very similar to some of the problems identified in the secondary sector in Somerset. The effects of the school's financial problems are that it is having to balance its budget by cutting teaching assistant time by 15 hours immediately, decreasing the amount of time the head spends on activities in which the head would normally take a leadership role, cutting back on training and supply cover, and putting on hold capital plans for the school. Many schools are having to cut their capital expenditure and use that money to plug the gap. Mrs. Grazette, the head teacher of South Petherton infants school, explains at the end of her letter:
"The reality in our School is quite different from the rhetoric in the National Agreement and it is my experience, in talking to other Headteachers, that this is their reality too.
I am a dedicated educationalist and went into Headship because I believed I could make a positive difference to children's learning. I believe that teaching can be the best job in the world but my dedication and conviction are being sorely tested at the moment!"
The letters I have quoted offer examples from a couple of schools. There will always be schools that lose out in particular budget rounds, but if we look at the situation in the schools right across Somerset, we find that those that were able to respond to a survey by the National Association of Head Teachers a couple of months ago provided evidence that in Somerset there had been 28 full-time teacher redundancies, that teachers were not being replaced—another problem that schools are facing—equivalent to almost 28 full-time posts, that there were 14 redundancies among support staff and a reduction in support staff hours equivalent to 895 hours. That is happening even though schools are taking action this year to try to minimise the staffing impact of the funding problems. Many schools are running down their reserves and transferring capital funding from other projects to cushion the blow this year, hoping that the Minister will produce a resolution to this problem by next year. That is why it is vital that Ministers consult over the next few months and resolve the problem, including making up the deficits, before we find ourselves facing much worse problems next year.
Mr. David Heath: Does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly in smaller schools, one of the results of teacher redundancies or not filling posts is a dramatic increase in class sizes, which is contrary to the Government's stated policy?
Mr. Laws: My hon. Friend is, as ever, right. We will see the effects of this year's financial pressures not only in teacher redundancies but in rising class sizes, which cannot be good, especially as our country already has high primary school class sizes compared with other countries.
If we are to address the problems next year, we must understand what caused them this year. I think that the Government are now willing to accept that there is a serious funding problem this year, which has set back the improvements that they seek in the education system. However, it has taken a long time for them to

109WH
acknowledge the cause of the problems—their first effort, after trying to pretend that there were none, was to blame the LEAs. The Minister for School Standards attended one of the teachers' conferences a couple of months ago and said that the problems arose because the LEAs were squirrelling away £500 million, not spending it. He said the Government would chase that matter up and discover which authorities were irresponsibly holding on to the money. Having considered the matter, the Government have backed away from that explanation. The Minister for Schools Standards wrote to me on 15 June. Having implicitly criticised Somerset county council for its policy and having blamed its financial mismanagement for locally created problems, he wrote:
"we did not set out to give the impression that LEAs were holding back funding from schools."
He could have fooled a few of us. That was the impression the Government gave. I am, however, glad that they have now acknowledged that that is not what has happened.
There were various reasons for the funding problem this year, the main one being that the Government completely miscalculated the higher costs coming to bear on the sector, especially pay costs. The increase in national insurance contributions should have been easy to anticipate and build into the calculations. It would perhaps have been less easy to build in the higher threshold payments, which many schools had to fund, the increase in pension costs and the teachers' pay award, which was not anything special in relation to inflation, but that should have been possible.
The NAHT provides a clear summary of the main reasons why this year the Government misjudged so badly that only a few hundred million at most of the £2.7 billion extra cash that they put into the education system is getting through to schools after the cost changes. The NAHT lists the areas in which the Government have misjudged things this year:
"An under estimate of teachers, and support staff, pay increases over the 3-year period…An under estimate of the cost of the pension increase this year…An under estimate of the losses from the Standards Fund over the 3 year period…An inappropriate inclusion of Standards Fund money in the third year…An under estimate of Performance Related Pay increases not covered by Government grant"—
which is important for many schools with more senior teachers—
"No allowance for the cost of shortening the main scale over the 3 year period…Inflation calculations pitched"
at the wrong level, and incorrect assumptions about the leadership incentive grant. I see the Minister shake his head, but I assume that the Government have accepted that some of those items were among the causes of this year's problems. I hope that he will deal with that on summing up. It is time that we moved on from the matter of who to blame for this year to what our schools are interested in, which is how we are going to sort things out next year, but if we cannot figure out a common position on what has caused the problems, we will never get anywhere next year.
I am grateful to staff at Somerset county council—the director of education, Michael Jennings and his group manager, Susan Fielden—for providing a note about
110WH
other pressures facing LEAs and schools, some of which are dealt with in the NAHT paper. There are other matters outside the domain of pay—inclusion, for example, is a growing cost for schools. Although we welcome the efforts that the Government are making to enable children to attend mainstream schools, there is often a significant capital cost in getting such programmes off the ground. There are transport costs, not least in rural authorities throughout the country, many of which have lost out under the new funding formula for schools introduced by the Government this year. Somerset county council tells me that
"inflation in this sector continues to run considerably higher than average levels".
Therefore, the Government's assumptions about transport costs may not always be borne out in practice. There is a growing responsibility on LEAs to provide a wide range of early-years education support, and many authorities will need an increase in provision as a result. In Somerset, that will come to some £500,000 in 2003–04.
There are falling rolls in many primary schools, but often school budgets will not decrease as fast as Government funding; a large and increasing gap will be generated, because although the pupil-related funding may fall off, schools will still have to meet teacher costs and operational costs, which are easy to ignore in national formulae. Also, of course, there are issues relating to standards funds, work force reform, performance pay and ICT, all of which were mentioned by the NAHT and all of which are serious problems to many authorities and schools across the country.
Schools funding is a major challenge for the Government. This year, there has been a change in the national funding formula and responsibility for standards funds and threshold payments has shifted. There have been several changes to other formulae as well as a national insurance increase. I therefore accept that what might initially have appeared to the Government to be a generous increase for schools has turned out, at best, merely to meet the higher costs that schools now face. We hope that the Government will now engage in an active debate with LEAs and the teaching profession to make sure that next year they get the judgments right, not only for the education system as a whole, but for particular parts of the country. Even though most parts of the country have had real problems this year, there is no doubt that there has been considerable diversity of experience between regions and counties, and even within counties. That is probably one of the factors that have made it so difficult for the Government to address the problem this year.
What are the Government saying about the measures that they will take to tackle the problem? The Minister for School Standards, in response to a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) about the funding problems caused to schools, set out the Department's position on how to address the difficulties. He wrote:
"My Department is working with representatives of local government and schools to consider what changes to the schools funding system are needed from 2004–05 to ensure that every school receives a reasonable per pupil settlement next year."—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 554W.]
We want the Government to acknowledge the funding problems that have been caused this year, to identify why they were caused, and to work seriously with LEAs

111WH
and the teaching profession to make sure that they do not happen again. We would also like to know the Government's objectives for next year in terms of the impact of the funding settlement. What does "reasonable" mean? Does it simply mean that the higher costs will be covered by next year's settlement? Does it mean that the higher costs that will affect next year's budgets will be met but the deficits that are being created this year will not be tackled? If so, there will be real problems and schools will not even be able to maintain the teaching staff that they have this year. Does "reasonable" mean what most schools and most of us want it to mean—that the Government are planning for expansion in the schools system and that they intend to get it back on course next year? Will schools be able to recruit new teachers and teaching support assistants and expand capital programmes? I am sure that the Minister would agree that for a Government who aspire to improve education a reasonable settlement would not be a standstill settlement that simply covers the higher costs and makes good one year of problems.
Those are some of the issues that the Government must address seriously today. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that there are many other problems with the schools funding system that we simply cannot touch on in the time we have today. Such problems relate to the distribution of funding across different parts of our country and the difference between deprived communities and those that are not deprived to such a significant degree. There are also issues connected with the funding of special educational needs and the necessity of long-term funding in the education system. Instead of experiencing every year ridiculous funding uncertainties that mean that teachers do not know what will happen next, we should follow through the logic of the comprehensive spending review, so that not only do the Government wisely set three-year targets centrally, but schools have a better understanding of their budgets for two or three years ahead.
2.24 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing this debate on such an important subject at such an opportune time. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will think that I sound like a broken gramophone record because of the number of times I have made these representations to him and to his departmental colleagues. However, I can assure him that neither I nor my head teachers, parents and governors will go away until the problem goes away.
We in Barnet have very good schools. Since the Labour Government came to power, we have had consistently improving results at all key stages and in GCSEs and A-levels. I pay tribute to the very good work that head teachers, staff and teaching assistants do in our schools to achieve those continuing improvements. However, I am very concerned that unless we do something dramatic to tackle the funding crisis this year and in future, the prospects for our being able to continue to maintain that improvement year on year will become remote.
The starting point for the problems that we are experiencing in Barnet was the 2001 census, which showed a 9 per cent. decrease in population. Those of us who live in the area find that incredible and
112WH
unbelievable, bearing in mind the amount of building work that is taking place in the area. It seems that every time one turns a corner, a building has been knocked down and a bigger block of flats is going up. Even if the census is correct for the adult population, there is certainly no sign of any fall in school rolls. The number of children we must educate remains the same, but the amount of money we have has been dramatically reduced.
We have also been significantly affected by the general changes in the funding regime, particularly the changes in the standards fund. In terms of funding, the changes translate as follows: the Department for Education and Skills said that we should passport 7.8 per cent. of funding into schools' budgets—that equates in cash terms to £14.5 million. However, somewhere along the line, the Department cannot have been talking to its colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, or not communicating as effectively as it might, because Barnet, which was on the ceiling for DFES passporting, was put on the floor for cash. We received only £7 million for the whole council—only half of what we had been told by the DFES to passport to schools. We have had a major increase—24 per cent.—in council tax and it is not realistic to expect local taxpayers to pay any more.
The LEA has been able to passport the 7.8 per cent. to schools, but significant budgeting problems remain because of rising costs, which the hon. Member for Yeovil identified. They include national insurance contributions increases, pension increases, the teachers' pay award and other rising costs that we know about. The problems are having a serious and deleterious effect on a number of secondary schools in my constituency. Only yesterday I received a copy of a letter sent to my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards from St. James' school. Mr. McSharry, the head teacher, writes:
"We are a very good school."—
I agree—
"Our students come from a corridor of deprivation including Burnt Oak, Grahame Park, West Hendon, Cricklewood and Kilburn"
but the
"deprivation is not reflected in the appearance"
or
"behaviour of the students, or…their examination results."
It is a high-achieving school given its intake. Mr. McSharry continues:
"I would be the first to applaud what this Government has done for education."
He makes some nice comments about me which modesty forbids me to read out, then points out that
"this financial crisis is having a deleterious and corrosive effect on morale and will undermine, indeed wipe from the collective memory what has been achieved."
He comments on the £451,000 budget deficit facing the school in the current year, even after a staffing reduction of five teachers. That has probably been achieved by natural wastage, but part of the problem is caused by the need to employ agency staff to fill vacancies, which is a common problem in London—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has the same problem in his constituency—and which has a major impact in terms of increasing costs. Mr. McSharry also makes a point

113WH
about the standards grant, which for St James' school was reduced by £114,000. The recruitment and retention element, which was included in that amount, was reduced by more than £30,000. That is why the school is facing serious problems.
The deficit goes beyond that, because the school is trying to obtain specialist school status in science. It is very good at science, maths and ICT, but the Mr. McSharry and I understand that a school in deficit cannot apply for specialist status. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, he will make it clear that schools that are facing a deficit this year will not be penalised in applications for specialist status, which might actually help them to get out of their difficulties.
The DFES has reviewed Barnet's education budget—as have I, during many long, tortuous meetings in which I had a wet towel wrapped around my head to assist my efforts to understand the figures. We have come up with various ideas and solutions about what should be done. The DFES talked about the centrally retained element of the education budget. I met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills at the beginning of June to discuss the matter. He felt that there was no need for the Department to revise the central budget corrections that had been made for the current year. The budget includes, for example, £1.1 million that has been retained as a contingency. It will be disbursed to schools during the current year, mainly to primary schools, which have very little scope to deal with this year's budget problems. The pupil referral unit, which the DFES approved, should be transferred from the adolescent psychiatric unit to the education budget—that is £700,000—and there is an increase in the SEN budget of £750,000. Last year's deficit of £900,000 was a historic overspend caused primarily by the substantial increase in costs for non-maintained schools. Those costs have skyrocketed: last year, they increased by an average of 15 per cent., with some increases of up to 25 per cent. Day schools' costs are up by 6.8 per cent. in the current year, and residential schools' by 10.1 per cent. Although there are only 112 statemented kids in non-maintained schools—almost the same number as last year—the costs have increased dramatically; something must be done to correct that.
I was very pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to Barnet's cabinet member for education in these terms:
"We recognise that you have not deliberately withheld money from schools and that centrally held budgets can be justified and/ or were agreed with schools through the forum."
That argument has been addressed, but the problem remains. There is no central money left that can be passported that is not already earmarked for schools.
We have been told that schools can consider the revenue use of capital funds, but there is very little money of that type available. I shall give an example of that shortly. We are told that schools can consider licensed deficits, but I understand from the education authority and head teachers that licensed deficits can be achieved only through redundancy programmes. By the end of the calendar year, Barnet faces between 15 and 20 teacher redundancies, with a similar number of teaching posts not filled and, of equal importance, similar
114WH
numbers of redundancies and unfilled teaching assistant posts. I fail to see how we can implement the agreements on work-life balance in schools that the Government have made with the various unions against a pattern of unfilled vacancies and redundancies for teachers and teaching assistants.
Barnet would have to deal with a licensed deficit of between £3.5 million and £4 million, which would have a significant impact. No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary remembers Copthall school, which he visited to present A-level certificates to sixth formers. A very high-achieving school, it was ranked the highest performing girls' comprehensive in the country in The Guardian value-added league tables. It has just won specialist status as a business school. My hon. Friend wrote to me when I raised the case of that school and suggested that the head teacher and the governors would need
"to fully consider the flexibilities"
that the Secretary of State had announced on 15 May. They have done that, but they are getting nowhere in dealing with the problem. They have already implemented a cut of £200,000, which is equivalent to 3 per cent. of the budget. They have considered using capital, but they have only £85,000 of capital this year, and that has already been committed to fixing leaks in the roof and windows. They are left with a deficit of £200,000.
The head teacher and governors are happy to set up a deficit budget and, in effect, that is what they have done. However, they cannot agree with the education authority on a licensed recovery plan, because such a plan would inevitably mean redundancies. A letter from Barnet's deputy chief education officer to the head teacher states that
"a licensed deficit in the order of £200,000"
would have to be on the back of
"a recovery plan which the LEA agrees is viable…over three years. The school should plan on the basis that future years increases in the School Budget Share will cover pay awards and inflation on other goods and services."
The letter states that
"The cost of staff at the moment"—
after the 3 per cent. cut—
"is 107 per cent. of the school budget share".
and that
"the key to a viable recovery plan lies in making sufficient redundancies or other staff reductions in 2003-04 which give a saving in that year but give a significant saving in 2004-05 and future years for the school to save what is initially a cumulating deficit."
The importance of that is that the cut might balance the books for this year, but will have an impact on staffing in future years unless we get the budget right for next year and subsequent years. The letter also comments on capital funding, but I have already referred to that. Therefore, for the school to get a licensed budget, the education department is demanding proposals for redundancies,
"including numbers and stage of process",
as part of the outline recovery plan.
Mrs. Gadd, the head teacher, has indicated that she and her governors are not prepared to set a budget that would be licensed because of that requirement of the

115WH
recovery plan. She says that there is no slack available in the school and that it now faces several appalling options. By the end of the year, the school will either be sending all the children home one day a week, or it will have to send all the children in year 11—the GCSE year—home permanently after Christmas, to let them study for themselves. The problem is now starting to become serious. Who is going pay staff wages by the end of the year?
The two examples I have given illustrate the significant problems facing schools. Our head teachers have worked very hard to come to terms with the problems. They have not pressed the nuclear button and started to send kids home, but have worked responsibly to try to balance the books. St. James' school has made significant cuts and lost five teaching posts, yet still faces a shortfall of £450,000. Copthall school has made a 3 per cent. reduction in its budget, but still faces redundancies. That will undoubtedly have an impact on the schools in the current year and future years.
I can say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, as I said to the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions the other week, that parents in my constituency are not interested in apportioning blame; they want the problem sorted out. We are not going to be able to sort the problem out with the remedies that have so far been offered by the Secretary of State. We have to have more money if we are to avoid education meltdown in Barnet—in the schools in my constituency—at the start of the next calendar year. We must have something to offer them to sort the problem out.
Significant cuts in spending have been made this year. Will next year's budgets for schools be sufficient to catch up the ground lost this year? If licensed budgets are set for the schools that have been able to achieve the requirements, will next year's budget provide enough to catch up that licensed deficit, so that we will not see year-on-year cuts as the schools run to stand still or to make up the budget deficit? What will happen when the schools standards fund changes, as was proposed last year? That has had a disproportionate effect in my constituency, with some schools losing significantly larger amounts of money than others, and the effect throughout the country has been patchy. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also tell us what will happen to specialist school applications, given the present position? That is the question raised by Mr. McSharry, the head teacher of St. James' school.
I am not crying wolf; this is a serious problem. My local education authority, Conservative controlled though it may be, has worked responsibly with the Department to try to get to the bottom of the story. The Department has worked responsibly with the education authority to look at various options, and my heads and governors have also worked well together. There has been a team effort to try to work through the problems, and I have done what I can to bring people together and hold the meetings needed to get to the bottom of the problem and sort it out. However, I think that we have now got to the bottom of it. The problem is that there is simply not enough money in the pot. Something has to be done.
2.39 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) has secured and introduced this debate, which he has done from a background of constituency experience and also from a grasp of the Government's public expenditure plans that is unusually good among Members. In doing so, he has given me the opportunity to refer to the situation in Northumberland, which is particularly bad and desperately needs attention in the next two years. The problems in Northumberland have built up over a considerable period of time. They consist of not only the current problems of the standards fund losses, the additional expenditure on pensions and the pay settlement, but the impact of a decade of bad local government funding settlements.
I have gone with a mixed delegation of Members of Parliament from three different parties to both the previous Government and the current Government because year after year the formula, which was established by the Conservative Government and continued by this one, left Northumberland with less expenditure on local government services, particularly education, than other parts of the country. That has not been remedied by the changes so far made to the local government funding system and the effect has been severe.
Although the decision emanates from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Education and Skills must have been closely involved in the decision and discussions. It should recognise the severe impact of a bad local government settlement on a local authority, the largest single responsibility of which is education. The situation in shire counties has been severe.
Northumberland has had significant setbacks in obtaining funds from the Department for Education and Skills, particularly by way of private finance initiative schemes. The authority has twice put up and twice had rejected PFI schemes for the Ashington area, which includes schools in my constituency, and for the Berwick area. On each occasion, it picked up hints that it was not far short of the conditions required for the approval of a scheme. It was suggested that if the authority put this or that right, it could hope to secure approval at a later stage. It has been through that experience twice and groups of schools, which desperately need investment, have been unable to secure it because of successive decisions on PFI schemes.
In the case of the Berwick area, the county is proposing a massive reorganisation of schools—the amalgamation on to one site of a high school and two middle schools—with no confidence whatsoever that PFI funding can be obtained for the conversion and construction of buildings. The county authority finds it difficult to convince anyone in Berwick of the merits of the scheme because everyone says, "You'll never find the money." Even if we put up with the loss of the existing schools—the middle schools are doing a particularly good job—we cannot have any confidence that a great new campus will have the necessary funding for it to have major compensating advantages.

117WH
The cost pressures have been so serious that the education authority had to ask head teachers to stop making people redundant because it could not afford the redundancy payments. The director of education sent a letter to heads earlier this year pointing out,
"There are 12 schools where normally we would approve the voluntary redundancy of permanent staff over 50. The cost of those redundancies…would be in the region of £3,000,000, yet the amount of budget available to fund redundancies is only £1,000,000. Over the last ten or so years a large amount has been spent on redundancies in schools, and we are still paying for this from the education budget. Rather than funding redundancies, we would prefer to provide more resources for schools."
The council scraped together £500,000 from its PFI funding and £1 million from elsewhere to put forward a proposal to stop the redundancies and keep the posts. The whole process was cost-driven. One or two teachers had probably hoped that they would get voluntary redundancy and were denied it, and the story illustrates the desperate snatching at one fund or another to deal with immediate cost pressures.
The pressure to close down village schools is largely derived from those cost pressures. Major reviews are taking place in two areas of the county and they will be followed by reviews in other areas. The proposals for the Ashington area are likely to include closing Linton school in my constituency. The school has massive and remarkable community support to which I pay warm tribute. I have watched how the community has cared for its school. In the Berwick area, a whole series of schools face the possibility of closure or amalgamation. They are Horncliffe, Norham, Scremerston, Cornhillon-Tweed, Ford, Milfield, Lowick and Holy Island. That large group could be reduced to two or three schools. Village after village would lose its school, contrary to the Government's statement that there is a presumption against village school closures.
Two factors are driving the proposals: the county's educational problems and the surplus places argument, which the Government are fond of using. The county administration fears that the surplus places argument works against it in its PFI bids. In seeking approval for major capital investment in schools, it has to meet the argument that it has too high a quota of surplus places.
What are surplus places in village schools? They arise primarily from two things. First, in a village school a teacher could be teaching 15 children of a wide age range. Theoretically, the teacher could teach 20 or 25 children in that class, but there may not be that number of children between the ages of five and seven in the village that year. It is in the nature of schools in small communities that teachers may take two-year groups, or, in some cases, all the year groups in the school, as happens in my constituency. Despite the versatility that teachers show, the problem remains. When surplus places are viewed in that way, the impact is to put under pressure of closure schools in villages that are active in their support and where it is certain that there will be pupils in future years.
The second factor in the surplus places policy is the fact that many of the schools were built to accommodate children between the ages of five and 15, or in some cases, five and 11, whereas the only children that they actually have are between five and nine, because the
118WH
county has a three-tier system. That does not mean that the accommodation is wasted. In almost every case, spare classroom accommodation in schools is used for nursery classes or playgroups, which are often independently run, or for other community purposes that are welcomed in the communities that are served. It ought to be a sensible part of any rural policy to use community assets, such as village schools, as ambitiously and flexibly as possible to meet the various social needs of the community.
What is the process by which policies on education funding for the next two years, and the surplus places policy, are subjected to rural-proofing? How is it that that objective, which the Government and the Countryside Agency have set for themselves, is applied to policies that appear to have the opposite effect and work directly against rural areas?
Let us consider the village first schools that are threatened and those that will be threatened when the review moves on to other areas. The atmosphere in the first schools is positive. My description of the funding situation would not be readily apparent to someone who just went into a class in which young children were being taught because of the dedication of staff in our small schools. There is huge community support for the schools and they can rely on the community to fill some of the gaps by fundraising and coming in to help with activities. Great successes are achieved, but all that could be thrown away in the closure and amalgamation process.
The impact of the financial problems is more immediately obvious in middle and high schools. Subjects can no longer be taught and activities that were being developed have had to be abandoned or greatly reduced. The impact is severe. There has also been a serious impact on high schools, which include schools that are trying to invest in staff and facilities to raise standards that are not high enough at present. Berwick high school is trying to acquire the status of business school. Doing so against the current background and the PFI refusals seems a Herculean task. It is battling the tide of funding, which is going against it all the time.
When the Minister deals with the wider issues of education funding for the next two years, I want him to apply rural-proofing to those policies and examine their impact on village schools and smaller schools. I also want him to recognise that in rural and urban Northumberland the impact of a decade of school underfunding is making it virtually impossible for schools to tackle the problems that they want to resolve, which the Government are urging them to resolve. Northumberland's situation is serious and I ask the Minister to give it some special personal attention
2.50 pm
Mr. David Heath: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing the debate. I express my surprise that more hon. Members are not here to represent the views of their schools. If that gives the proceedings a slight Somerset bias it is no bad thing as far as we are concerned. I shall not rehearse the arguments that my hon. Friend has already made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) faces almost exactly the same problems in his constituency as I do in mine. Our constituencies have a similar, rural outlook.

119WH
We have been here so many times before. Throughout the last Parliament we almost had a monthly repertory company talking about the worst funded local authorities in this country and making the case on behalf of our educational authorities. It was nearly always the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris) who was deputed to answer our questions, and we knew each other's speeches off by heart. We knew exactly what we were going to say, and once we had finished the debate, we would agree that there was a serious problem that needed to be addressed, but could not be entirely addressed within the Department for Education and Skills. We have always understood that.
The holy grail that was before us was always the funding review and the change in funding formula. That was going to make the difference and end the decades of underfunding of the worst funded authorities in the country. I have to say that we are bitterly disappointed at what has happened this year, overall and in specific terms, to Somerset schools. We do not seem to have made the quantum leap that will take our children into the same funding league as those elsewhere in the country.
I often cite the fact that our children annually receive from Government £1,500 per child less than those in some London suburbs. I accept the points made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) as that clearly is not the case in his constituency, but that sort of disparity is impossible to justify. It is the root cause of everything else that flows from it. Until we have a genuine entitlement for our children we will be robbing Peter to pay Paul and making do in our education systems. We are not providing the level of funding that is appropriate for our very good schools, teachers and governing bodies, which are doing a superb job with the little that they have.
The inequity in the funding formula used to be dealt with by the standards fund, which was used as an unofficial DFES slush fund. Even that has now been cast into confusion, and as a result, schools face serious problems. There is no hope of a further review that will deal with the underlying deficit. We hear much from Ministers about the need for stability in education funding, and we absolutely agree. We have argued for that for years. We want there to be the certainty, at least in the medium term, of a three-year rolling programme of education funding. What we do not want is stability in deficit, which makes it impossible to plan effectively for the future, to make the necessary investments and to set aside funds. That applies both to revenue and to capital.
Somerset has a huge backlog of temporary buildings. At one point, well over 800 temporary classrooms were in regular use. Not only had some of them been put there 40 years ago, but they were being used for the education of children whose grandparents had been taught in them as children. That is a disgrace; it should have been dealt with years ago.
I accept that, because there is such an enormous requirement for resources and funds, it cannot be met overnight and the Government are making a start. However, that means that there is limited scope for progress on all the other things that schools should be doing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke about wider community use. That is
120WH
one of the things that get lost when schools have no capital fund, because they do not have spare buildings to put to such use.
Mr. Mark Francois: Without wishing to deny anything that the hon. Gentleman has said about Somerset, is he aware that Essex had the worst grant settlement in the country? In both our counties, many are concerned that this year is not a one-off. The title of the debate signifies that it is the beginning of a process. Unless the Government can be persuaded to amend that process the problem will be magnified, for both pupils and teachers, in Somerset, Essex and many other counties.
Mr. Heath: Obviously, I cannot speak for Essex, but I know that at least 40 local authorities face the situation every year, and have done for decades. Because it is recurrent, problems are exacerbated rather than getting better. On top of the root cause of the problem, we are now experiencing the immediate issues set out so clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil. They affect schools in my constituency, such as Bruton primary school, which I visited last week. It is a superb school; it received a wonderful Ofsted report, is doing everything right and has an enthusiastic head and other staff. It also has very enthusiastic governors who had gone about financial planning in a sensible way: they knew that the roll would fall over the next year and then recover, so they set aside money in order to maintain class sizes and ensure that staff remained. However, they now face the unhappy prospect of reducing their staff numbers and massively increasing class sizes—and it is not their fault. They do not blame the local education authority—they have worked closely with it—but they do blame the Government. Bruton primary is not the only school affected; there are Nunney first school and Horsington school and I could list many more.
If the situation is not dealt with at source, at Government level, it cannot be dealt with by the local authorities. As the hon. Member for Hendon says, there is a limit to the tolerance of our electorate for council tax increases. They cannot continue paying more and more and, by the gearing effect, receiving less and less. They cannot keep on cross-subsidising education out of social services and roads maintenance and all the other things that a county council funds.
Mr. Beith: Let me give an illustration. Northumberland county council found that, even with a council tax increase of 12.8 per cent., it could not achieve the level of education spending presumed by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Heath: That does not surprise me. If there has been one recurrent theme over many years, it has been that whatever the Department for Education and Skills wants to happen, the Department for the Environment as was, now the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, does not allow the system enough elasticity for it to work. Education authorities that are committed to education and people in the schools system who are committed to schools find themselves the losers. That must not persist. The education system reminds me of a dangerous road where somebody is required to die before an improvement is made. One feels that our

121WH
schools will have to fail before anybody is prepared to acknowledge that there is a funding problem. I am not prepared to see our schools fail. They are good schools and deserve our support. They should not have to support themselves through jumble sales and raffles. They should have the education service funding what they need.
Last Thursday, at Education questions, I asked the Secretary of State why he had not found time to discuss the immediate problems with Somerset education authority. He replied, I believe, that he would be happy to do so. Will the Minister confirm that so that a meeting can be arranged? Although officials from the authority and the Department are to meet, I should still like to sit round a table with the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and the authority's representatives so that we can thrash out the issues. I hope that we can co-operate on finding solutions.
Finally, I invite the Minister and his colleagues to visit Somerset. During my time as an MP, no Education Minister has ever visited the schools in my constituency. It is about time that Ministers came to see the excellent work that is done in our schools and the problems that they face. If they will not do so, we shall continue to have Adjournment debates about Somerset's education funding every year, if not, as my hon. Friend suggests, every month. The Minister can be assured that we will not let up until we have a fair deal for our children.
3 pm
Dr. John Pugh: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing the debate and on his excellent introduction. I also commiserate with the Minister, who seems to have been set upon by posses of Liberal Democrats. When he and his colleagues drew straws on Monday morning, he must have got the short one, because there can be no subject that the Government would less like to talk about at the moment than school funding. At the very least, it is a public relations disaster. At the worst, it suggests that the Government are guilty of provoking a major redundancy crisis across the land. The problem is not confined to Somerset, Essex or London. Indeed, school after school, and LEA after LEA, have identified such problems. By and large, the ministerial response has been first to deny that there is a problem and then to distribute blame elsewhere. That has set LEAs against the Government in a rather unfortunate way.
I am glad to say that the Government seem to have backtracked, but they are still vulnerable to two charges. The more serious is that they are guilty of deceit because they have presided over underfunding while appearing to be generous. The lesser but more convincing charge is that they are guilty of incompetence because they intended to increase school budgets wholesale this year but provoked a financial crisis in some, although not all, schools and LEAs. In that respect, it is noticeable that those who have done well are always the slowest to complain.
I find the lesser charge more convincing, because I am sure that the Government genuinely do not want the flak and that the Minister does not want to be here answering questions on the issue. The Government do
122WH
not want to resort, as they did earlier this year, to knee-jerk reactions, such as allowing schools to use their capital for purposes that were not previously intended. They do not want to put a strain on their partnership with LEAs.
The remarks of the Government's advisers before the Select Committee on Education and Skills last week also convince me that Ministers did not want to get into this mess in the first place and that they did not foresee it. Those advisers did not say that the Government had failed to listen to their advice, but that there was a problem with the modelling of school budgets. However, I think that there may have been a failure of anticipation and that it would be plausible to talk about a failure of modelling only where certain data could not have been foreseen. Most of the events that have caused schools problems this year have, however, been perfectly foreseeable. The increases in national insurance and teachers' pay were known, and the effect on school budgets of restructuring salary scales should have been. Pension contributions were also a known factor. The DFES certainly knew about the phasing out of the standards fund; indeed, it inspired the programme. The second-year effects of pay increases for non-teaching staff were known, as were overall pupil numbers.
The DFES advisers' only defence against the accusation that they should have taken account of such information was to say that they knew about it in general terms. They said that they knew the global figures, but that one could surely not expect them to work out specific outcomes. For example, they made play of the fact that they did not have their finger on the exact fluctuations in pupil numbers; and the extent to which LEAs would passport the funds was not easily identified, although they could have gone by previous practice, as most LEAs used to passport all that the Government asked them to do. Floors and ceilings may not come within the provenance of local authorities; and every local authority has a different distribution formula when handing out the money to schools.
Coming from the Department's advisers, that is a fairly feeble defence. They are not charged with not knowing exactly which schools would have problems; they are charged with failing to anticipate, because LEAs have different distribution formulae, different attitudes to passporting and different positions on floors and ceilings, that many schools would be seriously underfunded. If the advisers' modelling could not pick out a general failure, the Department needs to do one of two things. It should either scrap the model, as it clearly does not work; or it should sack the modellers.
The question is how the Government will progress out of that mess. I accept that next year will not be a repetition of this year in every respect. Certain variables will be better known. For instance, the local government settlement is stable for three years, although I understand that many hon. Members are deeply unhappy about that. Many costs, such as national insurance, are already factored into school budgets. The issue of school balances and of schools holding money unnecessarily will be addressed, and I hope that the switch in the standards fund will have started to bed down. However, I should like the Minister to say something about how it will be dealt with next year, and

123WH
whether money taken from the standards fund will be returned to the general pot.
There are still imponderables. It is difficult to calculate the effect of regradings—wage negotiations are always an uncertainty on the horizon—and there is always the possibility that the new freedoms being given to local authorities will affect what they do with their funds. However, because it is an easier proposition for them, the modellers should look at the matter in the round. The figures shown to the Select Committee suggest that if we strip out the ongoing costs, there could be something like a 1.4 per cent. real-terms increase in school budgets next year.
Two questions remain—whether that sort of figure, which is relatively comforting, incorporates all the real costs that schools will incur; and whether the general figure lacks significant local variation. In order to prevent local variations presenting a different picture against the background of general increases, the DFES has a responsibility to try to firefight in advance. It needs to engage in significant consultation with schools, unions and heads. As the Select Committee said, it needs to liaise effectively, or more effectively, with the ODPM. It needs to clarify the position with regard to the standards fund in general, and to consult the Local Government Association, which still says that an extra £1 billion will be required.
Above all, the DFES needs to ensure that no initiatives are adding further costs to the school budget. I take what my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about stability in deficit, but schools need stability in funding and in practice. That may not be an attractive prospect for a hyperactive Minister, but I suggest that it is a good one.
3.8 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing a debate on school funding not only because it is a matter of particular importance today and this year—we are in the midst of a major crisis—but because he picked a debate that looks forward. One of the biggest worries faced by schools throughout the country is that the funding problem is not one for this year only. The much-trumpeted stability and predictability in funding sounded attractive when that sounded like an increase in funding, but now that we have school deficits and teachers facing redundancy, it seems a much less attractive prospect.
The hon. Gentleman has therefore done a good job, not only for his constituents, but for the House, in bringing the right debate before us. He commented on the sadness caused by the absence of the Minister for School Standards. I was tempted to observe that it is infinitely better to have the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), here with us in person than to have the Minister for School Standards appearing by videolink, which appears to be his habit at the
124WH
moment—he addressed the governors' conference and the foundation and aided schools by videolink. Perhaps that is an indication—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting something that I doubt Standing Orders will ever allow in my lifetime.
Mr. Brady: You have been in the House far longer than I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in the six years that I have been here so many things have happened that I hoped that I would never see that I wish that I could share your certainty.
Perhaps the Minister for School Standards is being self-critical somewhere else. Perhaps he is now absorbing the responsibility that he must bear personally for the problems that are being experienced in schools throughout the country. I have said before that I believe that the problem is the grossest betrayal of trust of which the Government are guilty, because they promised so much in education. People in the world of education, parents and children feel bewildered and let down by the sorry pass to which we have come due to the Government's education policies.
The hon. Member for Yeovil started by welcoming the successes of some of his local schools. I, too, could pay tribute to many successful schools in my area, but the tragedy is that such schools are now succeeding not because of, or even with the support and help of, but in spite of the Department for Education and Skills. It is important to consider briefly what the situation is now. It is easy to pluck examples out of the air. For instance, an example from my constituency is that the head of Bollin primary school, a colleague, has been pushed into not only organising a fête or auction—I think that another hon. Member referred to something similar—but jumping out of an aircraft in a sponsored free-fall parachute jump to raise money for the school budget. That should certainly not be necessary in any school in this country.
We have also all read in our newspapers today about the splendid example being set by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who, in common with the head, teachers and support staff at one of the schools in his constituency, is giving up a day's pay to contribute to that school's shortfall of £38,000. We read too of a Coulsdon high school in Croydon, where parents were warned on Friday that every pupil will lose one afternoon's school a week from September due to its £300,000 shortfall.
The Conservative group on the Local Government Association, which is now the majority group, has been surveying local education authorities and has received some worrying replies on the current funding crisis. About 67 per cent. of the replies from LEAs indicated that there would be some redundancies in local schools, while 22 per cent. of replies reported that teaching posts were being left unfilled owing to financial pressures. Croydon reported between 100 and 130 posts left unfilled, Leeds did not fill 78 teaching posts, and more than 35 contracts on the Isle of Wight will not be renewed. About 97 per cent. of the replies reported that at least one school in those LEA areas had been forced

125WH
to set a deficit budget, which is a serious problem for those schools. If the Minister does not want to trust the Conservative group on the LGA—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Perish the thought.
Mr. Brady: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will trust his old friends in the National Union of Teachers, which has also been surveying schools and LEAs. It has found that two thirds of the respondents in its survey reported that there would be reductions in staff due to loss of teaching or support staff posts. About 60 per cent. of respondents reported that teaching posts would be lost. There are serious problems not only in one or two localities, but throughout the country.
We have heard several good contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made some telling points about the problems faced by his local schools and said that no Minister in the present Government had visited one of his local schools. I do not know whether the Minister will respond to that comment in due course, but if he does not, I am happy to assure him that a Minister in the next Government will. Such a visit will be high in the list of priorities. The hon. Member for Hendon, North—
Mr. Heath: The sad fact is that, when I was chairman of the education authority at the time when there was a Conservative Government, the only school that a Minister visited was a public school.
Mr. Brady: Well, there we are. We used to hear about Punch and Judy politics from the former leader of the hon. Gentleman's party. Perhaps that was what was in mind. I give my personal assurance that we shall put matters right.
Mr. Laws: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brady: I shall in a moment, but I want first to refer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hendon, North.
Mr. Dismore: It is just Hendon.
Mr. Brady: The whole of Hendon? The people of Hendon have great good fortune.
The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred to the danger of educational meltdown. His remarks are especially important because of the quality of schools in the borough of Barnet, which has some of the best schools in the country. It is a tragedy that that area is one of the places that has been hit the hardest during the current crisis.
Laws: As Lord Ashdown's successor in Yeovil, I am certainly not engaging in Punch and Judy politics, nor was my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). We are having a constructive debate about education funding in future years and the distant possibility of having a Conservative
126WH
Government. Under the Conservative party, there were two decades of the slowest growth in education budgets in the post-war period. It was only about 1.4 per cent. per year in real terms. If the Conservatives ever get back into power, will the hon. Gentleman make a pledge today that he will stick with the big increases in education funding that are in the current comprehensive spending review?
Mr. Brady: During the 18 years of Conservative Governments, we had sustained real-terms growth in education funding. The hon. Gentleman has already accepted that. What is unprecedented is what is happening now. Admittedly, the Government have put large sums into the budget, which is lifting large sums out of the pockets of our constituents supposedly to pay for the local services. However, the Government are still forcing schools and LEAs to fire teachers, which is taxing more and delivering less.
We have heard some telling points about why such problems have occurred. As I said at the outset, it is most important to look to future years, the problems that our schools will face and how we can solve them. I know that the Minister realises the importance of that. The first issue that schools that are being forced either to set deficit budgets or to spend their reserves this year are having to consider is how they will get out of that situation and recover their deficits. I am sure that they will be interested to hear the Minister's advice on the matter. The second problem is how they can deal with the black hole in capital funding, which is now being opened up. I do not like praising the Government but, in all fairness, I give them credit for increasing capital funding for schools in the past couple of years. However, the fact that schools are now being told to take the money that they were given for capital and spend it on teacher redundancies has left them utterly bewildered.
As Doug McAvoy of the NUT put it, what are we to do? If our boiler breaks down in the middle of the winter, should we sack the deputy head? Schools throughout the country are grappling with such problems. They will want to hear the Minister's views. Above all, there is the ticking time bomb of the teachers' work-load agreement. That will be introduced in September this year, and the biggest costs and increases in responsibilities for schools, particularly in staffing terms, will kick in not this September but next. Against a background of stable funding and stable deficits, that leaves the Minister with serious questions about how schools are to reduce teacher work load as the Government have promised they should be able to do. How are they to increase staffing levels against the backdrop of schools throughout the country either having to make staff redundant or facing an inability to replace staff who are leaving?
3.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I am pleased to have this brief opportunity to respond to what has been an important and constructive debate. I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has undertaken to be self-critical, and I shall do my best to match him either in person or via videolink.

127WH
I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing this important debate. I thank him in particular for his comments about the specialist schools in his constituency. I join him in congratulating the two schools in his constituency on yesterday achieving their specialist status. I am also delighted to be able to inform him and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that I shall be in Somerset next week, attending in person—not via videolink—two primary school conferences in Weston-super-Mare. At those events, about 500 primary head teachers will have the opportunity to raise all sorts of issues with me.
Mr. Heath: We are gladdened in the extreme to hear that the Minister will be visiting the historic county of Somerset, but would he like to visit the current county of Somerset as well? Weston-super-Mare lies in a different local authority area.
Mr. Twigg: I am suitably humbled. I checked in "Dod's", and the address for the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) is North Somerset, so I thought I was on firm ground. I accept the kind offer from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to visit his constituency at a suitable opportunity. I can also confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman with a delegation. He should write to my right hon. Friend and an undertaking will then be made.
In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Yeovil said that when he visits schools the improvements of recent years are pointed out. I shall briefly refer to those. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) acknowledged some of the progress on capital that we have made in the past six years. It is worth reflecting on the figures for Government support for capital investment in school buildings. During the three years in the run-up to Labour coming to power, the figures were £0.6 billion in 1995–96, £0.7 billion in 1996–97 and £0.8 billion in 1997–98. The figures for this year and the next two years are £3.8 billion, £4.5 billion and more than £5 billion.
Mr. Brady: I am intrigued about why the Minister has given figures for only the last three years of the previous Conservative Government and three years of the present Government. Surely, it would be more accurate and realistic to compare the whole six-year period of this Government with the six years leading up to 1997.
Mr. Twigg: I am happy to do that and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with those figures. I simply point out that the figure for every single year of this Government is higher than the highest of the three Conservative figures in front of me, but I am happy to write to him with further information.
The figures demonstrate that we are taking seriously the challenge, to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred, of buildings that should frankly have been invested in by Governments of both parties for decades. It will take a long time to achieve that investment. During this Government, we have seen an increase of
128WH
approaching 25,000 in the number of teachers in schools, and an increase of 80,000 in the number of support staff.
Mr. Brady: I am anxious that the Minister should not give any partial information. Would he acknowledge that the increase of 25,000 in teaching staff is closer to 1,000, if that is taken as full-time equivalents?
Mr. Twigg: I do not believe that that is the case, but I am happy to check it and to include the information in the letter that I have already undertaken to write to the hon. Gentleman.
I will move on to some of the specific questions that hon. Members asked. I will write to them if I am unable to respond to all of the matters that they raised during the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) has pursued a vigorous campaign in defence of the schools in his area and in the London borough of Barnet. He raised a number of matters, which included schools applying for specialist status. The new guidance that was published last month states that the specialist money cannot be used to cover budget shortfalls, but there is nothing to stop a school with a deficit from applying for specialist status. I hope that that provides my hon. Friend with the reassurance that he sought.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) raised several issues around rural-proofing. As he is aware, the Countryside Agency has praised the Department for Education and Skills as the Government Department with the best record on rural-proofing. I have direct responsibility for that area and I have convened a rural schools group, which goes through a whole range of issues, including funding issues. In addition, the Secretary of State regularly meets with ministerial colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and with the Countryside Agency to consider the full range of DFES priorities, including funding and how those can be effectively rural-proofed. The right hon. Gentleman also raised a number of other issues relating to PFI, about which I undertake to write to him.
On the central question of our debate, nobody disputes that there is significant extra money in the system from this financial year—a £2.7 billion increase—or that that coincides with a significant increase in the cost pressures that schools face. Taking everything into account, including inflation, we estimate that that sum adds up to about £2.45 billion. Therefore, there is about £250 million of extra money in the system. The impact of the changes this year has been variable because we have had so much change: in the mode of self-criticism, we failed to anticipate fully the combined impact of many different changes taking place at the same time. We are now learning lessons from that.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), who is no longer present, raised an important issue, which he has raised with me before, about the ending of standards fund grants. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon also referred to it. One of the difficulties with regard to that is that in the school system—as in other public services—people are against ring-fencing in general but are in favour of it in the particular. The shift from standards fund to mainstream funding has a huge

129WH
differential effect. Some schools in some parts of the country have significantly lost out as a result. In tackling the funding challenges for the coming year, one thing we must do is try to ensure that there is not that type of differential effect in different parts of the country.
Mr. Laws: The Minister for School Standards said that there would be a reasonable settlement next year. Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, can he say what a reasonable settlement means?
Mr. Twigg: In my remaining two minutes, I shall attempt to deal with that issue. I have not been able to cover as much ground as I would have liked. However, I wish to make one point. We have to face up to the shared responsibility of central Government and local government to get this right. We are working with our partners in local government to address the issues for the coming years, having learned the lessons from this year. Our key priority is to ensure that all schools receive the reasonable per pupil settlement to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are sitting down with colleagues in local government and the teachers' associations—including the head teachers' associations—to ensure that we can get a definition of what that reasonable settlement will be that will work across the country. These are the sorts of things that we are taking into account in defining that: the need to get a sufficient education funding increase for every LEA; the importance of striking the right balance between support through the general grant and through ring-fenced and targeted grants, and between in-school and out-of-school provision; and, the need to ensure that there is confidence that schools and pupils will receive the money that is intended for them, that there are fair and appropriate variations in the budget increases received by different schools in the same LEAs, and that work force reform, in line with the national agreement, can be sustained. That is an important priority for our partners and for us.
This has been a year of significant change. We want to secure the longer-term development of schools and the wider education service. That is about giving schools and LEAs more predictability and certainty. I welcome the opportunity, albeit briefly, to air some of the thinking in Government about how we can learn the lessons from this year to get things right next year and in the longer term.

Rail Links (Shrewsbury)
3.30 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important matter of the standard of rail links to Shrewsbury. According to the computer records in the House of Commons Library, there has not been such a debate for at least 25 years, and possibly longer.
I am pleased that some of my Welsh colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öumlpik) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), led a delegation today to the Secretary of State for Wales to discuss the condition of the railways connecting with Shrewsbury. I hope that that will be considered jointly with this debate, that Ministers will begin to work together closely to enforce a better understanding and that that will start to bring about real improvements for rail links.
Lembit Öumlpik: Is my hon. Friend aware that we called primarily for the support of the Secretary of State for Wales in creating an hourly service from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and integrating the rail and bus links? Will he support a campaign to consider integrated rail transport from Shrewsbury to the west?
Mr. Marsden: Absolutely. We have, over the centuries, had our differences with the Welsh, but now we are working closely on a range of different issues, especially on the local hospital in Shrewsbury, which serves the people of mid-Wales. Similarly, the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth line is important but under-resourced and does not provide enough services for local people.
Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman said that that line was under-resourced but he will know that the National Assembly for Wales has pledged a considerable sum to it. The difficulty seems to be somewhere in the Strategic Rail Authority. I am sure that he will join me and other hon. Members in ensuring that what the Assembly has pledged comes through, so that his constituents, and mine, get the better service that they deserve.
Mr. Marsden: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, I was going to deal with that in my speech. I understand that the Welsh Assembly, which is putting its money where its mouth is, pledged £2.5 million, yet the problems seem to reside more on the English side. I am a regular user of rail services; I have seen them at their best and worst. On Monday of this week, I travelled down on a Virgin Trains service that was some 35 minutes late into Euston, which was not untypical. That is the heart of the matter. People want fast, efficient and cost-effective services, but they are not getting them at the moment.
National Statistics has demonstrated that train travel has risen by 20 per cent. in the past decade—that is great—but there has been no significant track expansion, train passengers are typically being delayed on one in five trains and the length of those delays has increased. That information comes from the Strategic

131WH
Rail Authority. Although the cost of motoring is proportionately the same as it was in 1974, the cost of rail services has risen by some 80 per cent. All in all, British rail users are paying some of the highest fares in Europe, but they are not receiving the services that they should have.
I am a great fan of history. I was interested in finding out where the first railways went in Shrewsbury and throughout Shropshire. In 1835 the small Ffestiniog Railway proposed an alternative port in Morfa Nefyn for Irish-bound traffic from Wolverhampton. Shrewsbury was one of the obvious stopping-off places on the way to that peninsula. Unfortunately, the Admiralty in London decided that the new port was not required and Shrewsbury did not get its important station.
In 1839 there was another proposal to run a line from the west midlands to the Mersey. That line would have gone through the town. By 1844, there was still no agreement, as the North Wales mineral railway thought that any new scheme would affect rail traffic on the Wrexham to Chester line. So it went on, until Royal Assent was eventually given to a link between Chester and Shrewsbury on 30 June 1845. A year later, links to Wolverhampton, Hereford and Stafford were agreed to.
It is curious that, throughout history, there is a certain repetitive theme. I looked back at the report of the proceedings of the Select Committee on the Shrewsbury, Oswestry and Chester Junction and North Wales Mineral Railway Amalgamation—I am sure hon. Members will be familiar with them—and found that the Select Committee had discussed a proposal for such a railway. Mr. Ellicombe, the agent for the Bill, was cross-questioning Henry Robertson, who went on to become a Liberal Member of Parliament for Shrewsbury in 1862.
The questions that were posed included:
"Do you consider that the proposed consolidation of the Companies would be of great advantage to the public?"
Mr. Robertson said:
"I think it would be a great advantage to the public…it would be much better in the hands of one Company than in the hands of two—it would produce a quickness and greater regularity and would tend to the advantage of the public."
The question was then asked:
"Would a considerable expense be saved by working one line in connection with the other?"
The answer was:
"No doubt great expense would be saved."
There are echoes through time, but clearly we have not learned from what has gone before. Then, as now, there was great competition between companies, and that means that we do not always get the services that we should have.
Later, the Beeching reforms devastated the branch line. Then, British Rail was privatised by the Conservatives and was smashed into 120 pieces. That ended the strategic planning of our railways and destroyed the precious knowledge and expertise of local British Rail staff. In short, Shrewsbury has been an important railway hub for the Marches and mid-Wales for more than 157 years. Local people are proud of that history, but they despair of the current situation.
132WH
Recently, Liberal Democrats in Shrewsbury and Atcham carried out a survey. We asked 200 people at Shrewsbury railway station what they thought of the services. Some 90 per cent. thought that privatisation had had a negative impact on the railways and that, in particular, rail services had got worse under Labour since 1997. Some 58 per cent. thought that there simply were not enough trains running.
There is a bureaucratic nightmare of responsibility and accountability that means that we fail to bring about the improvements that we desire. To give a small example, an argument has raged about who is responsible for lights on the footbridge over Welshpool station. The platform belongs to Wales and Borders Trains and the footbridge belongs to Powys council. The two cannot agree. The Welsh Assembly has earmarked £2.5 million to improve the Cambrian line; however, we cannot get the Strategic Rail Authority to agree to that work, so nothing has happened.
As the chairman of Shrewsbury-Aberystwyth rail users association, Gareth Marston, said:
"What we have had since privatisation is a fragmented and dysfunctional system which is cost inefficient. What we need is a vertically integrated system like most other European Countries have, who manage to run much more efficient services than our own. What we must be looking to do is undo the damage that the 1993 railways act did.
We are not looking for a blank cheque, we are just looking for existing funds to be spent on improving services rather than an inefficient structure and legal wrangles."
As the rail regulator said in a recent report, Network Rail's spending is out of control. There are fewer and less reliable trains, yet passengers have to pay a lot more. I shall take the example of the journey from Shrewsbury to London. I am pleased that the price of a saver return ticket has been held down. Since 1997, it has gone from £30.50 to £33.70, a rise of just 11 per cent. That is good. However, that ticket is very inflexible and, for business people, getting that ticket at short notice is totally impractical. However, a standard return has risen from £70 to £115, a 64 per cent. rise. The first-class fare has risen from £97.50 to £184, a whopping great rise of 89 per cent. in the past six years.
I accept that performance has improved on some services and that since the various train disasters, there have clearly been some improvements. Nevertheless, Wales and Borders Trains has a punctuality rate of only 84 per cent. against a target of 92 per cent., and Central Trains has a punctuality rate of 82 per cent. against a target of 91 per cent. If we look behind the arbitrary targets, we realise that they distort what the public and the passengers desperately want. One interesting fact is that only 35 per cent. of people think that Central Trains deals satisfactorily with the delays. The poor commuters have been rewarded with the worst train performance, endless delays, cancellations and a deteriorating service.
I should like to have the Intercity routes back. It would be a great challenge to any Government to agree to that, but they are very symbolic. We briefly recaptured them in a Virgin Trains experiment, but they immediately died a death. We need vision, better management and cash put into the railways to make them succeed; to get people out of cars and back on to the trains. It amuses me slightly that the Deputy Prime

133WH
Minister said way back in 1993 that Intercity was being cut back to maximise revenue. He lamented that Blackpool and Shrewsbury might be next, and that several areas might be removed from the network service. He said that that was wrong. He was right then. What are the Government going to do about it now?
My office has received a number of submissions from the different rail users associations. The Shrewsbury to Chester rail users association has made various points. It wants to see improved connections by advancing the time of northbound trains; to have more accurate information from Network Rail and real-time train information; to re-open stations at such places as Baschurch, Whittington, Weston Rhyn and Rossett; and to include the Shrewsbury to Chester link as a trans-European network route to give it the strategic designation that it deserves.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman has touched on some stations in my constituency. Is he aware that I have had numerous meetings with the various authorities, and with Councillor David Lloyd of Gobowen who is celebrating 10 years of the re-opening of Gobowen station next Friday? All that we are asking for on our patch is an hourly clock-face service running from Shrewsbury up to Chester so that people know when the trains go. More trains will get people off the roads. We saw a 20 per cent. increase in users last year because of the improved timetable.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said earlier. We are exasperated by the bureaucratic delays. The Welsh franchise was promised to start on 1 March 2002, but it is still not up and running. Through the hon. Gentleman, can I ask the Minister when that will happen? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we had a promise of £250,000 to get the Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury link up to 90 mph five years ago, and that that still has not happened?
Mr. Marsden: Because of the shortness of time, I shall simply say that I totally support what the hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that the Minister will address those specific points.
Other rail users associations have reiterated key points. Mr. G. Atkinson from the Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton rail users association has said that there are
"no through services from the local stations direct to Birmingham New Street except the 07.10 from Shrewsbury, which means passengers having to change at Wolverhampton on an important commuter route"
and vice versa on the way back, where there are no direct trains through except the 21.07. Why would people take the train when they do not have the basic flexibility to get on to railway services that they want? The association calls for:
"A co-ordinated timetable between the two operators"
and says:
"Timetable posters at stations are incomplete and difficult to relate to"
each other. Further, there is no proper consultation on timetable changes:
134WH
"This year bus times at Telford were six minutes too early to meet the first train".
So it goes on. Gill Wright from the Heart of Wales Line travellers association has highlighted the under-utilisation of the rail services from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth, and has called for:
"1. Devolved government for the West Midlands to assist in the management and strategic overview of the railways.
2. Vertically integrated franchises operating on a not for profit basis
3. Need to replace unsuitable rolling stock not designed to be run on a scenic, tourist route—poor visibility, and lack of space for cycles and bulky luggage."
There is a need to increase Sunday services, which are now down to one a day. The demand is there in a tourist area, but it is simply not being met. There are so many knowledgeable and willing people, constructive in their approach, who want to help to make the situation better. I hope that the Minister will take that spirit on board when he addresses those points.
The Minister should appreciate that there is criticism but above all people have affection for the railways as a symbol of the success of the country and believe that we could have a great railway system once again. We need timely and reliable train services through capped investment costs, value-for-money services, an integrated approach to information from operators and helpful, friendly staff who want to exceed customer expectations instead of coming up with excuses for trains being delayed or cancelled.
Liberal Democrats will reduce the number of franchises to increase efficiency. We will cap costs through in-house contracting. We will introduce a national railcard to give a third off fares, and introduce minimum standards for stations to increase security. We will increase integration with other public transport options such as the successful pilot scheme "plus bus" in Birmingham and invest an extra £2.3 billion above what the Government have pledged. The money will produce line-speed improvements from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and reduced journey times on the Shrewsbury to Chester line. Investment of £4.5 million is pledged under the Liberal Democrat national plans.
I hope that the Minister addresses my points in a good, constructive spirit. Is he willing to meet a cross-party delegation of Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and nationalist Members to find a way forward? There is a lot of good will, and many people are prepared to make the process work. I thank the Minister for his time.
3.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on securing the debate and on the level of detail he has gone into on the assorted railway lines that go in and out of Shrewsbury. As he said in his little history lesson, Shrewsbury remains an important hub in that part of the country. I am not surprised to find that this is the first debate on Shrewsbury rail links for some years, if not the first ever. Until the hon. Gentleman said that Shrewsbury was represented by a Liberal in the 1840s, I was going to say that it had been represented by Tories for ever and a day because they could not care less about railway links.

135WH
I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has made his remarks. I should be more than happy to meet an all-party delegation to discuss those matters. I have no difficulty with that. I was a little confused as to whether the supposed £2.3 billion is to be spent in Shrewsbury, or whether it was a national figure. Perhaps he can explain that to me afterwards because I do not remember seeing it in the last Liberal Democrat shadow Budget.
Mr. Marsden: First, I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet the cross-party delegation, and it would be nice if he met representatives of the rail users associations in that area. Secondly, the £2.3 billion is pledged nationally, and £4.5 million is pledged for Shropshire.
Mr. McNulty: I assume that that will be in the next shadow Budget from the Liberal Democrats because it certainly was not in the last one.
Mr. Marsden: It was.
Mr. McNulty: Not in that detail.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Shrewsbury is currently fairly well served by regular direct trains to a variety of destinations including Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Crewe, Liverpool, Manchester, Chester, Cardiff, Swansea, Hereford and the Cambrian coast, including Aberystwyth. There is also one train a day in each direction providing a direct service to London Waterloo. In addition, Shrewsbury acts as an interchange between rail services and local bus services. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I know that many local authorities wish to pursue that. It is not just a question of money; it should not be beyond the wit of the operators to ensure that, when the train arrives, the bus is about to leave just outside, as in the more traditional European model, which sometimes works.
Having said that, I caution people against thinking that everything in Europe is tickety-boo, that everything in the garden is lovely, and that it is only the British rail system that is somehow defunct or deficient. Once one is off the TGV lines in France and crossing the country on provincial or local district lines, one finds that the service is far worse than the worst lines in the British network.
Regular, twice-hourly off-peak services to Birmingham enable passengers travelling from Shrewsbury to interchange with a wide variety of services. The cross-country network is centred on Birmingham and offers links to nearly all areas of the country. Fast, regular and comfortable journeys to London are possible with a change at Wolverhampton. The interchange is simple. Many London trains leave from the same platform at which Shrewsbury trains arrive and are timed to make good connections with rail services to Shrewsbury.
I am not saying that everything in the garden is rosy. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that things can and should improve, which is why I am happy to meet a delegation. I am pleased that he said that, on the whole, the service is reasonable.
The Wolverhampton to London section of the journey is provided by Virgin West Coast, using air-conditioned, comfortable rolling stock with full catering
136WH
facilities. The hon. Gentleman will know that brand-new Pendolino trains are gradually being introduced on the route and will provide enhanced comfort and reduced journey times. He will also know that at least £9 billion will be invested in the west coast main line.
Lembit Öumlpik: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: With respect, I will not. I am a bit of a parliamentary purist and if Back Benchers have not done me the courtesy of giving me notice that they want to intervene, I will not let them. I am more than happy for the hon. Gentleman to whisper to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham and for him to intervene.
The direct service from Shrewsbury to London Waterloo is provided by Wales and Borders Trains and travels via south Wales, Bristol and Woking. I fully accept that, although direct, the train takes significantly longer to reach London than travelling via Wolverhampton to Euston.
The service is not part of the passenger service requirement of the Wales and Borders franchise and the SRA has no plans to include it in the passenger service requirement of the new franchise, which it hopes to let later this year, because passenger levels on it are low. In inviting bids for the new franchise, the SRA has sought to protect the existing passenger service requirement, as well as those services in the existing timetable that appear to offer value for money. In addition to passenger service requirements, bidders will be expected to retain the current level of overall mileage. There is no specific requirement to continue providing the Shrewsbury to Waterloo service, although bidders for the franchise may wish to do so.
On a point that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham did not go into in detail, electrification from Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury has been considered, but is not included in the SRA's latest strategic plan. Studies have shown that the case for electrification of railways on a national basis is weak. Previously, it was considered that electrification brought numerous advantages, such as reduced fuel and maintenance costs, as well as rail vehicles with better acceleration, higher top speeds and quieter operation. In the current climate, that is no longer the case. Diesel fuel is much cheaper, so the fuel cost differentials are largely eliminated. The performance characteristics of modern diesel trains are at least as good as equivalent electric units, and although the maintenance costs of electric trains are slightly less than those of diesel trains, when the cost of maintaining overhead line equipment is added, the case for electric trains, a s opposed to diesels, is not sustained.
The priority is to provide additional capacity for both passenger and freight demand while improving the network to enable train operators to deliver significant improvements in the quality and reliability of their services, as passengers expect. Electrification is not necessarily the only way of achieving that. The SRA is much more concerned with outputs and inputs. It intends to ensure increased service standards for passengers.
The notion that there is a bureaucratic nightmare may have been fair in the immediate post-privatisation period but, with all that the SRA has done, it is no longer entirely fair. I suspect that the example that the

137WH
hon. Gentleman quoted about the footbridge being owned by Powys, with Wales and Borders owning the station—or whatever the configuration was—probably reflects a situation that has existed for a long time; British Rail may once have been involved instead of Wales and Borders. There has always been that degree of bureaucracy at a local level.
The entire purpose of the SRA is to get the strategic overview and strategic planning, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, back into the equation. I admit that it is early days, but since the SRA's inception it has pushed things back in that direction compared with the disparate, disintegrated, bodged job of privatisation that he mentioned.
Mr. Marsden: I accept the Minister's point on the bodged privatisation. It would be helpful if we had a micro-franchise to take Wales and the Marches back into a single unit, and I wonder whether he is prepared to review that situation. A single entity, possibly under the auspices of the Welsh Assembly—although the details would have to be worked out—would mean better co-ordination and management of rail services.
Mr. McNulty: I will undertake to pass that point on to the appropriate authorities. I could review the matter until the cows come home, but given my responsibilities and the way things are, it would not matter. I shall pass that point on because other Members have raised the issue—this is not meant disrespectfully—of peripheral-type areas outside the core inter-city routes. The Shrewsbury area falls betwixt and between the west coast main line and routes in south Wales, and I shall pass on those concerns. I suspect that micro-contract means a macro-substantial subsidy, which may be another dimension to the equation. The point is fair and I shall pursue it and examine it in greater detail.
I contend that the SRA is about drawing the strategic dimension, which was regrettably completely absent in the immediate post-privatisation era, back into the equation.
There are two elements to integrated timetables. First, we must ensure that there is ample publicity and information. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as me
138WH
that for many travellers, whether they are in the town or whether they are in the city, reliable information is key. Secondly, I also take his point, which is similar to the one about the interface between buses and trains, that the confluence of two franchises and the peripheral nature of Shrewsbury, which I mentioned, means that the timetables should be integrated or, at the very least, that the assorted information from the assorted franchises should be integrated.
I take that point to heart and undertake to examine it in some detail in terms not only of the published timetables at Shrewsbury station but of the timetables that provide information about the other areas that one can get to by a direct service from Shrewsbury, not least of which are Manchester airport, Birmingham airport and London Euston. Many rail franchises hide their light under a bushel because one can readily get from one place to another but nobody knows about it. That is certainly true of overland services in London, and I am sure that it is true in Shrewsbury.
Shrewsbury is an important junction not only between a number of train services but, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, between trains and buses to non-rail destinations. Birmingham, which is at the centre of the cross-country rail network, is accessible by half-hourly services throughout most of the day and allows onward connections. However, I accept the points about some of the difficulties. Passengers travelling between Shrewsbury and London can look forward to an increased service because of the Pendolino fleet—
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. I must suspend the sitting for a Division in the House.
Mr. McNulty: If I can just speak for 20 seconds more, I will have finished, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate has been important and I wish the hon. Gentleman well in pursuing the improvements that he seeks. I undertake to help him in the ways outlined in my speech.
3.59 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

Syria
4.7 pm
Mr. George Howarth: I am most grateful for this opportunity to debate the important subject of Syria. Together with nine other right hon. and hon. Members, I was fortunate enough to be part of a delegation sponsored by the Syrian-British Society that visited Damascus, Palmyra and Aleppo at the end of May. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the society for its kind sponsorship of our delegation and to thank the Syrian Government for their generous hospitality. I would also like to express gratitude for the support of the ambassador and his staff.
In order to give others an opportunity to contribute to this short debate, I intend to confine my remarks to two issues that are of key importance; first, the economic links between our two countries and, secondly, the important position that Syria occupies in the politics of the middle east.
Despite recent difficulties that we all know about, Syria and the UK are already engaged in significant trade. In 2002, the UK exported £83 million worth of goods to Syria and imported £117 million, representing increases on the previous year of 26 per cent. and 33 per cent. respectively. As a delegation, we were united in urging the Syrian Government to continue and, indeed, to speed up the process of economic reform. They already have powerful incentives to do so through their association agreement with the European Union and, of course, programmes of the IMF and the World Bank.
We recognise that liberalising banking is crucial to the process of wider economic reform. In that context, we welcome the work in which the Government and the British Council are engaged to help bank employees with training and to provide English language training through the British Council. That is crucial to the expansion of trade. However, I firmly believe that there is greater scope for that source of co-operation and assistance and that in economic and trade terms the mutual benefits are great.
The serious political importance of the relationship to the long-term stability of the region should not he understated. The strengthening relationship between the two Governments is welcomed in Syria, particularly the warm relationship that has developed between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Bashar. As a delegation, we made it clear to those we met, including the President, that obstacles must be overcome, certainly if Syria is to maximise its influence. Human rights and the need for political reform are two issues on which we pressed very hard. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) has some comments to make on human rights, so I shall not say too much about that. However, as the Syrian Government are aware, there is a problem with their image.
In the wider world, whatever the merits of President Bush's classification of Syria as part of the so-called "axis of evil", it cannot be ignored. Whatever reasons groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas may have for operating in Syria, the fact that they are there inevitably leads to suspicion and mistrust.
Mr. Michael Portillo: As part of the delegation, I endorse the opening comments and warm thanks expressed by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) to the parties involved.
On the offices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, perhaps the hon. Gentleman recollects that we were given three arguments. First, the offices had already been closed by the organisations concerned, so there was no need for Syrian Government action. Secondly, the offices were largely involved in humanitarian work. Thirdly, they were not really terrorist organisations because, in the context of occupation of the occupied territories, they were regarded as freedom fighters. Whatever the truth of the first two arguments and the merits of the third, which I do not accept, does the hon. Gentleman agree that they were not convincing for a British delegation? Does he agree there has been a continued missed opportunity, particularly in view of the progress that is now being made with the road map negotiations? Will he urge his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to use his good offices with President Bashar with regard to this matter? I believe that it would be to Syria's advantage if it made an important move in that direction.
Mr. Howarth: I agree with everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. I simply make the point that whichever of the three arguments are employed, the fact is that the continued presence of groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Syria—whether they are in offices or elsewhere—inevitably leads to suspicion and mistrust. I accept entirely that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a powerful role to play in persuading the President and the Government that they must be seen to act. Being seen to act is almost as important as the action itself.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, we were told that efforts are under way to deal with the issue, but it continues to have a corrosive effect on international perception of Syria. Addressing such issues is essential for two reasons. First, as the right hon. Gentleman said, these issues inevitably damage Syria's reputation in some important parts of the world. Secondly, it acts as a serious barrier to the role that I believe Syria can play in the peace process and in taking part positively to deliver the road map.
Shortage of time limits the ground that I can cover, but I leave my hon. Friend the Minister with one clear message. The UK is a constructive but at times critical friend to Syria, and we have a pivotal position to play in encouraging and supporting economic reform and in supporting and encouraging Syria's potential as a political force for good, particularly in the middle east. I know that the Syrian-British Society is able to help, and I urge the Government to work with it so that our bilateral relations can continue to develop in a friendly and mutually beneficial manner.
Mr. Tony Colman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the warm welcome given to the delegation—as a member, I thank all those who helped us on our visit—included a welcome to the idea of the BBC opening a permanent office in Damascus? That would be another excellent way to deal with the problem of

141WH
perception. Will he suggest that our hon. Friend the Under-Secretary encourage the BBC to open in Damascus, as it would be able to give a true picture of what is going on in Syria instead of the distorted perception that we often receive?
Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has made his point well, and I support him. There are many misconceptions about Syria. In many ways, it is a religiously tolerant country. We were all hugely grateful for the warmth and friendliness of the people of Syria. The more that that side of Syria is exposed to the media, and thus to the wider world, the better it will be for Syrian relations with others.
I conclude by saying that, as was demonstrated in their interventions, many hon. Members stand ready to help the Government in their efforts to improve relationships. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make use of us whenever he thinks it could help the Government in their wish for better understanding.
4.16 pm
Mr. Ben Chapman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) on securing this important debate. I thank him for allowing me some of his time, as I wish to make a few points on human rights. I, too, was privileged-I use that word advisedly-to be part of the delegation. Perhaps I should not say so, but I thought that it was an excellent delegation with an excellent mix of Members. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and my hon. Friend Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) in their places today. I thought that they made a substantial contribution to the political dialogue while we were in Damascus and elsewhere in Syria.
It is clear that there is much potential in our bilateral relationship with Syria, and that the UK has many friends and much influence in Syria. As my hon. Friend said, we need to make more of that. Just as our talks in Syria were characterised by frankness on both sides, so do I want to be candid when considering the issue of human rights. In that subject, as in a number of others, Syria, as my hon. Friend said, must to address the reality and perception. In my view, the overseas perception of Syria does not facilitate its advancement in the global community.
It has to be said that Syria's record on human rights is poor. In my view, it has not done enough to address the concerns that we and others have on the subject. For example, there are widespread reports on the use of torture in prisons, and Syria has yet to sign up to the convention against torture. That and the security services' lack of accountability give cause for concern.
I am a little saddened that the pro-democracy civil society groups that were established following positive initial moves after the accession of President Bashar have since stalled and that many of them have been closed. Two members of Parliament and eight other
142WH
high-profile civil society advocates who subsequently continued their activities were arrested this year. All were sentenced to periods of between two and a half and 10 years imprisonment on charges of illegally trying to change the constitution, weakening national unity and increasing sectarian strife.
Of course, I welcome the release—at about the time when we were in Damascus—of Ibrahim Hamidi, who was accused of disseminating false information. To a degree, however, the damage has already been done. Nevertheless, there have been some positives since Bashar became President: the release of up to 600 political prisoners, mostly as the result of a presidential amnesty; the fact that diplomats were allowed to attend the trial of the two members of Parliament; the granting of licences to independent publications; the accession to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, and a number of other things.
I remain concerned about the overall human rights performance. We missed no opportunity to raise that point when we visited. Dozens of people were arrested during the year on political grounds and hundreds of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, continue to be held.
We, and our EU partners, have continued to lobby over recent cases but with little success. The continued arbitrary arrests, unfair trials, detention of political prisoners and torture run contrary to human rights norms. Syria is, in many respects, a tolerant society; exceptionally so in respect of religious freedoms. I urge the Syrian authorities to act on human rights now—I did the same in Damascus—and to understand that their practices in that regard damage their standing. They must work to improve both their human rights and their image overseas. There is much good will and friendship towards President Bashar and the Syrian people. In Britain, there is a diaspora of considerable power and force. Let us work together to increase understanding of Syria.
In conclusion, I pay tribute to those who accompanied us on our visit to Syria; Dr. Fawaz Akhras, Mr. Wafic Said, Mr. Gayth Armanazi and, of course, the ambassador, who was with us throughout. It would be remiss of me if I did not thank also the late Fouad Takla. I had not met him until our visit, but in that short time, I came to know him as a man of great humour, character and integrity. He was a man of Horns and a man of considerable achievement. I hope that my friends will join me in sending condolences to his family.
4.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I start by endorsing those last comments.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) on securing the debate. I get the sense that he did it not only on his own behalf, but on behalf of his colleagues who took part in the visit. Such visits are constructive and useful and can only help to improve and secure relations between Syria and the UK, and help the development of that country and the middle east in general. In response to his specific point, I would say that the Foreign Office

143WH
welcomes the work of the Syrian-British Society and wishes to see it enhanced.
The United Kingdom and Syria certainly do not see eye to eye on a number of issues. The Syrian Government would be the first to acknowledge that. However, we are fortunate in having a relationship that allows us to discuss our concerns and disagreements frankly and openly, without preventing the UK from assisting Syria, when it can, in its attempts at reform. We recognise that there is much that we can do with Syria, and we are keen to develop the relationship; at its heart is the fervent support of both the Prime Minister and President Bashar, who have a strong working relationship, as my hon. Friend said. The President's visits to the UK last December as a guest of this Government underlined and reinforced that relationship.
I want to say a few words about our relationship in general. Some people might ask why we are dealing with a country that some people believe is a former ally of Saddam Hussein, a state sponsor of terrorism and an occupier of Lebanon. If we are to make progress in our relations with Syria, we must acknowledge that Syria has made mistakes and that its image is badly tarnished. That does not mean, however, that Syria cannot change or that it does not matter; in fact, it means the complete reverse. Syria still strongly influences Arab opinion. It has a seat on the United Nations Security Council, and is central to our efforts to secure a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab countries. In a sense, to say that Syria does matter is to state the obvious. It is up to us to convince Syria and President Bashar that change is fundamentally necessary.
It is also a statement of the obvious, although I believe it to be true, to say that, in many ways, Syria is at a crossroads, and that there are important decisions to be taken and hard choices to be made. We hope that President Bashar and his Government will choose wisely and that they will make a decisive break with the policies of the past. We hope that they will contribute to a better future for Syria and the region. Through dialogue, we hope that we can help Syria to make the right choices for herself and her people. It is down not only to us. Syria, too, must act and move forward. A willingness to continue to co-operate on the key questions of Iraq and of reining in the Palestinian rejectionist groups is most important.
It would be remiss of me not to point out another problem, to which several hon. Friends referred; the important failing of Syria's public diplomacy. In the past, Syria deserved its reputation, but much of the bad press is self-generated. Syria has failed to present its policies more clearly and to take a more constructive approach to international issues. We want to continue to discuss those matters with the Syrian Government. Nevertheless, Syria has a good record on women's rights, and stands out in the middle east for the harmonious relations between Christian and Muslim communities. That record stands strongly in its favour, and we should do everything that we can to support it.
I want to examine more closely some of the key aspects of our relationship. I shall start by talking about the positive ones. Most importantly, our relationship
144WH
with Syria is two-way. Both sides are genuinely willing to listen to each other and to place an importance on developing that relationship. We are committed to continuing to increase high-level contacts. This year alone, the Minister for Trade and Investment, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), visited Damascus twice. The Prime Minister and President Bashar speak on the telephone, most recently at Syria's request, and the Foreign Secretary speaks to his opposite number. That relationship is enhanced by often candid exchanges and a sense of trust rather than animosity; an essential ingredient of any continuing relationship.
It is all very well to talk in those terms, but what practical results have our relationship brought? There have been encouraging signs. As hon. Members have said, Syria is changing, albeit slowly. Economic reform, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East referred, is fundamentally necessary after four decades of a command economy, and is essential to Syria's long-term aspirations. Those changes and reforms are, at long last, picking up pace.
New legislation has seen the granting of three licences that allow foreign banks to operate in Syria for the first time, which is a very welcome development. We hope to encourage further liberalisation in the financial sector through the visit next week of the Lord Mayor, Gavin Arthur, who will be accompanied by a delegation of British business men and representatives from the Bank of England. Such exchanges can only help this process.
We are working with the Syrians on another key area of reform; public administration. The UK has helped to design an IT strategy specific to Syria's requirements. We hope that IT wil form an important part of Syria's attempts to reform its administration. The strategy was recently adopted by the Syrian Cabinet and has the President's full support. The British Council plays an important role through its assistance with the IT strategy and capacity building in universities. Education is equally important to Syria's future, so it is important that we also help in that sphere. As I said, there is much that we can do with Syria. Equally, there is much that Syria can do for itself.
Let me move on to the more difficult issues. It may be sensible to start with Iraq. We welcomed the strong Syrian vote in favour of Security Council resolution 1441 in November. However, Syria's support for the Iraqi regime, through the supply of weapons, support for the recruitment of volunteer fighters and the harbouring of regime figures—whether or not that has been sanctioned by the President—has, to say the least, been regrettable. That left the Syrian Government needing to rethink their policy and quickly realign themselves following the conflict with Iraq. Encouragingly, Syria looks to be doing that. I believe that Syria is attempting to put past misjudgments behind it.
As a close neighbour, Syria is naturally concerned about Iraq's future, We understand that and have sought to involve Syria in planning for Iraq's future. We have shared our vision with the Syrians, and Syria has, in general, been receptive to our thinking. More positively, the Syrian Government have sought to

145WH
remain engaged with us on the subject, offering thoughts, suggestions and contributions. I very much welcome that.
The significant changes in the region following the Iraq conflict may have had a positive impact on Syria's thinking and attitude, on its stance on the peace process in the middle east generally and on its position on the quartet's road map for peace in particular. Syria suddenly found itself almost alone among its neighbours, which were fully supportive of the latest peace initiative. We and others encouraged it to take a more constructive approach, and there is strong evidence that that is happening. Syria has said that if the road map is acceptable to Palestinians—I remind hon. Members of the commitment of Prime Minister Abbas—it is acceptable to the Syrians. Syria still has reservations, primarily about where its own concerns on the Golan refugees fit in, but it is showing more interest and calling for a detailed road map specific to those concerns. That is a positive development. We should build on that co-operation and that increase in understanding.
However, a continuing concern involves the Palestinian rejectionist groups and Hezbollah. My hon. Friends referred to that in detail. There is no real evidence to suggest that Syria directly provides funding, weapons or training to those groups, but allowing them to operate out of Syria and openly providing ideological support serves only to damage the peace process. As a candid friend, we should be able to say that. We have called on Syria to temper its rhetoric and to shut down rejectionist offices. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) rightly referred to that.
More recent utterings from Damascus have been more encouraging. We urge people to continue that process, because curbing the actions of rejectionist groups is crucial to the road map's success. We have repeatedly told the Syrians that they have a key part to play in bringing an end to the violence in the occupied territories. I hope that that role will continue.
This issue was not referred to in the debate, but is worth highlighting. Some would argue that the Syrians occupy Lebanon and that the Lebanese Government are merely puppets of the Syrian Government. I think that that is a distortion of the truth. Lebanon has a thriving free market, a large measure of freedom of expression and a functioning, albeit idiosyncratic, democracy. Although Syria has a degree of influence in Lebanon, its
146WH
presence has the support not only of the Lebanese Government but, significantly, of the majority of the electorate. Hon. Members would support that process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) also referred, quite properly, to concerns about human rights. It is worth highlighting the fact that Syria has made only limited progress in that regard, despite being repeatedly urged by our EU partners and us to move in that direction. My hon. Friend referred to the 600 political prisoners who have been released over the last three years, which we welcome, and to the key release late last year under the presidential amnesty of the prominent civil rights activist Riad al-Turk. However, there is a considerable degree of further progress to be made. The continued practices of arbitrary arrests, unfair trials, the detention of political prisoners and torture run fundamentally contrary to international human rights norms. In that regard, the comments that my hon. Friend made about the need for Syria to sign up to the convention on torture is an argument that is effective and well made. There is no excuse not to address those human rights concerns and we shall certainly continue to push Syria on such issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East raised two key points, the first of which was about the Foreign Office looking both to work with the group in question and to see its work helping the work that we do. I should like to give assent to that proposal; perhaps we can discuss it in another forum. His other point was about the BBC office in Syria; I make it clear that that decision is for the BBC to take, but we would be supportive, because that could help to open up the process.
Where do we go from here? We take the view that our approach and our policy of critical engagement can be worth while and we wish to continue with that. Syria has, admittedly, got a lot to do, but it is moving in the right direction. It is important that Syria continues to work on these issues; in particular, an EU association agreement and membership of the WTO will help in that regard. However, it is important that we remain critically engaged with Syria. If we continue to do that and Syria continues to respond, things can develop in a positive direction. Debates such as this one, which follows what I can see has been a successful visit, can only help in that regard. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Five o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Aggregate
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will estimate how many tonnes of aggregate would be required for the(a) motorway widening, (b) major trunk road schemes, (c) bypasses and (d) other major local road improvement schemes implied by the Ten Year Transport Plan; [122000]

  (2) if he will estimate how many tonnes of aggregate will be required to build the current targeted programme of improvements. [122001]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government do not have any such estimates. Precise solutions for delivering many of the projects in the Ten Year Plan including the Targeted Programme of Improvements are not yet defined.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what breaches of night flight noise limits under the quota count system there have been on the Heathrow flight paths since the current night flights restrictions began. [123030]

  Mr. McNulty
  None. I wrote to my hon. Friend about this on 20 June 2003 and I have now placed a copy of that letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport what discussions his Department has had with international experts on International Civil Aviation Organisation noise certification; and what reasons these experts have given for the difference between locally monitored night flight noise levels and certificated noise levels in the Heathrow area. [123031]

  Mr. McNulty
  Certification testing is carried out under strictly controlled meteorological and acoustical conditions and using defined flight path procedures. It follows that when local conditions differ so too will the noise. The extent to which currently certificated noise levels correlate with operational noise levels is one of the items being examined by a Working Group of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The Working Group will take account of data for a large range of aircraft types that operate at night at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted (recently published in "Quota Count Validation Study: Noise Measurements and Analysis", ERCD Report 0205), as well as data from some airports in the USA and France. The UK is represented on the CAEP Steering Group and the relevant Working Group by officials from the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority respectively.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce his decisions on the introduction of domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link; and if he will make a statement. [122525]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) consulted earlier this year on options for domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. We await the SRA's recommendations to Ministers in the light of the responses to that consultation.

  European Council (Plutonium MOX Fuel)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional measures are being taken to protect plutonium MOX fuel in transit from Sellafield in pursuit of the fulfilment of the commitment made by EU member states on page 39, paragraph 5 of the presidency conclusions of the Thessaloniki European Council. [122279]

  Mr. Timms
  The Presidency Conclusions of the Council of 19 and 20 June 2003 include a declaration on tackling the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Government are satisfied that the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation arising from the manufacture of MOX fuel in the UK and its export to Europe and Japan is negligible. The Government's independent civil nuclear security regulator, the DfT's Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), is responsible for approving arrangements for ensuring the security of MOX fuel during transport. OCNS is satisfied that the arrangements in place for the transport of MOX fuel are amply robust to deal with any potential threats. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures taken in respect of civil nuclear materials beyond those already published in the Director of Civil Nuclear Security's annual reports made available in the Libraries of the House.

  Performance Targets
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the performance targets that(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies are required to meet; and if he will specify for each target (i) who sets it and (ii) who monitors achievement against it. [120905]

  Mr. McNulty
  Key performance targets for the Department for Transport were agreed as part of the Spending Review and the latest set were published in "Spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreements 2003–06" (Cm 5571). The Department monitors progress towards the targets along with the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit and HM Treasury, and with Defra in the case of the target it shares with that Department, and progress is reported regularly.

  Performance targets for the Department's Agencies (the Highways Agency, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Driving Standards Agency, Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency, the Vehicle Certification Agency, and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency) are set by the Secretary of State for Transport, with the assistance of the relevant Agency and its Advisory Board. The targets are monitored through liaison meetings between each Agency and the Department for

  269W
  Transport, and by reports to the Advisory Board of the Agency in question. In each case, progress towards targets is audited and end-year performance is reported in each Agency's published Annual Report and Accounts, which are laid before Parliament.

  The Highways Agency's targets are published in its annual Business Plan, which is laid before Parliament and also published on the Agency's website. This year's targets are at: http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/ corpdocs/bus_plan/2003_2004/05. htm

  These were published in a written statement on 29 April 2003, Official Report, column 5WS.

  The key targets for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency were set by the Secretary of State and published in a written statement on 10 April 2003, Official Report, column 32WS. They are also contained in the Agency's published business plan, which was published on 8 April 2003.

  The targets for the Driving Standards Agency, the Driver, Vehicle and Licensing Agency, the Vehicle Certification Agency, and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency were published in a written statement on 29 April 2003, Official Report, columns 5–8WS.

  The Secretary of State for Transport sets out the Government's goals for the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) in Directions and Guidance that he issues to the Authority from time to time. The SRA's goals are set out in its Strategic Plan 2002 and progress on the goals is reported on in its Strategic Plan 2003. Both documents are available in the Library of the House. DfT Ministers and officials monitor the SRA's progress in delivering these goals.

  Railways
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the need for(a) new and (b) reconditioned rolling stock for the UK railway system; and whether he estimates train companies are making the level of investment required to meet these needs. [122347]

  Mr. McNulty
  Decisions on the purchase of new railway vehicles and the refurbishment of existing ones are primarily matters for train operators. There is nevertheless a requirement for the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to produce a strategy for passenger rolling stock against which individual decisions can be taken. A consultation draft of its rolling stock strategy was published by the SRA on 30 June 2003.

  Transport Links (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority about services between London and Warrington; and if he will make a statement. [122828]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Authority's final West Coast Strategy, published on 16 June 2003 with the support of the Secretary of State, envisages an h hourly train service between London and Warrington. Copies have been sent to all MPs.
  270W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve public transport links to Warrington. [122829]

  Mr. McNulty
  Warrington received a total of £6.7 million for integrated transport measures as part of the 2003–04 transport settlement. Warrington's Local Transport Plan contains a public transport strategy. This sets out short, medium and long term action plans which cover developing accessibility and best value criteria for supporting bus services which cannot be provided commercially; introducing bus quality partnerships, including bus quality corridors, real time passenger information, bus priority and variable message sign strategy; implementing park and ride strategies, and working with the private sector to achieve the construction of a new bus interchange adjacent to the main shopping centre. This year's annual progress report is due with the Department in July 2003.

  Underground (Masks)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions London Underground has given drivers on wearing protective masks; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [121888]

  Mr. McNulty
  London Underground tell me that they have asked train drivers not to wear dust masks because all research to date has shown that there are no known health risks arising from tunnel dust. The same situation is found on all other underground systems around the world.

TREASURY

  Business Support Teams
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Inland Revenue Business Support Teams there are; what areas the teams serve; and if he will make a statement. [122823]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are 66 Business Support Teams covering the whole of the United Kingdom. Each team is made up of a number of Business Advisers who are located in one or more sites across each Area Management Unit. The Teams provide education mainly around payroll administration, but also cover aspects of self-employment, self-assessment and the construction industry.

  The Chancellor is today announcing a major review of our organisations dealing with tax policy and administration.

  The review will report to Treasury Ministers and be chaired by Gus O'Donnell, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, working closely with the revenue departments and their Chairmen.

  The Chancellor is asking that the work he completed in time to announce initial conclusions and any next steps in this year's Pre-Budget Report.

  The remit for the review will be to examine the best organisational arrangements for delivering the Government's tax objectives, both now and into the future. The review will also consider the case for changes

  271W
  in the law, where necessary, to allow the full benefits of particular arrangements to be realised and pay particular attention to the need to ensure the continued effectiveness of the core business of revenue collection and administration.

  Specific points the review will cover will include:
  ways to enhance service delivery to taxpayers and how these are most effectively ensured. Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise together deliver some of the most important functions for the Government, for the public, and for the business community. They have a very large number of customers in common. The review will have a particular remit to examine whether, through closer working between the revenue departments or through organisational change, costs to honest taxpayers and compliance costs to businesses can be reduced;
  the coherence of administrative systems, including information and efficient use of resources across the broad area of tax administration, taking into account future technological developments which will open new avenues for enhanced services;
  how best to ensure consistent and effective enforcement of the law against those who do not pay their fair share, particularly those who make a business out of cheating the tax system. As part of this review we will examine work being done separately by the Government on the links between tax organisations and the law enforcement agencies;
  the most appropriate structure for delivering policy advice to Ministers. Currently officials working on strategic tax policy questions are spread across three departments. A more co-ordinated approach to fiscal policy advice is desirable, and the review will look at how we can best create a focus for tax policy work; and
  a new framework for accountability for those working on tax, to set out more clearly the roles and responsibilities of all those involved. Greater clarity will provide better certainty both for officials and Ministers. The review currently being conducted by Gus O'Donnell, which was announced in the Government's response to the Fourth Report 2003 of the Treasury Select Committee, will form part of this work.

  The primary focus of the review will be making public service delivery more effective and efficient. The review will be conducted in discussion with unions and other stakeholders.

  Since 1997, Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise have worked effectively with the Treasury to play a key role in support of this Government's reforming agenda. Their record is one of success and a tribute to the staff of the revenue departments and to their Chairmen, Sir Nicholas and Sir Richard. The revenue departments do a first-rate job and this review is intended to build on their success to ensure we make the best of the resources that we have.

  Contractors (Retentions)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken by Government Departments and Agencies that have removed retentions to ensure that their first line contractors do not demand retentions from their supply chain. [122146]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on Government Departments and Agencies retentions practices is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government Departments and Agencies(a) have removed retentions from their
  272W
  construction contracts and (b) intend to remove retentions from such contracts within the next 12 months; and what the total value was of work procured by these Departments and Agencies in the last 12 months. [122206]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on all Government Departments and Agencies retentions practices is not held centrally and could be only obtained at disproportionate cost. However a Supplementary Memorandum by the Department of Trade and Industry setting out practices of some central Government Departments and Agencies in respect of retentions was provided to the Trade and Industry Select Committee in November 2002. This memorandum is available on the select committee website at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmtrdind/ 127/127ap34.htm

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are made in his Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111947]

  John Healey
  All managers and staff have access to welfare services which include counselling services. These services include in-house counsellors and access to specialist external services where appropriate.

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Crown Estate has spent on(a) public relations and (b) corporate hospitality in each year since 1985. [118617]

  John Healey
  Since 1996 the Crown Estate has spent the following sums on internal and external communications, including public affairs, the production of corporate literature, control of The Crown Estate brand and their internet and intranet websites:

  (£s)

  1996–97

  86,560

  1997–98

  121,792

  1998–99

  168,131

  1999–2000

  193,782

  2000–01

  214,837

  2001–02

  207,402

  2002–03

  255,013

  The figures relaying to corporate hospitality are as follows:

  (£s)

  1996–1997

  3,122

  1997–1998

  4,074

  1998–1999

  9,198

  1999–2000

  12,173

  2000–2001

  1135,415

  2001–2002

  7,331

  2002–2003

  5,937

  1 This figure includes costs for special receptions to mark the millennium that included tenants from England, Scotland and Wales.

  Information for earlier years is not available.
  273W
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of producing the Crown Estate's annual report for each year since 1985. [118619]

  John Healey
  The information from 1997 onwards is as follows:

  £

  1997

  69,064

  1998

  73,166

  1999

  74,721

  2000

  84,239

  2001

  72,718

  2002

  92,457

  2003

  190,000

  1Estimate

  In accordance with approved accounting procedures, The Crown Estate holds financial records for only seven years.

  European Economic Convergence
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he would put in place following a decision to implement a discretionary fiscal policy to stabilise the economy to prevent the ratchet effect on wages and prices described in the Treasury document Fiscal Stabilisation and EMU. [121549]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the event of EMU entry, one of the Government's fiscal policy objectives would be to support the ECB in its objective of price stability. This would ensure that wage and price expectations in the UK were firmly anchored by the ECB's price stability objective. In addition, the Government will continue to work on enhancing the flexibility of UK labour, product and capital markets to ensure high and stable levels of employment and low unemployment.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the funding system for Foundation Hospitals in England will have on the funding criteria for assessing the payments under the Barnett formula. [122381]

  Mr. Boateng
  The funding system for Foundations Hospitals will have no implications for the calculation of public expenditure allocations made under the Barnett formula.

  Illegal Trade (Animals)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to review the sentencing guidelines for those involved in the illegal trade of animals and animal products; [122659]

  (2) how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been for involvement in the illegal trade of animals and animal products in each of the last 10 years. [122660]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise is responsible for enforcement of the restrictions on import and export from or to countries outside the EU on goods covered by the Convention on International Trade in 274W
  Endangered Species (CITES) and EU Regulations made to implement the Convention. They are not responsible for the enforcement of controls on trade within the UK or EU. Sentencing guidelines are a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department. Since 1993, Customs have mounted 12 prosecutions relating to the illegal importation or exportation of endangered species resulting in 18 convictions.

  Year

  Number of prosecutions

  Number of convictions

  1993

  2

  3

  1994

  2

  2

  1995

  2

  6

  1996

  1

  1

  2000

  1

  1

  2001

  2

  2

  2002

  2

  3

  Mayor of London (Meetings)
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times he has met the Mayor of London in official meetings at the Department in each of the past three years. [122144]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor regularly meets representatives of a wide range of organisations.

  In common with previous Administrations, it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of his staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111954]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 24 June,Official Report, column 662W.

  Property Market
  Mr.. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the average length of lease for a small business in his calculations for stamp duty land tax in the Finance Bill. [122498]

  Mr. Boateng
  The estimates of additional revenue from the reform of the rental element of lease duty announced in Budget 2003 are based on the distribution of lease lengths for non-residential new leases from the Survey of Property Transactions, and not merely on the average length of non-residential new leases. Transactions entered into by many small businesses are expected to be exempt from the rental element of Lease Duty under the proposed reform, which includes a £150,000 threshold.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in preparing the document accompanying the announcement on the euro, what estimates he has made of(a) the proportion of mortgages with fixed rates,

  275W
  (b) the level of mortgage debt and (c) the level of housing market volatility in the United States of America. [122499]

  Mr. Boateng
  The EMU study Housing, consumption and EMU notes particular features of the US housing market. These issues will be considered further as part of the Miles Review announced in Budget 2003.

  Research Applications
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total value of applications made to the Crown Estate's Research Committee for research proposals was in each year since 1997. [119728]

  John Healey
  The Crown Estate Fish Farming Research Committee was established in 2001 to ensure that the allocation of The Crown Estate's reinvestment budget was both fair and transparent. Support is given to those applications that have most relevance to The Crown Estate and its customers and which, in the view of the committee, will be of greatest long-term benefit and value to the sustainable development of the industry.

  Committee representation includes industry, Government, regulators, NGOs and an independent vice chairman. The committee first met in January 2002.

  The Crown Estate has allocated £600,000 to the research committee for the first three years of its operation, from 2002–03 to 2004–05. The Crown Estate's contribution each year resulted in significant matching funding being awarded by a range of funding partners.

  Name

  Total turnover £million

  Government and government agencies £ million (+)

  Private sector customers £ million (+)

  Value added retailers £ million (+)

  Defence Science and Technology Laboratory

  498.8

  433.0(86.8)

  65.8 (13.2)

  1—

  Land Registry

  342.8

  —

  342.8 (100)

  1—

  Central Office of INformation

  272.9

  272.9 (100)

  —

  1—

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency

  228.9

  218.5 (95.5)

  10.4 (4.5)

  1—

  Meteorological Office

  154.8

  128.3 (82.9)

  26.5 (17.1)

  1—

  Forensic Science Service

  128.1

  118.3 (92.3)

  9.8 (7.7)

  1—

  Ordnance Survey

  102.6

  2—

  —

  1—

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  90.6

  20.1 (22.2)

  70.5 (77.8)

  1—

  Driving Standards Agency

  88.0

  —

  88.0 (100)

  1—

  Royal Mint

  79.7

  54.9 (68.9)

  24.8 (31.1)

  1—

  Hydrographic Office

  53.2

  9.5 (17.9)

  43.7 (82.1)

  1—

  Patent Office

  51.6

  —

  51.6 (100)

  1—

  Companies House

  44.9

  2.4 (5.3)

  42.5 (94.7)

  1—

  OGCbuying, solutions

  40.8

  40.8 (100)

  —

  1—

  Medicines Control Agency

  36.7

  —

  36.7 (100)

  1—

  NHS Estates

  28.3

  28.3 (100)

  —

  1—

  Fire Service College

  17.5

  11.4 (65.1)

  6.1(34.9)

  1—

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  7.9

  2—

  —

  1—

  1 Not applicable

  2 No information given

  Notes:

  1. Medicines Control Agency was wound up on 31 March 2003. Its activities were transferred to a new trading fund, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency on 1 April 2003.

  2. Vehicle Inspectorate was merged with Traffic Area Network (a division of the Department of Transport) on 1 April 2003 to form a new trading fund, Vehicle and Operator Services Agency.

  3. ABRO (an agency within the Ministry of Defence) became a trading fund on 1 April 2002. Unaudited accounts for 2001–02 (ie for ABRO as an agency) are available, but do not provide the information requested.
  276W
  The total value of applications made to the committee in each of the years it has met, and the awards made, are given in the table:

  Financial years

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Number of applications

  26

  33

  Value of applications

  £1,652,000

  £1,384,000

  Number of applications receiving support

  11

  7

  Value of awards

  1£248,000

  2£193,600

  1 Includes £70,500 commitment carried over from the previous year.

  2 Includes £77,500 commitment carried over from the previous year.

  A spend of £23,700 has already been committed to the 2004–05 financial year. £134,700 remains to be allocated in 2004–05.

  Trading Fund Model
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the turnover of each Government agency operating in a trading fund model in the most recent year for which figures are available was accounted for by(a) services provided to Government and to Government agencies, (b) services provided directly to private sector customers and (c) services provided through value-added resellers. [121073]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of the analysis of the turnover of trading funds into the categories requested are not held centrally. The table shows information taken from the publicly available annual reports and accounts of trading funds for 2001–02, the latest available. The accounts do not always analyse turnover into the categories requested and further information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  VAT Rates
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to enhance the accountability of the regulator powers for amending value added tax rates. [121539]

  John Healey
  The Government published some options for reform in the Treasury discussion paper "Fiscal Stabilisation and EMU" on 9 June, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  EU Agricultural Barriers
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking in concert with other Government Departments to reduce agricultural barriers within the EU before the WTO ministerial meeting in Cancun in September 2003. [121287]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 26 June 2003 the Agriculture Council reached agreement on reform of the CAP, which sets a new course for agriculture in Europe. It will reduce agricultural trade barriers, and puts the EU in a strong position to negotiate a successful outcome at the next round of WTO talks in Cancun in September 2003.

  The reform proposals enable decoupling of farm subsidies from production, removing the perverse incentives to over-produce. The deal enables the EU to exceed the domestic support targets that have been proposed in the WTO negotiations, reducing the distortions in world markets which the CAP has caused, and paving the way for a successful conclusion to the Doha trade round.

  In addition to the direct involvement in the negotiations of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as well as other colleagues in Government, played a pivotal role in the agreement by lobbying their European colleagues on the importance of such reform.

  Warm-front Grants
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps her Department is taking to encourage a wider take-up of warm front grants by pensioners; [120751]

  (2) what measures her Department is taking to provide for better targeting of warm front grants towards those in fuel poverty. [120752]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Warm Front is delivered through two Scheme Managers who have responsibility for marketing the scheme to eligible groups, including pensioners. The Scheme Managers work with a range of groups to reach older people who may be eligible for assistance through Warm Front. These include local community groups, national agencies and charities, Primary Care Trusts as well as targeted mailing of households.
  278W
  As part of our review of Warm Front we are considering the current eligibility criteria and targeting of the scheme.

  Dioxin Emissions
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual dioxin emissions produced by(a) on-farm drum incinerators, (b) on-farm carcass incinerators and (c) waste oil burners were in each year since 1998. [122701]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: UK emission estimates are contained in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory and are published annually. Full NAEI data is available at the NAEI website www.naei.org.uk. UK dioxin emissions were estimated at 1,184 grammes (international toxic equivalent, I-TEQ) in 1990, and to have reduced from 424 grammes in 1998 to 357 grammes in 2001, the latest date for which data are available. The NAEI does not contain data at the level of detail requested. As regards on-farm drum incinerators, the total emissions from all small-scale waste burning are estimated at 50g per year I-TEQ, but this figure includes both agricultural and non-agricultural waste burning and is subject to considerable uncertainty. The total emissions from all small animal carcase incinerators are estimated at 0.25g per year I-TEQ. These figures have all remained constant between 1998 and 2001. There are no data on emissions from waste oil burners.

  Fallen Stock
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations have been received on the issue of fallen stock collection from(a) individuals and (b) organisations in Wales. [121721]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has received a number of such representations, although this is an issue for which responsibility is devolved to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the predicted unit-cost is of(a) collection and (b) disposal of fallen stock under the new scheme for farmers in Ogmore. [121722]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No decision has yet been taken on whether a scheme for fallen stock will proceed, or if so on what basis. Industry estimates of the costs of collection and disposal under a national scheme have been made but these are average costs put together on an aggregated basis for the UK as a whole.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which facilities will serve the farmers of (i) Bridgend and (ii) Ogmore constituencies for(a) collection and (b) disposal of fallen stock. [121723]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Fallen Stock helpline on 0845 8507070 can give advice to farmers on what collection services exist in their area. Disposal will then be a commercial matter to be arranged between the collector of the fallen stock and disposal outlets.
  279W

  Fishing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what part(a) CEFAS, (b) her Department and (c) other British fisheries experts played in the EU research report issued in the week beginning 16 June 2003; and what account was taken of the impact of de-commissioning and days at sea limitation on fish stocks. [121719]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I take it my hon. Friend is referring to the response that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has made to the request from the European Commission for a mid-year evaluation of recovery plans and management measures for cod. The ICES response was included in the report of the May meeting of the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management (ACFM), and was in part based on an earlier meeting of an EU Expert Group, which met in Brussels a few weeks previously. ACFM comprises a scientist from each member country of ICES (the current UK member is from Fisheries Research Services, Aberdeen, but a CEFAS observer was also present in another capacity). The EU Expert Group comprised a wide range of European experts including scientists from CEFAS, and industry representatives also attended on the first and last days. Defra officials are not involved in these scientific meetings.

  ICES evaluated in particular the regulatory measures being adopted for cod in 2003 (relating to gear, TACs and restrictions on fishing effort). ICES was unable to cover in its evaluation the effects of effort restrictions and of decommissioning in 2003 at the level of individual fleets, due to lack of appropriate data. However, it noted that the effort limitations are expected to benefit the stock by reducing discards and by helping to reduce the amount of illegal, unreported or undeclared landings.

  It should be noted that the 2003 assessment of the North Sea cod will not be carried out until September 2003, and that ICES' definitive 2003 advice on this and the latest Irish Sea and West of Scotland cod assessments will not be settled until the October meeting of ACFM.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent consultations she has had with(a) the Scottish Fishing Federation, (b) representatives from the Scottish fishing industry and (c) Scottish stakeholders on the protection of the Darwin Mounds. [121647]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department is in regular contact with the Scottish Executive, who consult the relevant Scottish interests on all live fishing matters, and my predecessor at this Department recently responded to correspondence on this subject from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she plans to use the emergency powers available under the new Common Fisheries Policy framework regulation, (EC) No. 2371, in relation to the protection of the Darwin Mounds. [121649]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are pursuing with the European Commission the most effective means for the protection of Darwin Mounds. The emergency powers available to 280W
  the UK under the new Common Fisheries Policy Framework Regulation, (EC) No. 2371/02 are not a practicable means of protection for the Darwin Mounds as the threat to the area would not meet the necessary criteria of being both serious and unforeseen. In addition, such measures could be imposed only for three months. Emergency powers are available to the Commission where the threat is serious, can be put in place for six months, renewable for a further six months and would allow time for more permanent protection to be developed and put in place. We are therefore pressing the Commission to use these powers.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to designate the Darwin Mounds as a Special Area of Conservation. [121650]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In parallel with consultations on Regulations that will transpose the Habitats Directive offshore, formal consultations on proposals to designate the Darwin Mounds will take place over the summer. The consultations will be supported by data already provided by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Subject to the conclusion of those consultations, the site will be proposed to the European Commission later this year, once enabling legislation is in place.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has undertaken into the damage done to the Darwin Mounds in the last three years. [121651]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The last surveys of the area were performed by Southampton Oceanographic Centre in 1999 as part of the AFEN project, and in 2000 for DTI. These surveys, however, concentrated on identifying the mounds and providing information on their extent and biology. Information on damage to the Darwin Mounds was obtained from sidescan surveys taken during the 1999 survey.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) cetaceans and (b) small whales she estimates were caught in fishing nets in each of the last 10 years. [122657]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Information on the full extent of cetacean and small whale casualties caused by fishing is not available.

  The Natural History Museum, Institute of Zoology and the Scottish Agricultural College, under contract to Defra, carry out post-mortem examinations on a sample of cetaceans and small whale casualties which occur on the UK coasts. Of the 949 post mortems carried out in England and Wales on cetaceans between September 1990 and December 2002 inclusive, 389 casualties were attributable to entanglement in fishing gear. Within Scotland, there have only been 14 cases of by-catch diagnosed in stranded cetaceans between 1992–2002.

  Of the 75 post mortems carried out in England, Wales and Scotland on small whales since September 1990, 14 were due to entanglement in fishing gear.

  Since 2000 the Sea Mammal Research Unit (SMRU), under contract to Defra, has carried out a number of surveys to estimate the level of small cetacean by-catch in UK fisheries. These surveys recorded for the offshore bass fishery 53 common dolphins caught in 116 hauls in

  281W
  2001 and eight common dolphins caught in 66 hauls in 2002. However, by-catch information from other member states whose vessels operate in this fishery and elsewhere in UK waters is not available so it is not possible to produce reliable estimates of dolphin by-catch deaths within the UK 200-mile limit. It is for this reason that we have been pressing the Commission for urgent action to widen observer coverage of EU fisheries and to bring forward proposals for positive action to reduce by-catch.

  Defra, along with the devolved Administrations, issued a consultation document in March this year outlining a UK by-catch response strategy. This sets out the extent of our knowledge of by-catch in UK waters and makes proposals for action to address the by-catch problem. The document has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department takes to ensure that safety regulations for employees of operators at landfill and hazardous waste sites are adhered to. [122726]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The Environment Agency does not regulate health and safety at work. The appropriate regulator is the Health and Safety Executive and its sponsor is the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department takes to ensure that the activities conducted by operators at landfill and hazardous waste sites do not pose any risk to public health. [122727]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The Environment Agency regulates activities conducted by operators at landfill and hazardous waste sites to minimise the damage to the environment and risk to human health.

  Permit applications include site-specific risk assessments, which are reviewed by the Agency as part of the permitting process. On-site activities are then considered as part of routine site inspections to ensure compliance with the relevant permit.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department takes to ensure that waste deposited at a landfill and hazardous waste site does not pose any risk to local water supplies. [122728]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The Environment Agency regulates landfills and hazardous waste sites to minimise the damage 10 the environment and risk to human health.

  The Agency assesses permit applications, which would include a site-specific risk assessment to provide for this requirement. Where appropriate, the application will include an assessment of the risk to local water supplies and detail the protection measures proposed to manage the risk to an acceptable level. The protection measures are subsequently assessed during routine site inspections and monitoring by Agency staff.

  Horticultural Research
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will make a decision on the future of Horticulture Research International Efford; and if she will make a statement. [121743]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are currently considering the future of HRI Efford and plan to make an announcement very soon.

  Live Animal Transport
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent assessment her Department has made of the operation of regulations on live animal tranport in(a) the UK and (b) the EU; [122650]

  (2) what recent discussions she has had with EU colleagues on live animal transport and associated standards. [122651]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The welfare of animals during transport in the EU is governed by directive 91/628/EEC (as amended) and implemented in Great Britain by the Welfare of Animal (Transport) Order 1997. We carried out a limited review of the Order in 1999 to fit in with proposals expected from the European Commission to update and improve directive. Since then, the UK and other member states have repeatedly urged the Commission to bring forward their proposals and I am pleased that Commissioner Byrne has announced that he intends to publish them before the end of July.

  Local Food Chains
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what help is available from central Government for the support for local food chains. [121570]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: We recognise the benefits that local food can bring and are keen to encourage the development of sustainable local food chains. Funding under the England Rural Development Programme has been used to support a range of local food chain related initiatives, including the establishment of farmers' markets and other direct sales outlets, the development of local branding initiatives and the formation of collaborative groups to market produce. We will continue to deploy our various funding schemes to encourage a flourishing local food sector. This activity will complement the measures at a regional level which the Regional Development Agencies will be implementing as part of their wider food and drink strategies.

  Nitrogen Dioxide Limits
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Department has made of whether the UK will conform to EU limits for nitrogen dioxide levels in 2010. [122135]
  283W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  A number of assessments of the attainability of the EU limit values for nitrogen dioxide have been carried out. Defra commissioned the independent scientific Air Quality Expert Group in July 2002 to undertake an overall assessment of the concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the UK in both 2005 and 2010. The Group considered all the available studies. A draft report for comment was published on 19 May 2003 (www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/aqeg/). Copies of the draft report on "Nitrogen Dioxide in the United Kingdom" have been placed in the House of Commons Library. The report concluded that, on the basis of the best current projections, in 2010 between 3 and 13 per cent, of the area of London are likely not to conform to the EU annual average limit value of 40 micrograms per metre cubed at background locations. The range reflects the span in outputs between the different models used. The report concludes that the rest of England is likely to conform to the EU limit values for nitrogen dioxide at background concentrations. The report further concludes that around 23 per cent, of the major built-up road length in London and 5 per cent, in the rest of England are likely to be above the EU annual average limit value of 40 micrograms per metre cubed in 2010.

  Sheep Welfare
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the three most common welfare problems affecting sheep were in 2002; and what estimate she has made of how many sheep in the UK suffer from lameness at any given time. [122317]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The three most common welfare problems in sheep in order of prevalence are lameness, sheep scab and internal parasites.

  The results of a postal survey carried out by the Royal Veterinary College in 1997 suggest that there are approximately three million cases of lameness in sheep each year in Great Britain. The incidence of lameness has not significantly changed since the survey was undertaken.

  TB (Red Deer)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many outbreaks of TB were recorded in red deer in(a) Devon and (b) Somerset in each of the last six years; and what action her Department has taken, and is planning to take, to eradicate TB. [120449]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There is no routine surveillance of TB in deer. However, there is a requirement under the Tuberculosis (Deer) Order 1989 for any deer, alive or dead, suspected of having TB to be reported to the appropriate Divisional Veterinary Manager (DVM).

  The following table gives (i) the number of laboratory examinations carried out on red deer suspected of having TB and (ii) the number of cases where bovine TB was confirmed in red deer in (a) Somerset and (b) Devon, over the last six years.
  284W

  Bovine TB and red deer in Somerset and Devon 1997–20021

  (a) Somerset

  (b) Devon

  (i) Number of laboratory examinations on red deer

  (ii) Number of cases where M. bovis2 confirmed

  (i) Number of laboratory examinations on red deer

  (ii) Number of ceses where M. bovis2 confirmed

  1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1998

  5

  2

  1

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2000

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2001

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2002

  31

  1

  0

  0

  1Data extracted from Defra database on investigation of suspected TB in deer.

  2Mycobacterium bovis—the causative organism for bovine TB.

  3 This case came to our notice as a laboratory isolate. Suspicion of TB in the deer carcase was not notified to Defra.

  So far in 2003 there have been two laboratory examinations on red deer in Somerset, and one in Devon. M. bovis has been isolated from one of the Somerset cases. The results of the laboratory tests on the other two cases are awaited.

  Where a deer is found to have bovine TB, the DVM may decide to increase the cattle testing frequency in the area if annual herd testing is not already in place.

  The current strategy in relation to bovine TB is based around the following five-point plan:

  Protecting human health;

  Cattle testing and controls;

  Development of a TB vaccine;

  Carrying out research into how TB is spread; and

  Carrying out a badger culling trial.

  As part of our research programme we are looking at the risk to cattle of contracting bovine TB from animals other than badgers. The research project, which is still in progress, is looking at a range of species including roe, red, sika and fallow deer in the west of England. The results are due to be published next year.

  A review of the TB strategy was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier this year. Initial stakeholder consultation is expected later in the summer with public consultation in the autumn. In the meantime officials are considering a range of short-term policy options which will be subject to consultation later in the year.

  Whales
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the Government plan to encourage the establishment of whale sanctuaries in the(a) Pacific and (b) South Atlantic. [121020]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Within the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the establishment of Whale Sanctuaries requires a ¾ majority of those contracting Governments present and voting. The UK provided strong support to proposals in respect of both the South Pacific Whale Sanctuary and the South Atlantic Whale Sanctuary. Through FCO we lobbied both range states and others who oppose these sanctuaries, but have so far been unable to secure the ¾ majority necessary for their adoption. Our efforts will continue, should similar proposals be submitted to the IWC next year.
  285W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's assessment is of the impact of scientific whaling on the world's population of whales, by type. [122656]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not possible for the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to assess the impact of scientific whaling on the world's population of whales by type because population estimates exist for only two of the whale species targeted by Japan—Southern Hemisphere and North Pacific minke whales. However, the IWC is undertaking a major review of the former as the 1992 estimate is not considered reliable. No reliable stock estimates exist for the other whales killed under Japan's research programmes.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which subjects animal welfare features in the National Curriculum at(a) primary and (b) secondary school level. [122663]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Pupils in primary and secondary schools learn about animal welfare issues including understanding about the responsibility of humans to care for animals, through Citizenship education and Science. The non-statutory framework for Personal, Social and Health Education and Citizenship for primary schools was introduced in September 2000 and Citizenship became part of the statutory National Curriculum for 11 to 16-year-olds in September 2002. Guidance from QCA on teaching Citizenship includes units, "How the law protects animals—a local-to global study" and "Animals and Us", which support learning about animal welfare. The teaching of living things such as animals and plants is a central part of the curriculum framework for Science throughout Key Stages 1 to 4. Pupils are taught about living things in their environment which includes

  Project

  Consultancy

  Activity

  E-Business Strategy (Customer Group Portals)

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  General market analysis

  DfES Website Market Research

  Central Office of Information

  Market research

  waytolearn.co.uk (Adult Learners Portal)

  Brahm

  Research design and Marketing

  3T

  Technical build

  CLES Manchester

  Ethnic Minority research

  Young Peoples Portal

  CAPITA

  Customer Research

  e-Volutionary.net Consultants

  Business Planning and Scoping

  Cimex

  Web Development

  The Humberside Partnership

  Internet Consultancy

  teachernet Teachers Portal

  CGEY

  Planning next stage of TeacherNet

  Consultancy

  skillsforemployers (Employers Portal)

  MORI

  Customer Research

  Eduserv

  Design and Development

  Beattie Media

  Promotion of Portal

  286W
  being taught about ways in which living things and the environment can be protected and the importance of sustainable development.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new classroom assistants were appointed in the UK in the 2002–03 academic year in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) special needs schools. [122007]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on new appointments is not collected centrally. The table below shows the numbers of teaching assistants in service in January for the last two years and the increase in numbers between 2002 and 2003.

  Full-time equivalent number of teaching assistants Maintained primary, secondary and all special schools (January 2002 and provisional 2003 England)

  Full-time equivalent number of teaching assistants1

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special2

  January 2002

  69,310

  19,530

  14,250

  Provisional January 2003

  79,790

  22,260

  16,560

  Increase in 2003

  10,490

  2,740

  2,310

  1 Includes nursery assistants, special needs support staff, minority, ethnic pupil support staff

  2 Includes both maintained and non-maintained special schools. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. The increase in 2003 may not appear to equal the difference between the two years due to rounding.

  Consultancies
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list by project the consultancies(a) his Department and (b) its non-departmental public bodies have used on e-Government projects since 1 January 2001. [115229]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The principal consultancies used by the Department for Education and Skills since 1 January 2001 on e-Government projects in support of its e-business strategy are as follows. The list does not include consultancies on internal ICT projects, consultancies in support of specific services, or those used by non-departmental public bodies, as gathering this information would incur disproportionate cost.
  287W

  Project

  Consultancy

  Activity

  Higher Education Students Portal

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  Portal development

  The Parent Centre (Parents Portal)

  Cragg Ross Dawson

  Customer Research

  BRMB International

  Management of customer focus groups

  governornet (School Governors Portal)

  Define Solutions

  Customer Research

  3T

  Portal design and development

  Iris Associates

  Maintenance and improvement of School Governors website

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what targets his Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve these targets. [116644]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of state for Environment, Food and rural Affairs on 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 580W.

  Ethnic Minority Pupils
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the proportion is of ethnic minority pupils in(a) school sixth forms, (b) independent schools, (c) sixth form colleges, (d) general further education colleges and (e) universities. [121277]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: The latest available information is shown in the table.

  Learners in further and higher education: proportion of ethnic minority pupils1

  Percentage of ethnic minority pupils2

  School Sixth Forms3

  14.5

  Independent Schools4

  —

  Sixth Form Colleges5

  16.5

  General Further Education Colleges5

  13.1

  Universities6

  13.8

  1 "Ethnic minorities" covers all ethnic groups (including mixed), except the white categories.

  2 Number of ethnic minority pupils expressed as a percentage of pupils classified by their ethnicity.

  3 Pupils in NC year group 12, 13 or 14 in maintained secondary schools. As at January 2003 (provisional)

  4 Ethnicity of pupils in independent schools is not collected centrally.

  5 Information is self-declared. As at November 2002.

  6 Higher Education Institutions in academic year 2001/02, information is self-declared.

  Sources:

  Annual Schools' Census, coverage: England.

  Individualised Learner Record 2002/03, coverage: England.

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), coverage: UK.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average GCSE results for ethnic minority students progressing into(a) school sixth-forms, (b) independent schools, (c) sixth-form colleges and (d) general further education colleges were in the last 12 months. [121280]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: The average GCSE point score for a young person from an ethnic minority background entering a school sixth
  288W
  form is 52. The score is 52 for independent schools, 44 for sixth-form colleges and 34 for general further education colleges.

  Job Evaluations
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what requirement there is for local education authorities to carry out job evaluations on non-teaching staff; what the purpose of such evaluations is; and if he will make a statement; [121762]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of staff (a) in England and (b) in Gloucestershire who will experience (i) reductions and (ii) increases in their pay in 2003–04 as a result of job evaluations; what he estimates the average amount per employee will be; and if he will make a statement; [121763]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the net cost or savings of the changes in salaries of non-teaching staff following job evaluations in (a) England and (b) Gloucestershire in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [121764]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: Most local authorities, including Gloucestershire, are party to the national agreement on pay and conditions of local government staff (commonly known as the Single Status Agreement), which was negotiated by the National Joint Council for Local Government Services in 1997. The agreement commits authorities to carrying out grading reviews in accordance with equal pay legislation. This is consistent with broader government policy, which is to encourage employers to carry out pay reviews to help ensure that they meet their obligations under the legislation.

  The pay of school support staff is determined at local level: the Government believe that this is the best way of ensuring a flexible system that can respond to local needs and circumstances. My Department does not hold information on the impact of job evaluations on pay either nationally or in individual local authorities.

  Level 3 Qualification
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many additional students he estimates will gain a Level 3 qualification in each of the years 2003–04 to 2009–10. [120969]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department does not produce projections of the number of people in the total population holding level 3 qualifications.

  As reported in "The Level of Highest Qualification Held by Young People and Adults: England 2002", the proportions attaining level 3 in Autumn 2002 were:

  289W
  19-year-olds1 qualified to at least level 3—51.6 per cent, 21-year-olds2 qualified to at least level 3—53.8 per cent, Economically active adults3 qualified to at least level 3—48.8 per cent.

  The Department anticipates growth in level 3 attainment by 2010, supporting growth in participation in Higher Education.

  1The highest level of attainment for the 19–21 year old group is used as a proxy for achievement at age 19.

  2 The highest level of attainment for the 21–23 year old group is used as a proxy for achievement at age 21.

  3 Economically active adults are defined here as men aged 18–64 and women aged 18–59 in employment or ILO unemployed.

  Modern Languages
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received regarding the compulsory teaching of one modern language between the ages of 14 and 16. [121752]

  Mr. Miliband
  Through our Green Paper '14–19: extending opportunities, raising standards' we consulted extensively on our proposals to create more choice and flexibility at Key Stage 4. Through our Language Learning pamphlet we also consulted on our aspirations for the future of language learning in this country. The overall response to the consultations endorsed our view that schools should no longer be required to teach modern foreign languages to all pupils but that schools should be required to ensure that any pupil wishing to study a modern foreign language should be able to do so.

  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority are currently consulting on the detailed proposals for the implementation of this curriculum change and the other proposed changes to the curriculum at Key Stage 4.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make an assessment of whether the acquisition of a modern foreign language is(a) a generic and (b) a specialist skill. [121800]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  While we have made no formal assessment on this issue, we consider that the acquisition of a modern foreign language can be both a generic and a specialist skill, depending on a number of factors, including the age of the student, the reasons for learning a language and the level of competence required.

  We have asked the 14–19 working group chaired by Mike Tomlinson to consider the appropriate balance between generic and specialist skills in learning programmes for this age group.

  Physical Education
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he plans to take in response to the recent Ofsted report concerning the quality of school PE lessons; and if he will make a statement. [122301]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government welcome Ofsted's report on phases one and two of the School Sport Co-ordinator partnerships. The report shows 290W
  good progress in the early years of the programme: the profile of physical education (PE) and school sport has been raised; the majority of partnerships have made substantial progress; and out of hours sports activities have been widened and increased. The report will help us ensure that the expansion of the network of partnerships, to include 75 per cent, of schools in England by 2006, builds on best practice and delivers lasting benefits for children.

  An additional £459 million is being invested over three years (from April 2003) to deliver a national PE, School Sport and Club Links strategy. The aim—a joint Department for Education and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport PSA target—is to have increased the percentage of five to 16-years olds who spend a minimum of two hours a week on high quality PE and school sport, within and beyond the curriculum, to 75 per cent, by 2006.

  The School Sport Co-ordinator programme is just one element of our strategy and focuses on enhancing links between schools and their local communities and increasing the quality and quantity of out of school hours sports opportunities and competitive school sport. We will raise the quality of PE teaching by delivering a professional development programme for teachers and others. This will be piloted later this year and then rolled out to all schools from April 2004.

  Rural Issues
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many schools were involved in the Growing Schools programme in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03, broken down by region; [122825]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 18 June 2003, Official Report, column 314W, on rural affairs, if he will list the (a) partners involved and (b) types of activities undertaken by urban schools using the outdoor classroom; [122826]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 20 June 2003, fficial Report, columns 443–44W, on rural issues, how many students (a) took and (b) passed (i) GCSE Geography, (ii) GCSE Environmental Science, (iii) GCSE Rural and Agricultural Science, (iv) GNVQ Leisure and Tourism and (v) GNVQ Land and Environment in each of the last 10 years, broken down by region. [122827]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department has received a number of representations concerning rural and countryside education. Between September 2001 and March 2003, around 225 schools and 40 partner organisations were involved in "Growing Schools", a programme which aims to encourage and inspire all schools to use the 'outdoor classroom' as a context for learning. The Department has not collected information on a regional basis.

  Partners selected to be involved in 'the outdoor classroom' will vary, depending on the local area, whether urban or rural. It is for schools to determine what sort of activities will meet the needs of their pupils. In some areas, for example, schools involve pupils

  291W
  directly in planning and implementing projects to develop their school grounds as a learning resource. In others, a school might link with a city farm, field study centre or community allotment.

  GCSE Achievements of 15-year-old pupils in schools 1992/93 to 2001/02

  1992/93

  1993/94

  1994/95

  1995/96

  1996/97

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2001/01

  2001/02

  Number attempted Geography

  North East

  14,439

  15,405

  17,971

  18,606

  14,526

  12,830

  12,229

  11,981

  11,665

  11,139

  North West

  28,435

  29,994

  33,908

  35,828

  37,351

  32,193

  32,142

  30,752

  30,616

  28,616

  Yorkshire and Humber

  23,156

  24,070

  26,560

  28,533

  27,099

  24,605

  24,556

  22,428

  22,863

  21,111

  East Midlands

  19,491

  19,001

  20,963

  22,279

  21,893

  19,704

  19,129

  17,809

  18,109

  17,001

  West Midlands

  24,962

  26,695

  30,257

  31,287

  29,656

  27,121

  26,358

  24,462

  24,548

  23,266

  East of England

  10,887

  10,760

  11,960

  12,562

  30,626

  27,644

  26,523

  25,357

  26,266

  24,508

  London

  25,128

  26,147

  28,741

  30,137

  29,523

  27,037

  26,174

  24,808

  25,502

  24,905

  South East

  56,022

  57,200

  62,606

  64,036

  42,878

  39,431

  37,940

  36,038

  36,471

  34,688

  South West

  23,510

  24,717

  26,325

  26,823

  26,257

  25,343

  24,751

  23,452

  24,338

  23,040

  England

  226,030

  233,989

  259,291

  270,091

  259,809

  235,908

  229,802

  217,087

  220,378

  208,274

  Number achieved A*-C Geography

  North East

  6,665

  6,951

  7,826

  8,577

  6,475

  6,084

  5,854

  5,938

  5,874

  5,528

  North West

  13,722

  14,481

  16,274

  18,285

  19,807

  17,203

  17,217

  16,824

  16,928

  16,091

  Yorkshire and Humber

  10,776

  11,500

  12,528

  13,803

  13,530

  12,159

  12,344

  11,757

  12,194

  11,375

  East Midlands

  9,423

  9,551

  10,614

  11,896

  11,674

  10,748

  10,755

  10,307

  10,930

  10,227

  West Midlands

  11,746

  12,555

  14,623

  15,769

  15,297

  14,244

  14,414

  13,640

  14,114

  13,609

  East of England

  5,605

  5,623

  6,225

  6,735

  16,733

  15,795

  15,570

  14,921

  16,139

  15,098

  London

  11,443

  12,467

  13,804

  15,168

  15,536

  14,522

  14,737

  14,103

  14,919

  14,588

  South East

  29,274

  31,100

  33,793

  35,958

  25,260

  24,220

  24,079

  22,799

  24,122

  22,900

  South West

  12,452

  13,413

  14,608

  15,509

  15,256

  15,097

  15,483

  15,000

  15,938

  15,178

  England

  111,106

  117,641

  130,295

  141,700

  139,568

  130,072

  130,453

  125,289

  131,158

  124,594

  Number achieved A *-G Geography

  North East

  13,845

  14,818

  17,039

  17,898

  13,842

  12,343

  11,733

  11,559

  11,251

  10,737

  North West

  27,298

  28,861

  32,286

  34,662

  36,145

  31,245

  31,107

  29,845

  29,637

  27,756

  Yorkshire and Humber

  22,137

  23,140

  25,300

  27,529

  26,131

  23,705

  23,595

  21,604

  21,988

  20,307

  East Midlands

  18,572

  18,114

  19,994

  21,365

  21,052

  19,184

  18,581

  17,368

  17,560

  16,548

  West Midlands

  23,921

  25,457

  28,922

  30,125

  28,587

  26,286

  25,512

  23,753

  23,768

  22,621

  East of England

  10,501

  10,417

  11,602

  12,245

  29,838

  27,023

  25,957

  24,847

  25,698

  24,033

  London

  23,425

  24,690

  27,321

  28,648

  28,328

  26,124

  25,192

  23,961

  24,707

  24,176

  South East

  53,947

  55,342

  60,467

  62,315

  41,874

  38,659

  37,198

  35,362

  35,747

  34,064

  South West

  22,757

  23,984

  25,554

  26,208

  25,723

  24,880

  24,285

  23,059

  23,888

  22,656

  Number attempted environmental science 1

  North East

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North West

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Number

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  422

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East of England

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  89

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England

  565

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Number achieved A*-C environmental science1

  North East

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North West

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Number

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  186

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East of England

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  28

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England

  246

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Number achieved A *-G environmental science1

  North East

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North West

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire and Number

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Midlands

  415

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East of England

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England

  536

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Number attempted rural science or agriculture2

  North East

  266

  232

  249

  213

  145

  148

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  165

  118

  120

  131

  185

  200

  25

  16

  7

  25

  Yorkshire and Number

  334

  248

  226

  251

  236

  215

  49

  52

  25

  89

  East Midlands

  263

  197

  249

  265

  260

  227

  165

  128

  97

  72

  West Midlands

  200

  193

  208

  248

  239

  186

  173

  121

  146

  145

  East of England

  87

  46

  82

  93

  338

  346

  276

  203

  154

  156

  London

  27

  30

  16

  13

  9

  13

  13

  13

  0

  0

  292W
  The following tables set out GCSE and GNVQ achievements from 1992/93 to 2001/02 in Geography, Environmental Science, Rural Science or Agriculture and Leisure and Tourism:
  293W

  GCSE Achievements of 15-year-old pupils in schools 1992/93 to 2001/02

  1992/93

  1993/94

  1994/95

  1995/96

  1996/97

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2001/01

  2001/02

  South East

  791

  746

  803

  736

  436

  383

  324

  307

  241

  202

  South West

  497

  274

  373

  332

  294

  198

  156

  120

  100

  112

  England

  2,630

  2,084

  2,326

  2,282

  2,142

  1,916

  1,181

  960

  770

  801

  Number achieved A*-C rural science or agriculture2

  North East

  34

  52

  58

  34

  20

  19

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  60

  33

  38

  43

  51

  29

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Yorkshire and Number

  36

  49

  45

  64

  53

  43

  19

  11

  4

  9

  East Midlands

  41

  43

  58

  69

  50

  32

  33

  23

  13

  15

  West Midlands

  38

  59

  51

  43

  51

  29

  44

  43

  36

  36

  East of England

  13

  11

  25

  29

  81

  77

  72

  65

  79

  66

  London

  8

  3

  2

  3

  0

  1

  4

  1

  0

  0

  South East

  220

  229

  204

  167

  83

  89

  73

  63

  46

  50

  South West

  151

  81

  120

  78

  63

  41

  40

  22

  16

  21

  England

  601

  560

  601

  530

  452

  360

  286

  229

  195

  199

  Number achieved A*-C rural science or agriculture 2

  North East

  225

  217

  225

  189

  136

  125

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  150

  112

  113

  127

  180

  175

  22

  16

  7

  25

  Yorkshire and Number

  242

  210

  176

  216

  207

  191

  48

  47

  25

  81

  East Midlands

  248

  188

  240

  250

  247

  213

  159

  120

  93

  71

  West Midlands

  184

  182

  198

  232

  229

  175

  163

  119

  143

  135

  East of England

  82

  44

  77

  88

  305

  316

  262

  200

  150

  154

  London

  25

  24

  16

  13

  8

  13

  13

  13

  0

  0

  South East

  754

  702

  763

  677

  409

  368

  314

  294

  236

  198

  South West

  474

  257

  365

  321

  285

  188

  152

  120

  95

  108

  England

  2,384

  1,936

  2,173

  2,113

  2,006

  1,764

  1,133

  929

  749

  772

  1 Environment Science is a separate subject for exams but these were only taken in the one year as shown.

  2 Rural science and agriculture are two different subjects but the figures are shown for those that attempted and passed either rural science or agriculture.

  GNVQ achievements of 15-year-old pupils in schools 1998/99 to 2001/02

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  Number passed a GNVQ in Leisure and Tourism

  North East

  30

  33

  92

  183

  371

  North West

  111

  186

  318

  487

  951

  Yorkshire and Number

  19

  112

  145

  208

  527

  East Midlands

  51

  143

  225

  285

  572

  West Midlands

  57

  120

  180

  250

  769

  East of England

  51

  133

  128

  245

  540

  London

  20

  76

  122

  393

  597

  South East

  55

  177

  197

  425

  902

  South West

  54

  189

  181

  297

  457

  England

  448

  1,169

  1,588

  2,773

  5,686

  Notes:

  Table shows GNVQ data for those that achieved either a Part 1 or intermediate GNVQ in Leisure and tourism.

  Data only available from 1997/98.

  There are no passes in land and the environment.

  School Funding
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outturn spending per(a) primary and (b) secondary pupil was by each local education authority in 2001–02; and what their budgeted funding per (i) primary and (ii) secondary pupil (A) was for 2002–03 and (B) is for 2003–04. [120073]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  School Setting
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of schools inspected by Ofsted in 2001–02 in(a) Year 7, (b) Year 8, (c) Year 9, (d) Year 10 and (e) Year 11 were set by ability in (i) grammar schools, (ii) secondary modern schools and (iii) independent schools. [122228]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Sixth-Form Provision
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average entry requirement needed to progress to level three study at(a) school sixth-forms, (b) independent schools, (c) sixth-form colleges and (d) general further education colleges was in the last 12 months. [121279]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: The normal entry requirement needed to progress to level three study at each of the institutions is a pass at level two. Individual institutions may also take into consideration other factors which affect their policy on entry.

  Data from the Youth Cohort Study shows that the average GCSE points score for those studying level three for students from school sixth-forms was 58. For those in independent schools this was 64 points, 55 for sixth-form colleges and 47 for general further education colleges.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 23 May 2003,Official Report, column 555W, on specialist schools, if he will list those non-selective, non-specialist secondary schools that are not defined as mainstream; and if he will describe the type of school in each case. [122302]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is not possible to define non-selective, non-specialist, non-mainstream schools (i.e. special schools) as either primary or secondary as many special schools provide for children of all ages. A list of such schools which have at least one pupil in the secondary age range of 11 to 15 has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 784W, on specialist state schools, what assessment he has made of the efficacy of modern foreign languages as a catalyst for whole school improvement compared to other subject specialisms. [121779]

  Mr. Miliband
  The October 2001 Ofsted survey of the programme ('Specialist Schools: An evaluation of progress') looked at the Language specialism alongside the three other specialisms which were part of the programme in 2000 (Sports, Arts and Technology). The survey found that four out of five of the well-established specialist schools covered by the survey were in large measure achieving the aims of the programme and making good use of the advantages it brings. The survey said that for these schools specialist status had often been a catalyst for innovation and helped to sustain or accelerate the momentum of school improvement.

  St. Anne's Primary School, Colchester
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what(a) advice and (b) instructions he has given to Essex local education authority in respect of a Fresh Start Scheme for St. Anne's Primary School, Colchester; what plans he has to discuss proposals with (i) the hon. Member for Colchester and (ii) the relevant ward councillors; and if he will make a statement. [122137]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: At the request of Essex LEA a senior DfES Education Adviser visited St. Anne's Primary School in May 2003, and provided guidance on the criteria to become a Fresh Start school. No instructions have been given to the LEA.

  Local consultation, including with Councillors, is normally a matter for Essex LEA. It is understood that meetings on the future of the school have recently been held with the local community. If, in the light of these meetings, the authority decides to submit formal proposals to create a Fresh Start school, the matter will come to the Secretary of State for determination. The hon. Member for Colchester will be consulted before a final decision is made.

  8/A-level Scores
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average capped A-Level score for pupils attending(a) sixth form colleges and
  296W
  (b) secondary school sixth forms in England was in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement on the statistical significance of divergences between the averages. [122231]

  Mr. Miliband
  Average point scores of A/AS level data are not capped and therefore the information requested for this answer is unavailable.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information he has collated on the contingent liabilities to public funds arising from an increase in student loans to cover the tuition fees of students and reflecting the interest subsidy offered on these loans. [121019]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 24 June 2003]: The Department does not classify the interest subsidy as a contingent liability as the liability occurs as part of normal departmental business. We do however recognise the liability by providing for the future costs in a provision.

  The interest subsidy provision was set up to meet the costs resulting from the difference between the interest paid by students and the cost of capital on loans. The provision provides for the discounted cost of the interest over the life of the loans issued in the financial year. Each year the annual interest subsidy charge is released to the Operating Cost Statement. Listed in the table are the amounts provided in year for 2001–02, a provisional outturn figure for 2002–03 and the forecast figures for remainder of the current spending review period.

  £ million

  Provided in Year

  Actual outturn 2001–02

  773

  Provisional outturn 2002–03

  919

  Forecast outturn 2003–04

  1,067

  Forecast 2004–05

  1,009

  Forecast 2005–06

  1,083

  The figures in the table do not take account of the change in the HM Treasury cost of capital rate from 6 per cent, to 3.5 per cent, which took effect on 1 April 2003. This will significantly reduce the size of the provision and the amount provided in year.

  Loans for fees will not be introduced until the 2006/07 academic year which is beyond the current spending review period. The amount of those loans, and hence the cost of the interest subsidies on them, will depend on the actual fees to be charged by institutions and students' decisions of the extent to which they wish to take up the option of deferring their fees.

  Note:

  The source of the actual data is the Resource Accounts 2001–02. The final outturn figure for 2002–03 will be reported in the 2002–03 Resource Account, which will be published in the autumn. The forecast data for 2003–04 to 2005–06 is taken from the 2003 Departmental Annual Report published in May 2003.

  Students (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of A-level students from the London borough of Havering secured a place at university last year. [110584]
  297W
  Mr. Miliband
  The available information shows that, in 2002, the proportion of 18-year-olds resident in Havering who obtained two or more A-levels and who were accepted onto a full-time or sandwich undergraduate course in the UK via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) was 38 per cent., compared to the national average of 61 per cent.

  Teachers
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to improve the recruitment and retention of talented and well-qualified teachers. [120159]

  Mr. Miliband
  In the current academic year, recruitment is over 20 per cent, higher than in 1999/2000 and more graduates have begun initial teacher training than in any year on record. In September 2000, the Government introduced 6,000 training bursaries and 4,000 Golden Hellos for priority subjects in order to encourage more graduates to train as teachers and enter the teaching profession. From September 2002, these incentives are being reinforced by the Repayment of Teachers' Loans scheme, which will also assist recruitment and retention in the subjects where they present the greatest challenge. As a result of the steps that the Government have taken, we have seen three successive years of rising recruitment to teacher training. Applications from graduates to train as teachers in 2003/04 are currently running 16 per cent, above their level at this time last year.

  As well as bringing more graduates into the profession, the Government are also seeking to encourage the most talented and well-qualified individuals to enter teaching, stay in teaching and contribute to the maximum of their potential as quickly as possible. The Government's Fast Track scheme is having a positive impact. This is the first year that Fast Track teachers have been working in schools, and one in six has already gained promotion to middle leadership. By September 2003, there will be over 500 Fast Track teachers and trainees, more than twice the number who were on the programme last year. The Government are also supporting the Teach First scheme, which will place around 200 high-achieving graduates as teachers in London schools from this September.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his decision to end support for teacher induction under Standards Funds. [119931]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government have ended some Standards Fund grants in 2003–04 in order to allow other priorities to be supported from the fund, without increasing the overall proportion of ring-fenced funding for local authorities and schools. From April 2003 funding for the induction of newly qualified teachers is no longer channelled through a separate Standards Fund grant.

  It is for schools and local education authorities to determine how to support induction for newly qualified teachers within the overall resources available. LEAs are free to allocate funds to schools on the basis of the number of newly qualified teachers they have in their schools.
  298W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students entered initial teacher training courses in each of the last three years. [121772]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The following table shows the total number of undergraduate and postgraduate entrants to initial teacher training in England between 2000/01 and 2002/03.

  Entrants to initial teacher training

  Number

  2000/01

  27,715

  2001/021

  29,194

  2002/031

  31,229

  1 These figures include entrants to Fast Track.

  Source:

  TTA ITT number census

  In addition to the number of entrants to initial teacher training courses shown above, 1,880 students started employment-based teacher training routes in 2000/01, 4,330 in 2001/02 and 4,760 so far in 2002/03.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the continuation of key skills testing of students on initial teacher training courses. [121775]

  Mr. Miliband:
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The skills tests are one of the standards which every trainee teacher has to meet. They were introduced after evidence from Ofsted indicated concern at that time about the standards of literacy, numeracy and ICT amongst newly qualified teachers. We have no present plans to discontinue the tests. Headteachers, parents and pupils rightly have high expectations of teachers, and discontinuing the tests could compromise the high standards now being attained.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the support he offers for the recruitment and retention of teachers in London, with special reference to the cost of living. [122744]

  Mr. Miliband
  We are taking a number of measures to make London a world class centre for education. On 12 May 2003, the Prime Minister launched the London Challenge, which aims to transform standards of achievement in secondary schools in London. We appointed Tim Brighouse as the first Commissioner for London Schools with effect from 1 January. We have also funded the establishment of a London recruitment and retention unit based in the Government Office for London.

  Importantly, we have acknowledged and endorsed the STRB's recommendations that teachers in Inner London receive an increase in pay which reflects the additional cost of living in the centre of London. An experienced teacher on the maximum in 1997 in Inner London will have seen their basic pay increase by 16.5 per cent, in real terms. If they passed the performance threshold it will have increased in real terms by 32 per cent.

  We are developing a new Chartered London Teacher status to recognise the particular skills that are needed to teach effectively in London schools. The new status

  299W
  will recognise and reward effective practice, promote professional development and provide incentives for good teachers to stay teaching in London. This will be a core element in our work to re-establish the view that London is a sought after career posting for teachers. We intend to ask the Schools Teachers' Review Body to consider this as part of the forthcoming pay round.

  We are also continuing to work closely alongside colleagues from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to explore how best to minimise the impact of relatively higher housing costs for teachers in London. The £250 million Starter Homes Initiative aims to help 10,000 key workers into home ownership in areas of high cost housing. In 2001–02 the initiative offered support to 2,800 teachers in London and the South and the second phase in 2002–03 will fund £10,000 equity loans, benefiting around 2,000 key workers, of whom 700 will be teachers based in the Southern Counties.

  We are also working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to explore whether and how a targeted scheme could help teachers identified as potential future leaders of London's education service to afford to buy a family home. We will announce the outcome of this work in the late summer.

  In addition, we have just announced the launch of a Well-Being Programme pilot for London which will see 15 LEAs with some 400 schools involved, helping to address some of the work-related health issues causing concern for teaching and non-teaching staff and looking to improve the work-life balance of teachers in London.

  Finally, the wide range of national reforms which the Government have introduced to assist recruitment and retention, and to raise standards, apply equally to teachers in London. In particular our radical school workforce reforms, supported by our partners on the Workforce Agreement Monitoring Group, directly address the primary reason that teachers have given for leaving the profession: workload.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in the Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119824]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 661W.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority. [117218]

  Hilary Benn
  On no occasion since January 1999 has the Department voted against a legislative proposal in the Council of Ministers.
  300W
  Information for 1997 and 1998 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting. [117232]

  Hilary Benn
  On no occasion since January 1999 has the Department for International Development abstained in the Council of Members on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority vote.

  Information for 1997 and 1998 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if he will list the legislation by year. [117250]

  Hilary Benn
  On no occasion since January 1999 has the Department far International Development been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers.

  Information for 1997 and 1998 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117265]

  Hilary Benn
  On no occasion since January 1999 has the Department for International Development indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers and not registered a vote or abstention.

  Information for 1997 and 1998 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Performance Targets
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development in what percentage of(a) high risk, (b) medium risk and (c) low risk projects, the value for money indicator found the Department to have been successful; and if he will make a statement. [122710]

  Hilary Benn
  Our projects and programmes are monitored on a regular basis and we assess the likelihood of their achieving the objectives set for them. The figures for the last two financial years are:
  301W

  Financial year

  Percentage

  2001–02

  High risk projects judged likely to be successful

  +24

  Medium risk projects judged likely to be successful

  +56

  Low risk projects judged likely to be successful

  +81

  2002–03

  High risk projects judged likely to be successful

  +33

  Medium risk projects judged likely to be successful

  +52

  Low risk projects judged likely to be successful

  +84

  For the purposes of this exercise, we judge projects receiving a score of 1 or 2 to be successful (ie those completely or largely achieving their objectives). Projects receiving a lower score may have partly achieved their objectives and so achieved a measure of success. One of the main aims in the monitoring and review process is to identify areas where projects are not achieving all of their objectives and take corrective action.

  The monitoring and review process is carried out for projects under implementation but we also assess projects on completion where the latest figures show that 77 per cent, were judged likely to achieve their overall purpose.

  We have a target in our 2003–06 Public Service Agreement to improve the performance of our projects in each risk category.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the(a) objectives, (b) targets and (c) main budgetary compartments are for the (i) Africa Performance Fund and (ii) Asia Performance Fund; and if he will make a statement. [122736]

  Hilary Benn
  Divisional performance funds were introduced from 2000–01 as reserves to be allocated in-year by directors, largely to reward good performance but also to respond to unforeseen demands and opportunities, including urgent humanitarian needs. They provide flexibility to allocate additional funds to those countries and institutions where progress on reform enables effective use of funds in pursuit of poverty reduction.

  The table shows the total amounts budgeted:

  DFID performance funds

  £ million

  Africa

  Asia

  2000–01

  57

  4.5

  2001–02

  10

  1

  2002–03

  14

  18

  2003–04

  35

  0

  2004–051

  151

  65

  2005–061

  289

  130

  1 Includes amounts provisionally earmarked from Director General Performance Fund from 2004–05.

  In Africa in 2000–01 there were two payments, one of £29 million to assist copper industry restructuring in Zambia, and another of £28 million as programme aid to support economic reform in Kenya. In 2001–02, a smaller sum was available, of which £7 million was spent on humanitarian assistance: £5 million in the DRC (through the International Red Cross) and £2 million on humanitarian projects in the Sudan. A further £0.25 million was spent on AFRICAP, an African
  302W
  micro-finance investment fund. In 2002–03, £10 million was spent on programme aid to Ethiopia as our bilateral relationship strengthened, £3.2 million on humanitarian work (in Angola, Sudan and the Great Lakes region), and a further £0.8 million contribution to AFRICAP. Some £35 million is available in 2003–04, much of which will he needed for humanitarian work.

  Asia's performance fund allocations were smaller than Africa's at £4.5 million in 2000–01, £1 million in 2001–02 and £18 million in 2002–03. This fund was used for various purposes including responding to humanitarian needs and a transfer to the Afghanistan programme. Asia does not have a performance fund allocation for 2003–04.

  From 2004–05 onwards, resources for performance funds rise significantly. These funds will be allocated in part before the year commences, although significant amounts will remain to be allocated in-year. They will be targeted at those countries that are currently performing less well or that are in or emerging from conflict. We are already planning high and stable levels of spending in countries with a clear commitment to, and capacity to deliver, poverty reduction.

  Reproductive Health
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development when the Secretary of State plans to publish her Department's policy paper on Reproductive Health and the Millennium Development Goals, and if she will make a statement. [122920]

  Hilary Benn
  We are planning to produce a public policy statement on reproductive health, which will set out our position on reproductive health and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), before the end of the year. We intend to consult with non-governmental organisations, international institutions, parliamentarians and other government departments, among others, on this paper.

  Reproductive health continues to be a priority for DFID and we remain firmly committed to the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development target of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015. DFID believes that population and reproductive health are fundamental to efforts to tackle poverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

  Statistics
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what percentage of statistics used by the Department preceding overseas aid projects were in time for their effective use in(a) project design and (b) project evaluation, for the years 2000 to 2003. [122711]

  Hillary Benn
  DFID's Country Plans set out our overall strategy for programme and project interventions in a country. These plans focus on how we can support our partner countries poverty reduction plans, drawing on the available statistics.
  303W
  Accurate data are vital to measure progress in reducing poverty, including progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. In most poor countries, collecting reliable data for indicators such as primary school enrolment or births and deaths is a major challenge. Often data are simply not available, or they may be of a variable quality due to information gaps as a result of inefficient data collection practices. There may also be a long delay in the production of country data which can hamper developing countries' government's ability to plan and implement effective policies. In countries affected by conflict, systems for collecting data may have ceased to function at all.

  DFID has been providing technical and financial support to a number of multilateral statistical initiatives, such as the Partnership In Statistics for Development in the 21st Century (PARIS21) initiative, to help build the capacity in developing countries to collect and use statistical data. Within DFID's country assistance planning system, we support our partner countries' own poverty reduction strategies to help achieve sustainable poverty reduction. DFID's Country Assistance Plans contain a statistical annex which is revised every year. We are committed to using locally available country data whenever possible, supplemented by data from international sources such as the World Bank and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to monitor progress against the country plans. This enables DFID to strengthen country statistical systems as well as improving data for measuring progress against our poverty reduction targets.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much the Department has spent on the Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century; what the Department's targets were for the partnership in the years(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; and how far these have been met. [122712]

  Hilary Benn
  The total spent on supporting the Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century (PARIS21) is £1.57 million.

  The UK is one of several donors providing support, partly by means of contributing to its overall budget. As a consequence, DFID did not set specific targets for what our support is expected to achieve in each separate year.

  The following sets out the PAR1S21 targets over the three years as a whole, together with an indication how far they have been met. These are largely based on the results of a very positive recent evaluation, which we expect to be published shortly on the PARIS21 websiteatwww.paris21.org.
  Improved co-ordination, motivation and resources for statistical capacity building.
  Demand for improved information systems, and readiness to support them, has increased significantly in multilateral institutions and in many governments.
  To enable the Secretariat to perform its support role effectively (e.g. facilitation of national, regional and global activities and facilitation of the task team activities) The UK was a major contributor to the costs of the Secretariat, whose performance has been rated highly.
  304W
  Dissemination of best practice and maintenance of web-site—There has been some improved information exchange between donors at country level, and between UN agencies. PARIS21 is judged to have helped spread awareness among low-income countries' governments.
  Facilitation of development of governance indicators and indicators of means of implementation—Progress was always known to be difficult to achieve in this area. However, a task team has now been established to manage a large project to take this work forward.

  Based on the evidence from the recent evaluation DFID will consider whether we should continue to support PARIS21 and if so, how best to do so.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BNFL
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which BNFL director sits on the board of Westinghouse Government Services; and what steps she takes to ensure his activities are consistent with Government policy. [119538]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for BNFL. The department has regular meetings with BNFL senior management which cover a range of business issues including the company's US operations, and where appropriate, the consistency of these operations with Government policy.

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will establish short-term guidelines for drafting new standards in co-ordination with the British Standards Institution and the Waste and Resources Action Programme that do not create barriers blocking the use of recycled goods; and if she will make a statement. [121987]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government accepts recommendation 5 of the Strategy Unit "Waste Not Want Not" Report which states that"DTI should work with Defra, WRAP, industry and the British Standards Institution to assess what more can be done to promote the use of secondary resources through BSI standards".
  Significant work is already under way to introduce relevant standards—in the construction sector for example, guidance has been developed that seeks to ensure that standards support re-use or recycling of products. The guidance is being prepared for publication and use in codes of practice covering design of buildings and structures. A Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 100 for composted materials has been introduced and WRAP, which is partly funded by DTI, is working closely with BSI in contributing to the development of European standards for collected and recycled plastics and is working on a specification and good practice guide for recovered container glass. WRAP is also undertaking work which will assist organisations looking to meet European recovered paper quality standards.

  Working with stakeholders including Government, BSI will shortly be initiating the development of a robust policy that ensures that any real or perceived "barriers"

  305W
  to the use of recycled material are removed where this is practicable without undermining the safety or other intended outcomes of individual standards.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when there will be a formal review of trade and industry standards identified as presenting barriers to the use of secondary resources and recycled goods; and if she will make a statement. [121988]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department is working closely with BSI (the British Standards Institution) to ensure that policies and guidelines relating to the use of recycled materials and wider environmental issues are developed and implemented within both new standards and in the revision of existing standards.

  The Department is fully aware of the environmental impacts that can be addressed through standardization and are planning to develop proactive solutions with BSI, Defra and the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP).

  Veterinary Surgeons
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what percentage of prescriptions for treating animals issued by veterinary surgeons in each of the last five years were generic drugs; (2) how many prescriptions for animals were issued in each of the last five years by veterinary surgeons. [121855]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not recorded centrally. To collate such information would be at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many veterinary surgeons are practising in the UK. [121854]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The number of registered veterinary surgeons entitled to practise in the UK, as at 20 June 2003, is 14,024.

  The estimated number of veterinary surgeons in general practice (whole-time appointments), listed in the RCVS Report for the year ending 31 March 2003, is 11,946. This figure excludes those veterinary surgeons working in Government Service (including Defra, DARDNI and Scottish Agricultural Colleges), universities, research councils, industry and commerce and charities and trusts.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average percentage profit per prescription issued by a veterinary surgeon was in each of the last five years. [121856]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Department does not record this information. However, section 6 of the Competition Commission Report on Prescription Only Medicines www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/completed/2003/veterinary/ index.htm contains an estimate of the annual profits made from the sale of drugs, pet foods and accessories by an average practice in 2001. The figure is based on data from surveys carried out for the Commission.
  306W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average profit per veterinary practice on the sale of prescription only medicines was in each of the last five years. [121857]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Department does not record this information. However, section 6 of the Competition Commission Report on Prescription Only Medicines www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/completed/2003/veterinary/ index.htm contains indications of annual profits made by an average practice in 2001 based on surveys carried out for the report.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average profit for each veterinary practice was in the last 12 months. [121859]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Department does not record this information. However, the BMRB2 survey for the Competition Commission Report on Prescription Only Medicines calculated an average net profit per partner of 82,000 for small-animal veterinary practices and £70,000 for mixed practices in 2001.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  2012 Olympic Bid
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the code of practice to be used by those associated with the Olympic bid team when lobbying for the 2012 Games. [122123]

  Tessa Jowell
  The bid company, and all others acting on their behalf, will be required to comply with the IOC's Rules of Conduct, applicable to cities wishing to organise the Games. A copy of the rules is available from the IOC website at:http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/ en_report_696.pdf.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to publish accounts of the moneys spent on the 2012 Olympic bid. [122124]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Olympic bid company will be required to publish its audited accounts.

  Moneys spent directly by DCMS and other public sector bodies in support of the bid will be accounted for and reported in the usual manner.

  Community Fund
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications to the Community Fund were(a) received and (b) successful for (i) village hall projects and (ii) projects relating to asylum seekers in 2002–03. [122202]

  Estelle Morris
  Between March 2002 and April 2003, the Community Fund received 591 applications for projects relating to village halls and 218 for projects relating to asylum seekers. Of these, 227 village hall projects and 82 asylum seeker projects were successful.
  307W

  Sports Tournaments
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures are in place to assess the regenerative impact of hosting sports tournaments in the UK. [122833]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are working with UK Sport, Sport England and national governing bodies to ensure that when bidding for a sporting event the costs and benefits are rigorously assessed including the regenerative impact. A detailed assessment of the regenerative impact of hosting the Olympic Games was undertaken before deciding to bid for the 2012 Games.

  Theatres
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the theatres in the UK which receive a subsidy from public funds. [122570]

  Estelle Morris
  Over 200 theatre organisations throughout England receive funding in one form or another from Arts Council England, too many to list here. The following two lists however are those organisations within Yorkshire which receive funding through Arts Council England's Yorkshire office. The first list are those organisations that are clearly theatre (including puppetry and mime) and the second, venues that are receiving rather than producing theatres and companies and that are cross art form/ combined arts/ street arts or circus.

  Theatre:

  Blah Blah Blah

  Bradford International Festival

  Chol Theatre

  Compass Theatre Company

  Faulty Optic

  Forced Entertainment

  Freehand Theatre

  Full Body and Voice

  Harrogate Theatre

  Hull Theatre (Truck)

  Interplay Theatre Company

  LBT Huddesfield

  Mikron Theatre Company

  Mimika Theatre

  Mind the…….gap

  North Country

  Northern Broadsides

  Pilot Theatre

  Proper Job

  Red ladder Theatre Company

  Sheffield Theatres

  Stephen Joseph Theatre

  Theatre in the Mill

  Theatre Royal York

  Tutti frutti

  Unlimited Theatre

  West Yorkshire Playhouse

  308W
  Receiving theatres and combined arts:

  Blaize

  The Faceless Company (from 2005–06)

  The Gate

  Georgian Theatre Royal

  Greentop Community Circus Centre (from 2005–06)

  Heads Together

  Impossible Theatre

  IOU

  Leeds Metropolitan University Studio Theatre

  The Old Meeting House Helmsley

  Third Angel

  Satellites

  Square Chapel

  Wakefield Theatre Royal

  Whitewood and Flemming

  Wilson+Wilson Company

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2003,Official Report, column 917W, on asbestos, if he will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [122940]

  Mr. Rammell
  All the FCO's buildings in central London contain some asbestos: The Main Building (Old Public Offices), Old Admiralty Building, Lancaster House and 1 Carlton Gardens. The FCO also has a compound at Hanslope Park in Buckinghamshire consisting of 26 buildings, 15 of which have been found to contain asbestos. The survey is not yet complete on one building but asbestos has not been found so far.

  Burma
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts on imposing economic and trade sanctions and embargoes upon the Burmese regime; and if he will make a statement. [123214]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have long been at the forefront of EU action to maintain and increase targeted pressure on the Burmese regime. The EU Common Position was further strengthened on 16 June and we are currently discussing with EU colleagues what additional economic action is required to encourage national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy in Burma.

  Colombia
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on UK policy on encouraging democratic pluralism in Colombia following recent measures taken against human rights activists, trade unionists and social protest in Colombia; [121835]
  309W
  (2) what recent representations he has made to the Government of Colombia on the protection and human rights of members of non-governmental organisations. [121836]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: During my visit to Colombia in May I called on the Colombian Government to make clear their support for the work of civil society, and stressed that civil society needed to be part of the solution to Colombia's problems. I raised our concerns on the situation faced by all vulnerable groups in Colombian society directly with the Colombian President and his Ministers. I made clear that we were following the situation very closely and our continued support for the Government was dependent on complete respect for human rights and international humanitarian law.

  I am pleased that in a subsequent keynote speech at Bogota's Police Academy attended by senior members of the Colombian Government, police and military, President Uribe made clear that he wanted them to show respect for NGOs working in Columbia. This demonstrates, I believe, that our approach of supporting, but seeking as well to influence the Colombian Government does work.

  Government Hospitality
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of foodstuffs and drinks provided by the Government Hospitality Section of the Conference and Visits Group was sourced from(a) the UK, (b) the EU, (c) third countries, (d) organic sources and (e) fair trade sources in each of the last five years. [122844]

  Mr. Rammell
  Government Hospitality (GH) Section does not record the origin of food and drink served at the events for which it is responsible. However, Government Hospitality maintains a policy of encouraging all its suppliers to make maximum use of fresh British seasonal produce. English and Welsh wines are also stocked in the Government wine cellar, for which GH is responsible.

  Iraq
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he was consulted in advance of the decision by the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs to allow Iraqis to keep firearms; and what proposals he has to reduce the availability of firearms and ammunition in Iraq. [119795]

  Mr. Rammell
  Ambassador Bremrner of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) decided on 24 May that only small arms may be possessed in homes and in places of business, but that they must be retained at these sites and not be taken out in public. Only authorised persons may possess small arms in public places and those authorised persons are issued with a Temporary Weapons Card by Coalition Commanders. Only Coalition forces, police, security and other forces in uniform under the supervision of the Coalition may possess automatic or heavy weapons. UK legal staff are working with the CPA and were consulted on this 310W
  decision which was in compliance with UNSCR 1483. There was no need for the Secretary of State to be consulted.

  Restoring public order and a safe and secure environment is a priority for the Coalition, who have been working to disarm Iraqi civilians where possible. As a consequence of the decision on 24 May Iraqi civilians voluntarily turned in a variety of weapons under an amnesty from 1–14 June. We are working with US authorities in Washington and Baghdad to develop an effective way to carry out further work in this area.

  Newsroom
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants are employed in the Department's newsroom. [119525]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are 20 Press officers employed in the FCO's Press Office. In addition there are seven support administrative staff.

  Occupied Territories
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel regarding environmental damage in the occupied Palestinian territories following the pollution of water supplies, destruction of trees and laying waste of agricultural land. [121669]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government have made clear to the Government of Israel our concerns about the humanitarian and environmental impact of the damage to water sources and the destruction of Palestinian agricultural land and their fruit and olive trees that has been caused by Israeli actions, in particular the construction of the 'security fence' and settlement-related building activity. We deplore the destruction of Palestinian property and have called on the Israeli Government to cease such activity.

  We have also urged the Israeli Government to avoid actions that restrict Palestinian access to water for irrigation and drinking. The UK provides development assistance to the Palestinians in the water and sanitation sector.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel regarding the building of the security wall and fence during Phase I of the Road Map for Peace. [121673]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary conveyed his concerns about the construction of the "security fence" to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, when he visited the UK on 15 May. We have also made representations through our embassy in Tel Aviv expressing concern at the route and likely impact of the security fence.

  We fully understand Israel's need to take steps, in accordance with international law, to protect her citizens from terrorist attack, but we deplore the seizure of Palestinian land and isolation of villages resulting from the construction of sections of the fence within the west back. The quartet roadmap, while not taking an explicit view on the construction of the security fence,

  311W
  calls on the Government of Israel to take no actions undermining trust, including the confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian property.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel regarding the continuation of the settlements programme during Phase I of the Road Map for Peace. [121674]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about settlements with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, on his visit to the UK on 15 May. Foreign Office officials have made representations to the Israeli ambassador, most recently on 10 June, and our ambassador in Tel Aviv raised settlements in east Jerusalem with the Israeli Interior Minister, Avraham Poraz, on 1 April.

  We fully support the roadmap's requirement that Israel should immediately freeze all settlement expansion, including "natural growth" and dismantle the outposts erected since March 2001, and welcome recent action by the Israeli authorities on the latter.

  Pakistan
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh in Pakistan. [122739]

  Mr. Mullin
  The British high commission in Karachi continues to seek consular access to Mr. Sheikh. They last wrote to the Pakistani authorities on 23 May 2003, asking for permission to visit him. We await their response. However, we continue to press for access to ensure Mr. Sheikh's welfare. Mr. Sheikh is believed to be a dual national. If this is the case, the Pakistani authorities are not obliged to give us consular access or information.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring his Department carries out into shipments of arms destined for Sudan. [122477]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The Government fully support and comply with the EU arms embargo, which was implemented in 1994. The embargo was introduced as a result of the ongoing civil war in Sudan, the lack of any movement towards a peaceful settlement to the conflictand the resulting humanitarian crisis.

  The Government work to ensure the rigorous enforcement of sanctions and takes all breaches very seriously. When the Government receive information regarding an alleged breach by a third country, we raise the issue with the country concerned.

  Were we to receive allegations against a UK company, we would ensure that the information is passed to the appropriate authorities, who will consider conducting a formal investigation.
  312W
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department plans to take regarding the recent conflict in Darfur, western Sudan. [122703]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: During his recent visit to Khartoum on 15–17 June 2003 the UK Special Representative met a group of Darfur MPs and intellectuals. He raised their concerns about the situation in Darfur with the Sudanese First Vice President. The Sudanese Government have given a commitment to ensure access for humanitarian aid but not all areas are within their control. In the longer term of arrangements being discussed at the peace talks in Machakos offer the best prospects of addressing the problems in Darfur.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of Sudan regarding reports of harassment of civil society groups in recent months. [122704]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our Ambassador in Khartoum raised this with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 19 June 2003 during the most recent EU/Sudan Dialogue meeting. The UK Special Representative raised it with the Sudanese First Vice-President on 16 June 2003 in Khartoum.

WALES

  Valleys
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the economic future of South Wales valley communities. [122067]

  Peter Hain
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister including the economic future of the South Wales Valleys where unemployment has been falling.

  Ombudsman Service
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the review of Ombudsman Services for Wales. [122068]

  Mr. Touhig
  I announced on 11 March that following the overwhelming support received to the principle of unifying public sector Ombudsmen services in Wales there will now be a consultation on the powers and jurisdiction of that new Office. That consultation will begin in December.

  Objective 1
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the implementation of the Objective 1 programme in West Wales and the Valleys. [122070]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the Assembly First Minister about economic development matters across Wales, including Objective 1.
  313W

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with Treasury Ministers about the impact on Wales of proposed changes in the organisation of anti-smuggling work by HM Customs and Excise. [122071]

  Peter Hain
  I have detailed discussions with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

  Broadband
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has held with(a) ministerial colleagues and (b) National Assembly Secretaries on rolling out broadband services in North Wales. [122072]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet with ministerial colleagues and have regular bilateral meetings with National Assembly colleagues and broadband services is one of many subjects areas discussed. I have asked BT to make a presentation at the Wales Office, and have invited all right hon. and hon. Members with Welsh constituencies and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley Mr. Evans) to attend. I hope that they will take up this opportunity to learn more about broadband in Wales.

  English Hospital Treatment
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health concerning treatment of patients from Wales in English hospitals. [122073]

  Mr. Touhig
  I meet colleagues from the other Government Departments regularly and discuss a variety of topics, including health.

  Public Sector Employees
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were employed in the public sector in Wales(a) in 1997 and (b) in the last 12 months. [122074]

  Peter Hain
  In March 1997 there were just over 300,265 people employed in the public sector in Wales, representing 29.7 per cent, of the Welsh work-force. In December 2002 there were 336,674 people employed in this sector, representing 31.3 per cent.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the commercial cultivation of GM crops in Wales. [122075]

  Mr. Touhig
  None.

DEFENCE

  A400M
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the status of the A400M programme; [121872]
  314W
  (2) if he will make a statement on the landing gear system procurement for the A400M; when he expects to announce the awarding of the contract for the landing gear system for the A400M; and from which suppliers the equipment will be procured. [121873]

  Mr. Ingram
  A contract for the development and production of the A400M aircraft was signed with Airbus Military (AM) on 27 May 2003 by the Organisation for Joint Armaments Co-operation on behalf of the participating nations. The aircraft's planned In-Service Date for United Kingdom is now 2011.

  The contract is for the complete aircraft, including its landing gear system. This requires AM to select equipment and sub systems through competition on the basis of cost and capability. We and the other participating nations expect this to secure the most cost-effective solution. We understand that AM are considering landing gear system proposals from Messier-Dowty of Gloucester and Liebherr-Aerospace of Germany and that they expect to announce their selection decision by the end of this year.

  Angel Group
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the properties acquired by the Angel Group and its subsidiaries from the Department and its agencies and the(a) dates and (b) costs of their acquisition. [118837]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information requested will take time to collate. I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119813]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 24 June 2003,fficial Report, columns 657–61W, by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 June 2003 Official Report, column 510W, on defence procurement, when the various decisions were taken with regard to the forecast (a) in service date and (b) costs of the Bowman Communication System; and if he will make a statement. [122314]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 2001, when approving the BOWMAN programme, Ministers noted that, under the schedule claimed by the prime contractor, the target in-service date would be 30 March 2004. The Company, its sub-contractors and the Department continue to work in close partnership to meet this challenging target. At the time of the ministerial approval, the forecast full
  315W
  resource cost of the development and manufacture phase was some £1.9 billion. This was revised during the last annual planning round to £2.0 billion. Pursuant

  Hansard reference

  Project

  Date contract let

  Current forecast ISD

  Current forecast cost (£ billion)

  Estimated ISD at time contract let

  Estimated cost at time contract let (£ billion)

  110345

  BOWMAN1

  2001

  2004

  2.0

  2004

  1.9

  1The BOWMAN costs refer to the Development and Manufacture Phase only.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the number and (b) the role of British troops being deployed to Ituri, Democratic Republic of Congo. [119556]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Nations Security Council passed UNSCR 1484 on 30 May giving a limited and specific mandate for a Interim Multinational Force to help stabilise the situation in Bunia in north east Congo pending the deployment of additional forces by the UN. The mandate expires on 1 September 2003.

  As I announced in the House on 12 June 2003, Official Report, column 849, the United Kingdom has currently offered a small contribution to the EU-led multinational force being deployed to Bunia. We have offered five staff officers for the Force Headquarters in theatre, a liaison officer to work with the UN, some Hercules transport aircraft to help deploy the multinational force and a small detachment of engineers. The role of the British element is to assist in providing staff and engineering support. However, the exact size of the element and its precise tasks will not be known until we have completed a detailed analysis of the engineering tasks to be undertaken in Bunia.

  Departmental Ministers
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of Ministers in his Department in each year since 1996. [120984]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 661W, by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Depleted Uranium
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answers from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), on 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 291W, on depleted uranium (DU), whether all DU weapons will be removed; and whether the land on which they lay will be analysed before it is made available for unrestricted use by the public. [122531]

  Mr. Caplin
  The unused stocks of depleted uranium (DU) munitions that were available to British Forces during the conflict in Iraq have now been brought back to the United Kingdom.

  MOD scientists carried out an initial examination of tanks suspected of having been struck by DU on 22 June. These tanks have been clearly marked up pending further detailed examination by an MOD scientific team. Risk assessments will be conducted on
  316W
  to my answer of 20 June 2003 Official Report, column 510W the entry for BOWMAN in the table printed should read:

  each and decisions made on a case-by-case basis on whether to clean them up and remove them or collect them together and fence them off.

  At present, surface-lying DU fragments are being removed from the battlefield as they are discovered, and land on which UK Forces fired DU munitions will be analysed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) during its environmental survey of Iraq. In support of the survey, MOD has provided details of UK DU firing locations and has offered to provide advice on carrying out risk assessments on DU within urban areas and on long-term monitoring of DU in the environment, including water. UNEP will make further recommendations once the environmental survey is complete.

  Iraqi locals have been warned through Information Operation messages that they should not go near or touch any debris they find on the battlefield.

  Executive Agencies
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Strategic and Combat Studies Institute; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119284]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Strategic and Combat Studies Institute is not an Agency. It is based within the Director General Development and Doctrine at Upavon, Pewsey, Wiltshire And is funded by the Ministry of Defence. As its name implies, its purpose is to encourage debate upon issues of strategy and combat, past, present and future. It does so via the publication of 'Occasional' papers, which are widely distributed to university departments, other Institutes such as the Royal United Services Institute and to relevant bodies overseas.

  The Institute is staffed by two people. There are no staff employed in Scotland.

  Infections (Gulf Personnel)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of infections(a) broken down by diagnosis and (b) as a proportion of population at risk there were among service personnel deployed in the Gulf in 2003. [121335]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official

  317W
  Report, column 251W, whether there will be an inspection and audit by inspectors independent of the coalition force in the event of evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being found; and if he will make a statement. [122030]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 525, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).

  Land Transactions
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) land acquired by his Department for military training since 1997 and (b) land released by his Department since 1997. [112359]

  Mr. Caplin
  Our policy is to acquire additional land only where this allows either more effective use of the estate or retention of essential training land which was formerly used under lease arrangements.

  The only major acquisition of land for military training since 1997 was that at Cape Wrath, Scotland in 1998, totalling 2,684 hectares. The following table provides detail of smaller acquisitions in the period:

  Smaller acquisitions of land since 1997

  Land acquired

  Hectares acquired

  East Riggs, Dumfries and Galloway

  0.03

  Belmont Street, Aberdeen

  1—

  Leek Training Area

  2.2

  Llanfair P G—Anglesey

  0.03

  Leek Camp, staffs

  3.1

  Nr Llangefni, Angelsey

  0.5

  Saxa vord, Unst, Shetland

  0.032

  Cinque Ports

  38.9

  Cinque Port

  24.3

  Salisbury Plain

  32.4

  Sennybridge

  44.5

  DM Kineton, Warwickshire

  1.9

  Cinque Ports

  7.3

  1 Not available.

  Disposal figures are not available for 1997, but since 1998 the Department has disposed of some 7,000 hectares of land. Details of this breakdown could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Madrid Initiative
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Madrid Initiative agreed in Madrid in June 2003; what role the(a) Royal Navy and (b) the RAF will play in implementing the Madrid Initiative; and what countries are participants. [122684]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) aims to reinforce the international effort against the trafficking in Weapons of Mass Destruction and related technology, with the goal of helping prevent these weapons falling into the wrong hands, such as countries of proliferation concern and terrorists. The United Kingdom strongly supports the aims of the PSI, and participated in a meeting on 12 June in Madrid. The 318W
  initiative is at a very early stage, and no decisions have yet been taken on the involvement, if any, of armed forces. Any contribution by the Armed Forces of the UK would be consistent with their obligations under international law. The countries that attended the meeting in Madrid were: the US, the UK, Australia, Japan, Italy, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111968]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 661W, by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Nimrod/Astute
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the total cost increase in the Nimrod and Astute programmes was due to changes in specifications; and if he will list the specified changes. [118193]

  Mr. Ingram
  None of the cost increases in the Nimrod and Astute programmes, announced by my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement on 19 February, was due to changes in specifications. The cost increase in the Astute programme derives directly from the Department taking responsibility for a share of the cost increases resulting from decisions taken jointly by the Ministry of Defence and the company on the use of Computer Aided Design technology. For Nimrod MRA4, the cost increase is the MOD's contribution towards the costs required to restructure the programme, as well as including a separate amount for the conduct of an Assessment Phase study to explore the potential for capability enhancement as an "adaptable aircraft" to meet future defence requirements building upon the results of recent operational experience and the general need for more surveillance, reconnaissance and land attack capability identified in the SDR New Chapter.

  Operation Telic
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many regular service personnel in the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Marines, (c) Army and (d) RAF units are involved in Operation Telic; and if he will make a statement. [122155]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Regular Service Personnel (as at 30 June)

  Royal Navy

  694

  Royal Marines

  38

  Army

  10,850

  RAF units

  1,841

  RAF Bases
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of RAF Uxbridge. [119504]

  Mr. Caplin
  My predecessor made a Press Statement on 29 October 2002 and wrote to a number of local MPs notifying them of the Department's intention to offer the United States Navy the opportunity to occupy for military use the majority of the land and the buildings at RAF Uxbridge. This relocation forms part of project MOD Estate London (MoDEL) to rationalize the Department's estate in London.

  The proposal would allow the United States Navy to consolidate at RAF Uxbridge their offices currently situated on seven London sites. It is expected that many of the Service Family Houses would be retained for Ministry of Defence use, and options are being investigated for the preservation of the RAF Bunker as a site of historic interest.
  320W
  The estate offered to the United States Navy would remain the property of Her Majesty's Government, and the establishment would keep a RAF designation. The proposal is subject to separate approval procedures to serve the interests of the MOD and the United States Visiting Forces. Should the United States Navy choose not to relocate, then RAF Uxbridge would be considered for alternative use or declared surplus and available for disposal.

  Unused Leave
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to compensate armed forces personnel for unused periods of leave. [122815]

  Mr. Ingram
  Leave policy is kept under continual review by the Services. Individuals are actively encouraged to take their full leave entitlement in the year of allocation. If however, due to a high level of operational commitments personnel are unable to take their full leave entitlement there is flexibility within the system and procedures are in place to allow a proportion of the untaken annual leave to be carried forward into the next leave year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the fast track visa scheme on the employment prospects of British IT specialists. [120299]

  Beverley Hughes
  In operating the work permit arrangements, Work Permits (UK) is concerned to ensure that UK employers are able to recruit those workers with the skills that they need while protecting the interests of resident workers and that decisions to issue work permits are therefore based on a full understanding of current labour market conditions. The Information Technology, Communications and Electronics Sector Advisory Panel meets regularly to advise Work Permits (UK) on labour market conditions in the IT sector, and the information on which any assessment is based is kept under continuous review. In the light of the panel's advice, IT occupations were removed from Work Permit (UK's) Shortage Occupation List in September 2002.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau in Croydon provides to(a) the public and (b) legal representatives concerning the location of applications which are suffering from delays; and if he will make a statement. [121845]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau (INEB) does not give out details of the locations of individual files, which would be neither meaningful nor helpful for customers. General guidance on timescales is given by INEB agents and mirrors that contained on the Immigration Nationality Directorate website, which is regularly updated. All application forms sent out by INEB also contain an information sheet, which gives the latest timescales. Agents in the Bureau do have some information about backlogs in various locations and the Bureau is presently trying to refine that information so that callers can be given clearer likely timescales for their individual applications.

  Asylum Seekers
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to accommodate asylum seekers in a camp in(a) Croatia and (b) another eastern European country outside the EU; whether the occupants of such camps would have rights under the law of the country where the camp is located; what legal system would apply to the occupants; and whether he will be responsible for ensuring the rights of occupants under (i) the Convention on Refugees and (ii) the European Convention on Human Rights. [121757]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is no truth in the reports that the UK will process asylum applicants in a camp in Croatia. We have no current plans to process asylum applications to the UK in camps in slates on the borders of the EU.
  322W
  We are exploring with partners and the UNHCR how best our ideas on new approaches to international protection can be put into practice.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum in the UK have been made since January by Iraqi(a) Ba'ath and (b) ex-Ba'ath party officials. [122018]

  Beverley Hughes
  No one identified as either a current or former Ba'ath Party official has applied for asylum since January 2003.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned on the number of asylum seekers who commit crimes. [122208]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: There is no available evidence to suggest that asylum seekers are more likely to commit crime than any other person living in the United Kingdom.

  Details of the nationality and immigration status of suspects or of those convicted of crimes are not collated centrally as part of the recorded crime statistics and are not necessarily recorded by individual police forces.

  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 has provision to prevent serious criminals availing themselves of the protection of the 1951 Refugee Convention and we will seek to remove such criminals from the United Kingdom wherever possible.

  Capita
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many employees have been seconded from Capita to the Department since 1997; for how long they worked in the Department; and what positions they held. [115627]

  Paul Goggins
  Secondments are part of the interchange initiative, which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: public, private and voluntary. Interchange provides opportunities for civil servants to learn new skills, widen their experience and develop ideas. It also brings in skills and experiences from other sectors.

  Over 100 staff are currently seconded into the Home Office. Since 1997, only one employee has been seconded from Capita to the Department, between 1 October 1999 to 30 September 2001. Details of the position held are not available centrally.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy. [121350]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  There were 117 responses to the Department's public consultation on the European Commission's draft proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural

  323W
  Policy. These are available to the public through the main Defra library and copies of the list of respondents has been placed in the Library of the House.

  In addition to her regular contacts with her colleagues on the EU Agriculture Council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met representatives from various interest groups to discuss CAP reform, most recently from farming and consumer groups. My noble Friend Lord Whitty chairs regular meetings with a wide range of key stakeholder organisations to exchange views on the CAP reform proposals, and officials frequently meet similar interested organisations.

  Dead Bodies (Desecration)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a review of the law in respect of desecration of dead bodies. [122172]

  Paul Goggins
  We will keep the need for additional legislative provisions for the protection of the dead under review.

  Documents
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 960, when the document he refers to will be available. [122048]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service wrote to the hon. Member on 25 June 2003, enclosing a copy.

  EC Association Agreement Applications
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the performance of Integrated Casework Directorate North in Sheffield since August 2002, with particular reference to the backlog of European Community Association Agreement applications. [121841]

  Beverley Hughes
  Casework performance is monitored on a weekly basis. Since the establishment of the unit in Sheffield last August to help reduce casework backlogs it has handled 20,128 European Community Association Agreement applications and made decisions on 17,027 of them.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason there is no direct phone line available for(a) the public and (b) legal representatives to contact the integrated Casework Directorate North offices in Sheffield; what assessment he has made of the implications of this for the speed of dealing with outstanding European Community Association Agreement applications; and if he will make a statement. [121842]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau (INEB) was set up in December 1998 to field telephone enquiries for the whole of Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) from members of the public and legal representatives seeking general immigration advice or progress on outstanding applications. INEB telephone staff have access to the 324W
  same information as caseworkers throughout IND, including those in ICD North, by means of the Case Information Database (CID). The intention in offering a call centre operation has always been to divert telephone enquiries away from caseworking staff to ensure that applications are resolved as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Callers are able to get through to INEB within one or two attempts and telephone staff have access to caseworkers in ICD North if detailed information is required for callers.

  As a result of the additional caseworking capacity based in Sheffield, the number of outstanding European Community Association Agreement applications has been reduced to about 2,000 and the majority of new applications are being decided within eight weeks of receipt.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many European Community Association Agreement applications processed through the offices of Integrated Casework Directorate North in Sheffield have been delayed beyond the expected minimum over the last year; and if he will make a statement. [121843]

  Beverley Hughes
  Since the Sheffield casework unit was established in August 2002, some 6,745 European Community Association Agreement applications have been delayed beyond the expected minimum period although the majority have been decided within six months. The additional caseworking capacity introduced in Sheffield has made a significant contribution to the reduction of overall after-entry casework backlogs.

  Local Food Chains
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an assessment by region of what help is forthcoming by(a) regional development agencies and (b) government offices to encourage local food chains. [121572]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

  The level and nature of support for local food chains provided by Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and Government Offices (GOs) varies from region to region. The extent of this support will be determined by each region's priorities.

  (a) RDAs are already providing support for initiatives such as research, pilot projects, local food groups, promotional activities and farmers markets. In addition, within the context of their regional economic strategies, each RDA, working closely with the GO and other relevant interests, is developing a regional plan to help deliver the Government's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food. Within these plans RDAs will be addressing issues such as:

  the production and supply of local produce by encouraging food hubs and shared facilities for food businesses;

  marketing of local food by linking local food producers with local retailers and tourism businesses; and

  public procurement through the development of projects with local authorities and other public sector organisations to enable local food producers to bid for contracts on more equal terms.
  325W
  (b) Although GOs do not have funding to encourage local food chains they do carry out a number of services to support the local food sector. The GOs provide a signposting to and advice on the various sources of funding which include 'national' grants such as those under the England Rural Development Programme as well as the area based structural funds through the Leader and Objective 1 programmes. In addition, the GOs can provide a co-ordination role in sharing best practice amongst producers, processors and retailers.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from Montserrat were resident in the UK in the last year for which figures are available. [122200]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of people from Montserrat resident in the UK is not routinely recorded and is currently unavailable.

  Information is available, however, on the number of people from Montserrat who have been granted settlement and so are allowed to remain indefinitely in the UK. The most recent data available are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of grants

  1996

  5

  1997

  5

  1998

  2,495

  1999

  235

  2000

  250

  2001

  100

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  The sudden increase in grants of settlement in 1998 reflects those Montserratians who arrived in the UK under the Government's voluntary evacuation scheme, which was introduced due to the severity of the volcanic activity on the island. There is no information available on whether or not those people granted settlement chose to remain in the UK.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what performance indicators and output targets are used by the National Asylum Support Service to measure the efficiency of its service to asylum seekers and other stakeholders; and how the NASS performed against these performance indicators and output targets in the latest year for which figures are available. [120805]

  Beverley Hughes
  For the financial year 2002–03 the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) had a target to increase to 70 per cent, the proportion of applications for support decided within five working days by the end of March 2003. The latest outturn figure available shows that 38 per cent, of applications for support were decided (assessed and accommodation arranged) within five working days. It has not been possible to meet the target of 70 per cent, of applications decided by March 2003 because of delays in processing the backlog of applications.
  326W
  NASS also had a target to reduce the annual cost of support asylum seekers by maintaining the actual cost at £130 per week for single asylum seekers and £280 per week for families. The latest available figures show that the actual cost of supporting single asylum seekers was £120 per week and £276 per week for families.

  In common with the rest of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, NASS is expected to respond to 95 per cent, of ministerial correspondence agreed with the Cabinet Office. During the year IND as a whole fell short of this target although there was continuous improvement in performance during the latter half of the year and further initiatives aimed at speeding up processing times are being planned. Letters from the public on general NASS issues should be responded to within 20 days of receipt. This target is being met.

  Correspondence about individual support applicants is also subject to targets for response. Targets for response depend on the nature of the correspondence. Correspondence which can be fast tracked will receive meaningful action within three working days. Correspondence raising complex issues will receive meaningful action within 10 working days. For example, an application for a single additional payment will be assessed within three working days of receipt and the applicant is notified of the outcome at this stage. Any payment approved will be included in the support applicant's regular payment within three weeks of the application being made.

  All targets are monitored to ensure compliance and any backlog is addressed to avoid unnecessary delay.

  Offender Throughput
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the throughput of offenders in each probation area was in the last two financial years. [121955]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of offenders starting Probation Service supervision in each probation area in the last two calendar years is given in the table. This information is not available on a financial year basis.

  Persons starting supervision by the probation service in 2000 and 2001 by area

  Number of persons

  England and Wales

  2000

  2001

  Avon and Somerset

  4,018

  3,654

  Bedfordshire

  1,605

  1,627

  Cambridgeshire

  1,802

  1,752

  Cheshire

  2,544

  2,464

  Cumbria

  1,860

  1,914

  Derbyshire

  3,223

  3,150

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,393

  3,395

  Dorset

  1,835

  1,791

  Durham

  2,050

  2,098

  Essex

  3,684

  3,667

  Gloucestershire

  1,479

  1,486

  Greater Manchester

  12,706

  11,967

  Hampshire

  5,025

  4,839

  Hertfordshire

  2,201

  2,193

  Humberside

  3,361

  3,190

  Kent

  5,013

  4,781

  Lancashire

  5,007

  4,850

  Leicestershire

  3,194

  3,083

  Lincolnshire

  1,565

  1,509

  Merseyside

  6,080

  6,208

  327W

  Persons starting supervision by the probation service in 2000 and 2001 by area

  Number of persons

  England and Wales

  2000

  2001

  Norfolk

  2,185

  2,142

  Northamptonshire

  1,771

  1,746

  Northumbria

  5,053

  5,048

  North Yorkshire

  1,946

  1,806

  Nottinghamshire

  4,504

  4,282

  South Yorkshire

  6,038

  5,673

  Staffordshire

  2,952

  3,059

  Suffolk

  1,418

  1,373

  Surrey

  1,684

  1,706

  Sussex

  3,318

  3,527

  Teesside

  2,403

  2,483

  Thames Valley

  4,844

  4,777

  Warwickshire

  1,235

  1,258

  West Mercia

  2,838

  2,785

  West Midlands

  12,346

  12,806

  West Yorkshire

  9,682

  8,607

  Wiltshire

  1,445

  1,563

  London

  21,430

  21,190

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,160

  1,202

  Gwent

  1,909

  2,143

  North Wales

  2,047

  1,902

  South Wales

  4,673

  4,793

  Pathfinder Programmes
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when probation areas will be(a) able to get accreditation for domestic violence offender programmes and (b) eligible for funding. [122289]

  Paul Goggins
  The National Probation Service is developing two programmes for domestic violence offenders. One of them will be submitted for accreditation to the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel in October. If it gains accredited status it will be made available nationally, though the timing of implementation is still under consideration. The Panel will also be asked to comment on the other programme but this will require further work before it is ready to be formally submitted for accreditation.

  Once the domestic violence programmes have been accredited and implemented areas will be able to count them towards the Probation Service Delivery Agreement for programme completion which attracts funding from the National Probation Directorate.

  Priority Alert Scheme
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many subscribers use the City of London and Metropolitan Police Priority Alert Scheme; what the cost to(a) subscribers and (b) operators is; how many messages were issued in each case of the last five years; and for what purposes. [114720]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the Capital, the City of London and Metropolitan police's Priority Alert scheme now has in excess of 2,000 subscribers from London businesses. Each member pays £15 per month to subscribe a pager to receive information through the scheme. The police themselves incur no direct costs as the operators of the scheme.

  Over the last five years, the Priority Alert scheme has sent over 1.8 million messages to its subscribers. The
  328W
  primary use of the system is associated with warning those subscribers of suspicious situations, potential terrorist activity and potential or actual demonstrations.

  Rape Helpline
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a 24-hour helpline for victims of rape. [121101]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The Home Office is considering ways in which further support can be provided to victims of sexual crime. A national helpline for victims of rape is one of the possibilities under consideration.

  The Home Office will consider this and other possibilities with the Department of Health and other interested Government Departments. Our conclusions on how best to take these complex issues forward will be made known as soon as possible.

  Remand Prisoners
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female remand prisoners were subsequently (i) acquitted and (ii) sentenced to a non-custodial penalty in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [121964]

  Paul Goggins
  It is not possible to give a numerical breakdown based on the data received on remands. A number of police forces either do not supply remand data or provide remand data that are incomplete. In particular, the number remanded into custody is believed to be under-recorded. However, the data received can be used to derive estimates of the proportions of male and female remand prisoners who were subsequently either acquitted or sentenced to a non-custodial penalty. The attached table shows figures on this basis for 2001.

  Final court outcome for persons remanded in custody at some stage in magistrates' courts proceedings 1 England and Wales 2001

  Estimated percentages2

  Final court outcome3

  Males

  Females

  Acquitted etc

  21

  21

  Convicted: of which:

  78

  78

  Discharge Fine

  3

  5

  4

  5

  Community sentence4

  13

  19

  Fully suspended sentence

  —

  —

  Immediate custody5

  51

  42

  Otherwise dealt with6

  7

  7

  Total

  100

  100

  1Includes persons remanded in custody by magistrates during proceedings or on committal.

  2The estimated percentages given above may not add to the total due to rounding.

  3Includes estimated outcome at the Crown Court for those committed for trial or sentence.

  4Includes community rehabilitation orders, supervision orders, community punishment orders, attendance centre orders, community punishment and rehabilitation orders, curfew orders, reparation orders, action plan orders and drug treatment and testing orders.

  5Includes detention in a young offender institution and unsuspended imprisonment.

  6Includes compensation, hospital or guardianship order under Mental Health Act 1983, police cells, recognizance and other.

  Sentencing
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders were sentenced by the courts in 2002, broken down by(a) type of disposal and (b) category of offence. [121963]

  Paul Goggins
  Court proceedings statistics for 2002 will be published in December 2003.

  Victim Support
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what funding he has provided for Victim Support in England in each of the last six years; [117115]

  (2) what funding he has provided for the Witness Service in each of the last six years; [117116]

  (3) what representations he has received on the funding of Witness Support Services in England; and if he will make a statement. [117117]

  Paul Goggins
  Home Office grant to local victim support schemes and witness services in England and Wales is channelled through the Victim Support National Office. The National Office currently retains some 12½ per cent. of the grant for central support and member services, and allocates the rest to local schemes and witness services. From October 2003, Victim Support will allocate the grant progressively according to a new funding formula, based on potential workload. This will ensure a more equitable distribution of the available grant to local schemes and witness services.

  £million

  Financial year

  Total Home Office grant to Victim Support

  Grant allocated to the Witness Service by Victim Support

  1997–98

  12.682

  n/a

  1998–99

  12.682

  n/a

  1999–2000

  17.500

  n/a

  2000–01

  18.550

  3.859

  2001–02

  25.050

  7.427

  2002–03

  29.300

  1(4.606)

  1First six months of the financial year only

  Some 20 Members have made representations about the level of Home Office funding for Victim Support in the current financial year—which has been further increased by 2.4 per cent. to £30 million. There have been no representations specifically about the funding of the Witness Service.

  Young Offenders
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders were placed in intensive supervision and surveillance programmes by police authorities in the last year for which figures are available. [121871]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of young offenders who have started on the scheme between 1 June 2002 and 31 May 2003 is set out in descending order. In some of the areas the scheme has been available only partway through that period.
  330W

  Police force area

  Number of young offenders started on the scheme

  Metropolitan

  589

  Greater Manchester

  423

  West Yorkshire

  281

  West Midlands

  232

  Merseyside

  196

  Northumbria

  183

  Staffordshire

  155

  South Wales

  151

  Lancashire

  141

  South Yorkshire

  126

  Cleveland

  121

  Nottinghamshire

  121

  Kent

  77

  Durham

  72

  Hampshire

  72

  Leicestershire

  69

  Gwent

  63

  Avon and Somerset

  62

  North Yorkshire

  59

  Thames Valley

  59

  North Wales

  55

  Cambridgeshire

  53

  Suffolk

  48

  West Mercia

  45

  Bedfordshire

  30

  Youth Courts
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time is from offence to completion in the youth courts for those defendants not identified as persistent young offenders. [121962]

  Paul Goggins
  The average time from offence to completion in the youth courts for those defendants not identified as persistent young offenders was 95 days in 2002.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Agriculture
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed(a) directly and (b) indirectly in the agricultural industry in each constituency in Northern Ireland. [122552]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The numbers employed directly on farms in each constituency are in the following table.

  Parliamentary constituency

  Farmers and workers

  Belfast, East

  37

  Belfast, North

  16

  Belfast, South

  33

  Belfast, West

  23

  East Antrim

  1,403

  East Londonderry

  3,039

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  8,697

  Foyle

  1,098

  Lagan Valley

  2,583

  Mid-Ulster

  6,055

  Newry and Armagh

  6,579

  North Antrim

  5,390

  North Down

  357

  South Antrim

  2,186

  331W

  Parliamentary constituency

  Farmers and workers

  South Down

  5,907

  Strangford

  2,273

  Upper Bann

  1,984

  West Tyrone

  6,613

  Northern Ireland

  54,273

  Note:

  These figures include farmers, partners, spouses, family and hired workers, whether full-time, part-time or employed on a casual or seasonal basis.

  (b) Details of indirect employment are not available except at Northern Ireland level. Employment in the food and drinks processing sector was estimated as 18,300 persons in 2001 and a further 4,400 persons were estimated to be employed in the agricultural supply sector.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, how many complaints have been made against decisions of the Child Support Agency in the past three years. [122541]

  Mr. Spellar
  Parents have a right of appeal against the decisions of the Agency in respect of the amount of child maintenance to be paid and information about the numbers of these are shown in the following table. Details of complaints to the Child Support Agency more generally are included.

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Appeal requests

  96

  126

  148

  Number of complaints

  175

  205

  173

  Civil Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been ruled ineligible for reserved posts in the Northern Ireland Civil Service in each of the last five years on the grounds that they are Irish citizens. [120107]

  Mr. Pearson
  The number of candidates rejected because they were not UK citizens is as follows:

  Number

  1998–99

  1

  1999–2000

  7

  2000–01

  8

  2001–02

  12

  2002–03

  8

  Information on Irish citizens is not held and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Commemorative Plaques
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what arrangements are in place to fund the erection of blue commemorative plaques in Northern Ireland; and how these arrangements differ from those in England; [111636]
  332W
  (2) what the policy and criteria are for the erection of blue plaques to commemorate distinguished citizens in their native localities; [111628]

  (3) what the average cost was of erecting a blue commemorative plaque in the last 12 months; [111619]

  (4) what plans he has to involve interested parties in developing the blue plaques scheme to mark the diversity of Northern Ireland's cultural heritage; [111634]

  (5) how many blue commemorative plaques were erected in each of the last five years; and, for each year, what the cost was to public funds. [111622]

  Angela Smith
  There are currently no arrangements in place to fund the erection of blue commemorative plaques in Northern Ireland. The Government have no plans at present to introduce such a scheme.

  I would also refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) (111635).

  Concessionary Travel Passes
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have taken up the new senior citizen free travel passes in each local government area. [122365]

  Mr. Spellar
  The total number of Senior Smartpasses in circulation as of 23 June was 158,156, however to disaggregate this figure by local government areas could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of links between organised crime and the funding of terrorist groups; and if he will make a statement. [121136]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Organised Crime Task Force's most recent assessment is that two thirds of the organised crime groups known to the law enforcement agencies are either associated with or controlled by paramilitary organisations.

  It is not always clear, however, what proportion of the illegal profits is passed on to their organisations or retained by themselves to fund a lucrative lifestyle.

  That said, the law enforcement agencies represented on the Task Force do not tackle organised criminals or crime groups solely on the basis of their paramilitary affiliations but because of their involvement in criminal activities.

  Over the past financial year, 64 organised crime networks have had members arrested for a wide range of serious offences and members of 35 groups were successfully prosecuted for crimes including attempted murder, blackmail, armed robbery, drugs offences and counterfeit goods. 75 networks were disrupted or dismantled during the year.

  Crime Prevention
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to combat robberies in(a) Fountain Lane and (b) other areas of Belfast city centre. [111219]
  333W
  Jane Kennedy
  Crime in Belfast city centre, including Fountain Lane, has reduced over the last year. Incidents such as till snatches, and street thefts involving handbag and mobile phone snatches have been reduced by over 60 per cent. in the first three months of 2003 when compared with the same period in 2002.

  The PSNI have identified crime "hotspot" locations and police resources are deployed accordingly. Since June 2002 a team of officers have been tasked with focusing on street gangs operating in the city centre. To date these officers have made 201 arrests for a variety of offences.

  CCTV is of considerable assistance to police in the city centre in preventing and detecting crime and CCTV operators have been instrumental in initiating some 149 arrests this year to date for offences ranging from attempted murder to robbery, theft and disorder.

  Community Beat Officers in the city centre continue to work in partnership with Belfast city centre management, Belfast Chamber of Trade and other partners to address community safety issues within the city centre. Police officers have met with traders, including those from Fountain Lane, and discussed their concerns with them. Traders in the city centre provided funding for two pedal cycles which are used regularly by officers in the city centre.

  It is anticipated that it will be possible to increase the number of Community Beat Officers in the city centre as new recruits arrive in the District Command Unit.

  Decommissioning
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the state of decommissioning is in the Province. [114871]

  Jane Kennedy
  The LVF engaged in an act of decommissioning in 1998 and the Provisional IRA engaged in two acts of decommissioning, one in 2001 and a second in 2002.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received on decommissioning in Northern Ireland. [114872]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 21 May 2003,Official Report, column 801W.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many weapons have been handed in by(a) the IRA and (b) other terrorist groups since the Good Friday Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the progress of disarming of all terrorist groups. [121138]

  Jane Kennedy
  In 1998 the LVF carried out an act of decommissioning and the items were listed. In 2001 PIRA put a quantity of arms, ammunition and explosives, which was regarded as significant, completely beyond use. In 2002 PIRA put a varied and substantial quantity of ammunition, arms and explosive material beyond use and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has undertaken to provide an inventory of the arms to the two Governments when its task is completed. Each act has been verified by the IICD in accordance with the 334W
  Governments' scheme and regulations. The Prime Minister has stated clearly that an undertaking is needed that all arms will be put beyond use through the IICD.

  Demography
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people there were in Northern Ireland in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available, broken down by country of origin. [114596]

  Mr. Pearson
  Monthly estimates of the population of Northern Ireland broken down by country of origin are not produced. Quarterly figures from the Labour Force Survey relating to country of birth can only be made available at an aggregate level (i.e. constituent countries of the UK, Republic of Ireland and other (as a single category)). The most comprehensive figures available are those from the 2001 Census which are noted in the table.

  Population of Northern Ireland by Country of Birth (2001 Census)

  Number

  All persons

  1,685,267

  Europe

  United Kingdom

  1,615,769

  England

  61,609

  Scotland

  16,772

  Northern Ireland

  1,534,268

  Wales

  3,008

  UK part not specified

  112

  Republic of Ireland

  39,051

  Ireland part not specified

  3,221

  Channerl Islands and Isle of Man

  567

  Other Western Europe

  6,970

  EU Countries

  6,455

  France

  750

  Germany

  3,879

  Italy

  288

  Netherlands

  398

  Spain

  364

  Other EU

  776

  Non-EU countries in Western Europe

  515

  Eastern Europe

  707

  Poland

  99

  Other Eastern Europe

  608

  Africa

  North Africa

  481

  Central and Western Africa

  298

  Nigeria

  167

  Other Central and Western Africa

  131

  South and Eastern Africa

  2,337

  Kenya

  228

  South Africa

  1,301

  Zimbabwe

  289

  Other South and Eastern Africa

  519

  Asia

  Middle East

  938

  Cyprus

  377

  Iran

  139

  Other Middle East

  422

  335W

  Population of Northern Ireland by Country of Birth (2001 Census)

  Number

  Far East

  4,326

  China

  756

  Hong Kong

  1,746

  Japan

  116

  Malaysia

  582

  Singapore

  271

  Other Far East

  855

  South Asia

  1,740

  Bangladesh

  141

  India

  1,170

  Pakistan

  324

  Other South Asia

  105

  America

  Canada

  2,449

  Caribbean and West Indies

  198

  Jamaica

  81

  Other Caribbean and West Indies

  117

  USA

  3,369

  Other North America

  77

  South America

  374

  Oceania

  Australia

  1,544

  New Zealand

  448

  Other Oceania

  174

  Other

  229

  Notes:

  1. The European Union (EU) as defined on Census day (29 April 2001).

  2.'Other' consists of persons born at sea or in the air, or with country of birth not stated.

  3. Persons born in Central America have been included in North America

  Driving Offences
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been convicted of(a) dangerous driving and (b) drink driving in Northern Ireland since January; and what the average penalty has been for these offences. [121921]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The table sets out the number of convictions and resulting court disposals in 2000 for the offences of dangerous driving and drink driving. The statistics are based on a principal offence rule, that is, where proceedings involve more than one offence dealt with at the same time, the offence recorded is that for which the greatest penalty is imposed. Where more than one disposal is given for the principal offence, only that disposal which is considered the most severe, is recorded. Thus, while both dangerous driving and drink driving are both punishable by mandatory disqualification under the Road Traffic (NI) Order 1995, the figures reflect that this is often in conjunction with a more severe penalty.

  Dangerous driving

  Drink driving

  Number of convictions

  312

  2,037

  Court disposal

  Immediate custody

  44

  11

  336W

  Dangerous driving

  Drink driving

  Suspended custody

  26

  28

  Community Supervision

  17

  29

  Fine

  218

  1,958

  Other

  7

  11

  Average custodial sentence length

  6 months

  4 months

  Average fine (£)

  179

  164

  Employment Opportunities
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 19 May 2003,Official Report, column 594W, on manufacturing, what percentage of the jobs created in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Belfast Agreement were in (a) manufacturing industry, (b) agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing, (c) electricity, gas and water supply, (d) mining, quarrying and construction, (e) wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles, (f) hotels and catering, (g) transport, storage and communications, (h) financial intermediation, (i) real estate, renting and business activities, (j) public administration and defence, (k) education, (1) health and social work and (m) other sectors. [117071]

  Mr. Pearson
  The most reliable information available for which it is possible to provide a breakdown by industrial section refers to the period March 1998 to December 2002 and relates to employee jobs not employment levels to which the earlier reply referred (113501). The net change in employee jobs in Northern Ireland by industrial sector over that period as estimated by the Quarterly Employment Survey1 (QES) is provided in Table 1.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will bring forward legislation on the cost of borrowing in the Northern Ireland energy market; and if he will make a statement. [122585]

  Mr. Pearson
  A working group of economists drawn from the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation (the Authority) has been examining a legislative low cost borrowing mechanism and other options for the refinancing of energy assets and contracts, with a view to energy cost reductions for the consumer. It is expected to report shortly.

  The findings of the working group and the outcomes of the consultation papers "Competition and Customer Empowerment" published by the Regulator on 4 March 2003 and "Towards a New Energy Strategy for Northern Ireland" published by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment on 17 April 2003 will shape future arrangements in this area.

  Euro
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from business leaders in Northern Ireland concerning preparations for the euro; and if he will make a statement. [121920]
  337W
  Mr. Pearson
  The Secretary of State has not received any direct representations from Northern Ireland business leaders concerning preparations for the euro. However, he has had opportunities to discuss this issue with business leaders and others at various events that he has attended.

  Also, in a recent meeting with the Northern Ireland Branch of the Confederation of British Industry I have offered a further meeting to specifically discuss the euro.

  Health Trust Expenditure
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much each health trust in Northern Ireland spent on security in each of the last five years. [122573]

  Angela Smith
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints he has received from tenants regarding sub-standard work carried out by contractors employed by the Housing Executive for the parliamentary constituency of Belfast, East. [122540]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Housing Executive's Belfast District 2 corresponds most closely to the constituency of Belfast, East and, during 2002–03, three complaints about sub-standard work by contractors were investigated under the Housing Executive's Formal Complaints Procedure.

  International Commission on Decommissioning
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many full days the head of the International Commission on Decommissioning has spent in Northern Ireland since 1 January. [116980]

  Jane Kennedy
  From January 2003 to date General de Chastelain has spent at total of 36 days in Northern Ireland on Independent International Commission on Decommissioning business.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the costs incurred by the International Commission on Decommissioning since its inception. [116981]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Commission's running costs are shared equally between the British and Irish Governments. Her Majesty's Government's share of the costs since the establishment of the Commission to date has been £3,256,377.

  Invest NI
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Invest NI contracts awarded to PricewaterhouseCoopers, giving the value of each(a) in 2002–03 and:(b) to date 2003–04. [121530]

  Mr. Pearson
  The following table lists those consultancy contracts which have been awarded by Invest NI during the years 2002–03 and to date in 2003–04.
  338W

  £

  Value of contract

  Description of contract

  2002–03

  To date 2003–04

  Development of operating guidelines

  49,000

  Review of support for trade exhibitions

  26,790

  Economic appraisal

  44,000

  Recruitment exercises for staff for Invest NI

  37,308

  Recruitment exercises for staff for Invest NI

  34,260

  Review of Invest NI recruitment and selection process

  25,000

  Lead advisors for the Invest NI HQ project1

  446,500

  Consultancy fees for review of NI egg industry

  8,695

  Advice on company business plan

  5,875

  Furniture sector review

  22,038

  Economic appraisal

  17,413

  Scoping exercise for internal customer relations management project

  36,500

  1 A number of sub contractors will be paid fees from this total amount.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of Invest NI's accountancy and consultancy contracts have been awarded to PricewaterhouseCoopers(a) in 2002–03 and (b) to date in 2003–04. [121531]

  Mr. Pearson
  The percentage of Invest NI's total accountancy and consultancy contracts awarded to PricewaterhouseCoopers during the year 2002–03 was 6 per cent, in terms of number of contracts and 20.5 per cent, in terms of value. To date in 2003–04 the percentage in terms of numbers is 7.3 per cent, and 10.6 per cent, in value terms.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visits have been made by inward investors to(a) Down district council, (b) Newry and Mourne district council and (c) Banbridge district council in each of the last five years; how many were repeat visits; and how many of these inward investors have located enterprises in each area. [122348]

  Mr. Pearson
  The following tables give details of Invest Northern Ireland (Invest NI)/Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland (IDB) arranged visits and assisted inward investments in the Down, Newry and Mourne and Banbridge district council areas in the period April 1998 to March 2003.

  Invest NI/IDB arranged visits by potential investors

  District council area/Visit

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Down

  First

  2

  3

  4

  9

  1

  Repeat

  3

  0

  4

  2

  2

  Total

  5

  3

  8

  11

  3

  Newry and Mourne

  First

  5

  5

  4

  7

  6

  Repeat

  2

  5

  2

  2

  1

  Total

  7

  10

  6

  9

  7

  Banbridge

  First

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Repeat

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Total

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Note:

  Repeat visits are identified as repeat visits by the potential investor to Northern Ireland and may not necessarily represent a second or subsequent visit to a particular area.
  339W

  Invest NI/IDB assisted inward investments by visiting investors

  District council area

  1998‒99

  1999‒2000

  2000‒01

  2001‒02

  2002‒03

  Down

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Banbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Note:

  Due to the time lag between visits and investment decisions, investments in a year may not necessarily match with visits in that year.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings he has had with representatives of each of the political parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly since 1 January 2003. [112904]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have met with all of the political parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly since 1 January 2003 with the exception of representatives of the United Unionist Assembly Party.

  New Deal
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people took up the New Deal in Northern Ireland in the past two years, broken down by age. [122537]

  Jane Kennedy
  The New Deal programme, introduced in April 1998, aims to assist people to find jobs and help them stay and progress in employment.

  The two main New Deals are the New Deal for 18–24 year olds and New Deal 25 plus.

  The number of people who have taken up these New Deals in the last two years are as follows:

  New Deal 18–24 year olds

  New Deal 25 plus

  Total

  2001

  6,762

  8,585

  15,347

  2002

  6,655

  9,132

  15,787

  Total

  13,417

  17,717

  31,134

  Orange Halls
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to de-rate Orange Halls in Northern Ireland. [122637]

  Mr. Pearson
  Existing legislation in Northern Ireland allows a measure of rate relief on any hall where the wider community uses the facilities. Typically uses such as Sunday schools, community based youth clubs, OAP clubs, playgroups and church meetings are considered `charitable' and apportioned out as exempt. The degree of relief available is in direct proportion to the use of the facility for charitable and broad community purposes. There is no upper limit on the amount of relief available if the relevant criteria are satisfied.

  I can confirm that existing reliefs, including that which allows exemption from rates for properties used for public, charitable and certain other functions such as 'public religious worship', are currently under
  340W
  consideration within the context of the Review of Rating Policy. No decisions have yet been taken. It is intended to address these issues in a policy paper to be published later this year.

  Physiotherapists
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vacancies there are for physiotherapists in the health service in Northern Ireland. [115953]

  Mr. Browne
  As at the 30 September 2002 there were Physiotherapy vacancies amounting to a Whole Time Equivalent of 42.63. Physiotherapy vacancies detailed by trust are given in the following table.

  Health and Social Services (HSS) Trust

  WTE1

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  4

  Causeway HSS Trust

  4

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  10

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  2.63

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  2.5

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  3.5

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  1

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  2

  Green Park Healthcare HSS Trust

  3

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  3

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  7

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  0

  Craigavon and Banbridge Communty HSS Trust

  0

  Foyle Community HSS Trust (including Westcare)

  0

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  0

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  0

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  0

  Total

  42.63

  1Whole time equivalent.

  Police Recruitment
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) Roman Catholics, (b) Protestants and (c) people of other religions applied to join the police in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [113370]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is set out in the table.

  No recruiting was undertaken in 1999 and 2000.

  Roman Catholic

  Protestant

  Religion not determined

  Total

  1993

  86

  518

  129

  733

  1994

  651

  3,462

  403

  4,516

  1995

  978

  3,358

  365

  4,701

  1996

  697

  3,275

  407

  4,379

  1997

  414

  2,194

  213

  2,821

  1998

  1,057

  3,857

  502

  5,416

  1999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  4,196

  6,791

  231

  11,218

  2002

  2,699

  4,945

  134

  7,778

  Police Service
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) applicants and (b) successful applicants joined the Police Service of Northern Ireland and RUC in the last five years, broken

  341W
  down by (a) religious denomination, (b) gender and (c) whether they were full or part-time members of the police reserve. [120978]

  Jane Kennedy
  Details of applicants and appointees to the police service for the last five years are as follows:

  RUC

  1998

  Applicants

  Appointees

  Male

  3,442

  181

  Female

  1,974

  96

  Non-Catholic

  4,359

  247

  Catholic

  1,057

  30

  Full time Reserve

  637

  91

  Part time Reserve

  14

  1

  There was no recruitment to the police during 1999 and 2000.

  PSNI

  Applicants

  Appointees

  Comp 1 2001

  Male

  4,443

  199

  Female

  3,075

  106

  Non-Catholic

  4,903

  152

  Catholic

  2,615

  153

  Full time Reserve

  Information unavailable

  52

  Part time Reserve

  Information unavailable

  1

  Comp 212001

  Male

  3,051

  133

  Female

  1,864

  62

  Non-Catholic

  3,025

  97

  Catholic

  1,890

  98

  Full time Reserve

  Information unavailable

  30

  Part time Reserve

  Information unavailable

  2

  Comp 312002

  Male

  2,913

  126

  Female

  1,761

  36

  Non-Catholic

  3,034

  79

  Catholic

  1,640

  83

  Full time Reserve

  Information unavailable

  24

  Part time Reserve

  Information unavailable

  2

  Comp 412002

  Male

  2,936

  61

  Female

  1,432

  54

  Non-Catholic

  2,893

  49

  Catholic

  1,475

  66

  Full time Reserve

  Information unavailable

  37

  Part time Reserve

  Information unavailable

  3

  1 It should be noted that competitions 2, 3 and 4 are not yet completed.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what means have been used in recruiting police officers to facilitate the membership of the Police Service of Northern Ireland being representative of the province's population. [120979]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI works towards a reflection of the whole community by:Advertising on television, radio, cinema, NI-wide press, local press, 48 sheet billboards, adshels, shopperlites, websites and magazines; and by sending posters and information to all groups representing visible ethnic minorities;
  Outreach, by distributing PSNI recruitment brochures to all secondary and tertiary educational establishments;
  342W
  Using properly validated assessment methods that do not have an improper adverse impact on different groups within Northern Ireland;
  Appointing recruits on a 50 per cent, Catholic, 50 per cent, non-Catholic basis, in accordance with section 46 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.

  Post-primary Education
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Review Board on Post-Primary Education will report. [122382]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Post-Primary Review Working Group has been asked to report by the end of October 2003.

  Public Sector Housing
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his latest estimate is of the number of applicants for public sector housing in each category. [122543]

  Mr. Spellar
  At the end of May 2003, there were 26,924 people on the waiting list. Of these 13,448 were in housing stress including 4,136 who were accepted as homeless (those whom the Housing Executive has a duty to re-house). Since the adoption of the Common Selection Scheme in November 2000, the names of those seeking accommodation in both Housing Executive and Housing Association properties appear on one list and while applicants may specify a preference they are offered the first suitable vacancy.

  School Funding
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much direct grant assistance was received by each school in the constituency of East Belfast in the last financial year. [122544]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information on the amount of recurrent funding received by individual schools is set out in the Local Management of Schools (LMS) Outturn Statement which is published annually by each education and library board (in respect of controlled and maintained schools) and by the Department of Education (for voluntary grammar and grant maintained integrated schools).

  Information in respect of the 2002–03 financial year is scheduled for publication in the autumn.

  Sports Council Report
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (I) if he will make a statement on the Audit Commission's report on the Northern Ireland Sports Council; [122125]

  (2) what action he will take to implement the recommendations of the Audit Commission's report into the Northern Ireland Sports Council. [122126]

  Angela Smith
  The Northern Ireland Audit Office completed an audit of the 2000–01 accounts of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and the Comptroller and Auditor General decided to qualify his
  343W
  audit opinion on two issues. The Sports Council have fully accepted the audit report and appropriate corrective measures have been put in place.

  Suicide
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the incidence of suicide per 100,000 of the population was in each of the last three years. [122546]

  Mr. Pearson
  In Northern Ireland in the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively, there were 7.21, 9.69 and 8.35 deaths per 100,000 population caused by "suicide and self-inflicted injury".

  Additionally in Northern Ireland in the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively, there were 1.97, 1.31 and 1.01 deaths per 100,000 population attributed to

  "undetermined injury whether accidentally or purposefully inflicted".

  Terrorism
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his assessment is of the threat posed by each terrorist organisation proscribed in Northern Ireland. [113449]

  Jane Kennedy
  All proscribed terrorist organisations pose a potential threat. That is why the Prime Minister stated last October we must now have acts of completion and a commitment from all paramilitary organisations that they will achieve their objectives through exclusively peaceful means.

  Transport
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when Road Service will publish its 10 to 15 years Forward Planning Schedule; [122369]

  (2) whether the Government plans to introduce charges for utility companies who open up the roads; [122373]

  (3) what the latest figures are on traffic flow on the Knock dual carriageway; [122553]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of Roads Service to write to the hon. Gentleman in response to the questions. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  Water
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which rivers and lakes in Northern Ireland are monitored for water quality; and what the regularity is of the sampling process. [122375]

  Angela Smith
  The Northern Ireland river monitoring network covers approximately 5,000 km and involves some 600 sampling points. All rivers classified as primary, secondary or minor are included in the network. Rivers are sampled monthly to assess chemical quality and are monitored for biological quality either once, twice or three times a year, depending mainly on the river size. Details of the rivers monitored can be found on the Environment and Heritage Service website at www.ehsni.gov.uk/pubs/ publications/River_Monitoring.pdf. I am arranging for a344W
  copy of "A River Water Quality Monitoring Strategy for Northern Ireland May 2001" to be placed in the House of Commons Library. Maps of the monitored rivers can be accessed at www.ehsni.gov.uk/environment/ waterManage/quality/rivers/freshwaterGQA/mainpage. htm. Monitoring is undertaken both to assess compliance with EC Directives and to classify river water quality under national classification schemes.

  Lough Neagh, and Upper and Lower Lough Erne are designated under the EC Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC) and are monitored for compliance on chemical quality on a monthly basis. Three other Loughs (Upper and Lower Lough Macnean and Lough Melvin), although not designated, are also similarly monitored for chemical quality monthly.

  Additional non-routine monitoring is carried out on rivers and lakes in Northern Ireland for a range of purposes including development of new monitoring and classification mechanisms for rivers and lakes which will be required by the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) for 2006.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress being made with the Water Service's water efficiency programme. [121931]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of Water Service to write to the hon. Lady in response to this question. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits Office (Chatham)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when(a) the Department and (b) the National Audit Office last audited the working practices of the benefits office in Chatham; and if he will make a statement; [121503]

  (2) how many complaints have been received by his Department about delays and working practices at the benefits office in Chatham. [121504]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 24 June 2003]: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mark Grimshaw to Mr. Derek Wyatt, dated 2 July 2003:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the benefits office in Chatham. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Over the last year Chatham Social Security Office received 23 complaints about Incapacity Benefit processing and 5 complaints about Social Fund processing.

  The working practices of the Chatham Social Security Office have not been audited by either the Department or the National Audit Office. However Jobcentre Plus has effective management systems in place to monitor each offices performance against targets. These systems identify where problems are occurring and ensure that action is taken to rectify problem areas.
  345W
  These systems successfully identified signs decreasing performance in Incapacity Benefit claims processing at Chatham Social Security Office. This was believed to be due to high staff turnover in the last two years resulting in a shortage of experienced staff in the office. Some work was temporarily transferred to Broadstairs office in June 2002 and to Ashford office from November 2002 to enable new staff at Chatham to receive further training. In addition some of the workload has been redistributed across the Kent District. As a result of these changes performance is improving but local managers are continuing to monitor the situation.

  All Jobcentre Plus sites are also monitored quarterly to check levels of customer service. Independent consultants assess the speed with which telephone enquiries are answered, the length of time personal callers have to wait in caller offices and the speed with which written enquiries receive a reply.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the proposed timetable is for bringing existing clients into the new Child Support Agency scheme. [121617]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer the then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), gave the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) on 22 May 2003,Official Report, column 918–19W.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the events he plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121388]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 459W.

  Offshore Workers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he will take to ensure that offshore workers are not treated as employed for benefits purposes during periods for which they receive no remuneration. [122328]

  Mr. Pond
  People are not entitled to jobseeker's allowance if they are engaged in remunerative work of 16 hours or more per week. If a person's hours of work fluctuate then they are averaged over a complete cycle of work. In the case of an offshore worker, any period on shore in the cycle of work is therefore included in the averaging process, whether or not they receive remuneration for that period.

  If an offshore worker has no recognisable cycle of work, then a decision maker will establish whether there is a continuing relationship between the worker and their employer. If there is, and the work averages 16 hours or more per week, then the worker continues to be classed as in remunerative work during periods when they are on shore and not physically working or being paid. We have no plans to change this.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to take 346W
  forward the National Audit Office's recommendation of a strategy for older people; and if he will make a statement. [120953]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary with responsibility for disabled people, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), on 14 May 2003,Official Report, volume 405, column 300– 01W.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advertising campaign his Department will implement to raise awareness of the pension credit. [121310]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Regional and national advertising including television, radio and press as well as direct mailing will support a systematic take-on approach. The Pension Service is already writing to pensioner households to explain pension credit and invite advance applications. Around 1.8 million people who currently receive the minimum income guarantee have been told that they will be transferred automatically to pension credit ready for payments to be made from October 2003. By June 2004, all pensioner households will have been contacted.

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 7 April 2003,Official Report, column 88W, on pensioners, which benefits are included in the column headed Income related benefit savings. [122532]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The benefits included in the column headed Income related benefit savings are: Pension Credit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of the eligible pensioner non-recipients of minimum income guarantee identified in the Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up in 1999–2000 research were in receipt of(a) council tax benefit, (b) housing benefit and (c) either council tax benefit or housing benefit. [121849]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is shown in the table. Estimates relate to 2000–01, for which more accurate information on receipt of minimum income guarantee is available; this is the latest financial year for which data is available.

  Pensioner entitled non-recipients of minimum income guarantee and receipt of benefits

  Percentage

  Receipt of benefit

  Proportion, of pensioner entitled -non recipients of minimum income guarantee, in receipt of the specified benefit (s)

  Council tax benefit

  39

  Housing benefit

  29

  Council tax benefit or housing benefit

  41

  347W
  Notes:

  1. Results relate to those identified as entitled non-recipients in modelling the Family Resources Survey data taking account of micro-level information indicating potential 'hidden recipients' of minimum income guarantee. In practice, a significant proportion of entitled non-recipients may not have been true entitled non-recipients, and a significant proportion of true entitled non-recipients may not have been identified in the modelling of data. Estimates of entitled non-recipients have not been adjusted for inaccuracies arising from this and for other biases inherent in estimating entitlement to minimum income guarantee. As a result figures should be treated with caution.

  2. The source of benefit receipt data is the Family Resources Survey. Reported benefit receipt may differ from actual receipt.

  3. A pensioner is defined as single adult aged 60 years or above, or a couple where at least one adult is aged 60 years or above.

  4. Estimates cover the private household population of Great Britain, excluding the full-time self-employed.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of the eligible pensioner non-recipients of council tax benefit identified in the Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up in 1999–2000 research were in receipt of(a) the minimum income guarantee, (b) housing benefit, (c) minimum income guarantee or housing benefit and (d) either attendance allowance or disability living allowance. [121851]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table. Estimates relate to 2000–01, for which more accurate information on receipt of minimum income guarantee is available; this is the latest financial year for which data is available.

  Pensioner entitled non-recipients of council tax benefit and receipt of benefits

  Percentage

  Receipt of benefit

  Proportion of pensioner entitled-non recipients of council tax benefit, who were in receipt of the specified benefit(s)

  Minimum income guarantee

  6

  Housing benefit

  5

  Minimum income guarantee or housing benefit

  9

  Attendance allowance or disability living allowance

  7

  Notes

  1. Results relate to those identified as entitled non-recipients in modelling the Family Resources Survey data: in practice a significant proportion of these may not have been true entitled non-recipients, and a significant proportion of true entitled non-recipients may not have been identified in the modelling of data. Estimates of entitled non-recipients have not been adjusted for inaccuracies arising from this and for other biases inherent in estimating entitlement to council tax benefit. As a result figures should be treated with caution.

  2. The source of benefit receipt data is the Family Resources Survey. Estimates may be affected by under-reporting of receipt of minimum income guarantee.

  3. A pensioner is defined as single adult aged 60 years or above, or a couple where at least one adult is aged 60 years or above.

  4. Estimates cover the private household population of Great Britain, excluding the full-time self-employed.

HEALTH

  Fluoridation
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the potential toxic effect on the food chain of fluoride. [120801]
  348W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The independent Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) is currently considering the public heath implications of dietary fluoride intakes measured in the 1997 Total Diet Study. The COT is expected to complete its deliberations later this year and its conclusions will then be published.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the cost of the fluoridation of water supplies; what the estimated cost of dental fluorosis is to the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [114703]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We estimate that running costs of fluoridation schemes, which are borne by health authorities, are of the order of 40 pence per head of population per year. It has been shown that fluoridation reduces dental decay by 15 per cent. Dental fluorosis is a mottling of the teeth which may occur in a small minority of cases and which can often be removed by routine dental treatment. Information on the costs to the national health service of treating dental fluorosis is not held centrally.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are given to dentists regarding fluoride mouthwashes. [121427]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Decisions on the prescription of fluoride mouthwashes are left to dentists' clinical judgement.

  Anti-depressant Drugs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his most recent assessment is of the safety of anti-depressant drugs; [121863]

  (2) when his investigation into selective seratonin uptake inhibitors will recommence. [121864]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As with all medicines, the safety of antidepressant drugs is continually monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, with independent expert advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM).

  A new expert working group of the CSM has been established to review further the safety of antidepressants of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) class. The group had its first meeting on 23 May 2003 and has had subsequent meetings on 4 and 20 June.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the safety of the drug Seroxat. [115789]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement made by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for public health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), on 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 42WS.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations his Department is undertaking concerning the use of the drug seroxat. [116176]
  349W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: A new expert group of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) has been convened to further review the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), including seroxat and to ensure that the advice in the product information for both patients and prescribers is optimal for the safe use of these products. As part of its initial considerations, the group has advised on strengthened warnings on side effects and withdrawal reactions for inclusion in the patient information leaflet on Seroxat.

  This group has been asked to examine what implications, if any, the CSM's recent advice on the use of Seroxat in children has for the use of Seroxat in adults and for other SSRIs.

  The advice of CSM, most recently in 2001, is that the benefits of Seroxat, when used in adults for licensed indications, outweigh the risks. Regulatory authorities world-wide have also taken a similar position.

  Bridlington Hospital
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health [pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 425W], on Bridlington Hospital, if he will make it his policy to maintain the number of accredited senior house officer training posts at Bridlington Hospital for the foreseeable future. [122610]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 2 July 2003]: The number of training posts located at a specific hospital site is a matter for local decision.

  Communicable Diseases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was to the national health service of treating(a) TB, (b) hepatitis B and (c) HIV and AIDS in each of the last five years. [120433]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  The sums allocated by the Department of Health to the national health service for HIV/AIDS treatment and care in England for the last five years for which funds were separately identified are shown in the table.

  £ millions

  HIV treatment allocation

  1997–98

  199.7

  1998–99

  228.2

  1999–2000

  234.0

  2000–011

  184.3

  2001–02

  223.5

  1 After expenditure of £50.4 million on genitourinary medicine is disaggregated.

  From April 2002, the special allocation for HIV treatment and care was added to NHS baseline funding according to the target distribution of HIV across England, and is no longer separately identified.

  Community Health Councils/Patients Forums
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether community health councils will continue to be fully funded until their closure; when 350W
  their closure will take effect; and what the impact of the closure will be on (a) patients and (b) staff of community health councils. [120654]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Community health councils (CHCs) will be funded until they are abolished on 1 December 2003. From that date the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will have established the new patients' forums, one in each trust. Much of the new and improved system of patient and public involvement is already in place.

  CHC staff are being supported to find alternative employment in the national health service and this support is based on a human resources framework (HRF) agreed with the trade unions. This provides staff with clearing houses, training and counselling support. The Department of Health continues to work with the trades unions on the delivery of the agreed HRF and this work will continue to the abolition date.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Government support for projects to develop gene therapy relating to cystic fibrosis. [122193]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have committed a total of £5.5 million to develop treatments for single gene disorders; £2.5 million of which is specifically earmarked for cystic fibrosis (CF) gene therapy clinical research. An investment of up to £4 million will also provide access to facilities for gene therapy vector production for National Health Service and other public sector researchers. The United Kingdom CF gene therapy research community will be eligible to benefit from this investment.

  Drug Rehabilitation Centres
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are employed in drug rehabilitation centres, how much they are paid; what percentage of staff are ex-drug addicts; and if he will make a statement on the role played by advice of ex-drug addicts. [121129]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is available to non-publicly run drug rehab centres; what coordination there is with other drug rehabilitation centres; and what assessment has been made of the success rate of non-Government run centres. [121130]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Treatment Agency oversees the pooled drug treatment budget which stands this year at £236 million, an increase of 23 per cent, on last year's allocation. This money is allocated to drug action teams, which make the decisions on how funding on statutory and non-Government centres is spent at a local level.

  In addition, both statutory and non-Government centres also receive funds from mainstream primary care trust and social services funds. This is expenditure based on local needs and local decision making, so details are not available centrally.
  351W
  The National Treatment Outcomes Research Study (NTORS) looked at residential rehabilitation services, which are primarily run by non-Government centres. NTORS showed that clients entering residential rehabilitation and inpatient programmes made substantial improvements in terms of abstinence from, and reduction of, illicit drug misuse, criminal activity, levels of injecting and psychological health.

  Electronic Prescribing
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the period of the pilot projects on electronic prescribing. [122622]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The electronic transmission of prescriptions pilots have demonstrated that prescriptions can be transmitted electronically in an accurate and secure manner, and now having served their intended purpose they will be formally closed with effect from the end of June 2003. In order to ensure that patients do not experience difficulties in obtaining their prescriptions and minimise inconvenience to healthcare professionals an appropriate timeframe for ceasing the processing of electronic prescriptions will be agreed with the remaining pilots.

  The pilots have been independently evaluated and this information is being used by the National Programme for National Health Service Information Technology to develop a sustainable, national prescription service.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the events he plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121390]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 20 June 2003,Official Report, columns 459–60W.

  Food Supplements
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from(a) right hon. and (b) hon. Members about safe nutrients missing from (i) the lists of permitted nutrients set out in Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Food Supplements Directive and (ii) the schedules to the Food Supplements (England) Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [120082]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There have been many recent representations relating to the Food Supplements Directive and the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003, which express concern over the lists of permitted nutrients in the Annexes to the Directive and the Schedules to the Regulations. These representations have taken the form of correspondence, parliamentary questions, early day motions and the tabling of prayers against the Regulations.

  The Government are concerned about this issue and are pressing for urgent, substantive discussions with the European Food Safety Authority on dossier requirements for additions to the permitted lists.
  352W
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources are being allocated by his Department and the Food Standards Agency to delivering his policy objectives for missing nutrients and maximum permitted levels for nutrients within the provision of the Food Supplements Directive; and if he will make a statement [120434]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The issues of missing nutrients and maximum permitted levels for nutrients within the provisions of the Food Supplements Directive are just two of a number of policy issues being addressed by the food labelling and standards (FLS) division of the Food Standards Agency. The FLS division has a budget for 2003–04 of £3.187 million and a complement of 37 full-time equivalent staff. The FLS divisional business plan lists work on food supplements as high priority.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from Holland and Barrett retail in relation to the provisions of the Food Supplements Directive and the Food Supplements (England) Regulations; and what response he has made to those representations. [120436]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Holland and Barrett retail wrote to the then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) recently, expressing concern over the impact of the Directive and the implementing Regulations.

  The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), responded, explaining that the Government recognised those concerns, that they were doing everything they could to facilitate submission of dossiers supporting additions to the lists of permitted vitamins and minerals in the Directive and that they continued strongly to make the case for a safety-based approach to be taken in proposals on maximum limits.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Early-Day Motion 1398 (Food Supplements Regulations). [120438]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are firmly committed to the view that, in the interests of consumer choice, the law should allow food supplements that are safe and properly labelled to be freely marketed.

  The lists of permitted nutrients and nutrient sources in the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 can be extended if additions are made to the permitted lists in the annexes to the Food Supplements Directive 2002/46/EC on which the Regulations are based. These annexes remain open pending safety assessment of additional substances. Industry is currently working to compile safety dossiers for some of the substances currently omitted from the Annexes.

  The Food Standards Agency, in recognition of the difficulties associated with dossier production, and the timescale for dossier submission, is pressing the European Food Safety Authority for an urgent, substantive meeting with relevant parties to discuss dossier requirements. This has the support of the European Commission.

  Further, the Government's view is that maximum limits for nutrients in food supplements should be based on thorough risk assessments and set at levels which

  353W
  protect public health, but which neither unnecessarily limit consumer choice nor unduly restrict trade. The Government continue to take every opportunity to press this view strongly in Brussels and bilaterally with representatives of other European Union member states.

  The Government recognise concerns expressed in various quarters over the impact of the Directive on consumer choice and the United Kingdom food supplements industry. However, the UK is obliged to fulfil its obligations, under the EC treaty, to implement the Directive. Not to do so would be a serious breach of those obligations and would result in infraction

  NHS Workforce for Dorset and Somerset StHA and Taunton Deane PCT, as at 30 September 2002

  Numbers (headcount)

  of which:

  All Staff

  Medical and dental staff1

  Non-medical staff2

  General Medical Practitioners3

  Practice staff4

  Dorset and Somerset StHA area total of which staff working directly in:

  28,134

  1,355

  22,722

  939

  3,118

  Dorset and Somerset StHA of which:

  98

  —

  98

  —

  —

  Taunton Deane PCT of which staff working directly in:

  771

  8

  290

  81

  400

  Taunton Deane PCT

  290

  —

  290

  —

  —

  1 Excludes Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and Hospital Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part time in hospitals

  2 Non-medical staff includes Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (including learners), Health Care assistants, Scientific Therapeutic and technical staff and Management and support staff

  3 All Practitioners include General Medical Services (CMS) Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS Other and GP Retainers

  4 Practice Staff includes Practice Nurses, Direct Patient Care, Admin and Clerical and Other

  Sources:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census

  Heathrow
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on health of a third runway at Heathrow; and whether his Department has submitted a response to the consultation on the future development of air services in the UK. [122168]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health has not made an assessment of the possible impact on health of a third runway at Heathrow.

  Departmental officials have been involved in an integrated policy appraisal of the proposal expansion: this is ongoing.

  NHS Services (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS deficits in Gloucestershire. [121877]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Health Service must live within the funding made available. NHS organisations that over-spend should and must repay those organisations that have had to forgo the resources used to fund over-spends.
  354W
  proceedings against the UK and the likelihood of heavy fines. Ultimately, the UK would be forced to implement.

  Health Bodies (Dorset/Somerset/Taunton)
  Mr. Adrian Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many posts are filled at the(a) Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority and (b) Taunton Deane Primary Care Trust. [121989]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information about posts filled at the Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority and Taunton Deane Primary Care Trust as at September 2002 is shown in table.

  We fully recognise that some individual health bodies are facing financial pressures. Local circumstances may allow the phased recovery of deficits over a number of years. Any such arrangements would have to be subject to the agreement of local providers, commissioners and the managing strategic health authority.

  The audited information in respect of the financial performance of NHS organisations for 2002–03 will be published in their individual annual accounts.

  Organ Transplants
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government's policy is on the use of animals to provide organs for humans. [122334]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA) was established in 1997 to advise the Government on the acceptability of specific applications to undertake Xenotransplantation procedures (the transplantation of live cells, tissues and organs from a non-human source into a human), it also acts as a focal point for Xenotransplantation issues. Organisations undertaking research into Xenotransplantation in the UK are required to comply with all relevant legislation. Noclinical trials involving humans have yet been
  355W
  approved in the UK and currently no relevant organ transplant research is licensed in the UK under the Animals (Science Procedures) Act 1986.

  Tooth Decay
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts and groups have met the national target for tooth decay in children. [120776]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The two national targets for tooth decay in children aged five years are:A reduction in the average number of decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft) to 1.0 teeth by 2003.
  An increase in the proportion of children with no caries experience to 70 per cent., by 2003.

  The British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry carries out a survey of the dental health of five year old children every second year. The latest survey is for 2001–02. Results are available for 220 out of 304 primary care trusts (PCTs) in England. The PCTs in England which have met either or both of the national targets in 2001–02 are shown in the table.

  PCTs meeting tooth decay targets for 2003 in 2001–02—England

  PCT

  1 Target 1

  2 Target 2

  Daventry

  0.49

  78.8

  Cannock Chase

  0.52

  78.6

  West Lincolnshire

  0.56

  80.1

  Redditch and Bromsgrove

  0.57

  77.9

  Southwest Lincolnshire

  0.58

  77.0

  Swindon

  0.59

  76.6

  Maidstone and South West Kent

  0.62

  75.8

  East Staffordshire

  0.62

  78.7

  South East Oxfordshire

  0.62

  78.8

  South West Staffordshire

  0.63

  78.3

  North Warwickshire

  0.64

  75.3

  Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth

  0.64

  75.7

  Castle and Beacon

  0.64

  76.4

  South Warwickshire

  0.65

  74.9

  Dudley South

  0.69

  74.4

  Rugby

  0.69

  75.0

  Bedfordshire Heartlands

  0.73

  75.6

  Maidstone and Mailing

  0.77

  72.0

  Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire

  0.78

  70.3

  South Birmingham

  0.78

  73.7

  Wokingham3

  0.80

  68.2

  Melton Rutland and Harborough

  0.80

  74.3

  Canterbury and Coastal

  0.81

  72.6

  Solihull

  0.81

  73.2

  Erewash

  0.82

  72.1

  North East Oxfordshire3

  0.83

  66.7

  Ashford3

  0.83

  67.0

  Bassetlaw3

  0.83

  68.7

  Dartford Gravesham and Swanley

  0.83

  70.8

  Bracknell

  0.83

  71.4

  South West Oxfordshire3

  0.84

  67.9

  Wednesbury and West Bromwich

  0.84

  72.0

  Gedling3

  0.86

  69.8

  Rushcliffe

  0.86

  73.7

  Hartlepool

  0.86

  73.7

  South Worcestershire

  0.87

  72.8

  Greater Derby

  0.88

  71.9

  North Birmingham

  0.88

  73.0

  Northampton3

  0.89

  67.1

  Suffolk Central and South3

  0.89

  67.5

  East Elmbridge and Mid Surrey3

  0.90

  67.3

  South Cambridgeshire

  0.90

  72.7

  Rowley Regis and Tipton

  0.90

  73.1

  Maldon and Chelmsford

  0.91

  71.8

  356W

  PCTs meeting tooth decay targets for 2003 in 2001–02—England

  PCT

  1Target 1

  2Target 2

  Central Cheshire

  0.91

  73.0

  Havering

  0.91

  73.5

  Coventry3

  0.93

  69.3

  Mid Sussex3

  0.94

  69.7

  Wolverhampton City

  0.94

  70.9

  Lewisham

  0.95

  71.6

  Northamptonshire Heartlands3

  0.96

  69.8

  Winchester3

  0.97

  66.8

  Milton Keynes

  0.97

  70.6

  East Cambridgeshire3

  0.98

  67.6

  Woking3

  1.00

  65.6

  Walsall Area

  1.00

  72.3

  Wycombe4

  1.02

  75.2

  Taunton Deane4

  1.03

  70.7

  BedfordM4

  1.04

  70.7

  Southwark4

  1.17

  71.7

  1 Average number of decayed, missing and filled teeth (1.0 or less).

  2 Percentage of children with no caries experience (greater than 70 per cent.)

  3 Only target 1 met.

  4 Only target 2 met.

  Note:

  The information provided is for the 220 PCTs for which data is complete from the BASCD survey for 2001–02.

  Source:

  British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry (BASCD) http://www.dundee.ac.uk/dhsru/bascd/

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Allotments
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will bring allotments within the application of Policy Planning Guidance 17. [123305]

  Keith Hill
  Allotments are listed within the typology of open space in the Annex of PPG 17. Local authorities are required to apply the policies of Policy Planning Guidance Note 17 (PPG 17) to protect all open space of public value.

  Arson
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) fatalities and (b) non-fatal casualties there have been as a result of malicious fires in each year since 1997. [122579]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is tabled as follows. 2001 is the most recent year for which data are available.

  Fatal and non-fatal casualties in malicious fires, UK, 1997–2001

  Fatal

  Non-fatal

  1997

  117

  3,050

  1998

  111

  3,086

  1999

  114

  3,050

  2000

  109

  3,373

  2001

  193

  3,455

  1 Figures on fatalities for 2001 are estimated; data will be finalized as further information is received relating to cause of death.

  Note:

  Data for 2001 are provisional.
  357W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many malicious fires there have been in Cornwall in each year since 1997. [122586]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is tabled as follows:

  Malicious primary fires in Cornwall, 1997–2001

  Number

  1997

  347

  1998

  362

  1999

  332

  2000

  425

  2001

  533

  Note:

  Data for 2001 are provisional and the latest year for which data are available.

  Primary fires are those which cause damage to property or involve casualties.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the annual budget of the Arson Control Forum was in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [122587]

  Phil Hope
  In 2002/03, the total annual budget of the Arson Control Forum was £1.36 million; in 2003–04 its total budget is £4.10 million.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how often the National Strategy for Arson Reduction working group has met in the last year. [122588]

  Phil Hope
  Members of the National Strategy for Arson Reduction working group are part of the Arson Control Forum's Intervention sub-group which has held four meetings in the last 12 months.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many school arson attacks occurred when pupils were present, in each year since 1997. [122386]

  Phil Hope
  The information available relates to the number of malicious fires that occurred between 9am and 4pm on weekdays excluding August, between 1997 and 2001 (the most recent year for which data are available). This is shown in the following table.

  Malicious primary fires in schools by use of room, UK, 1997–2001

  Cloakroom or lavatory

  Classroom

  Store room or area

  All other or unspecified

  Total

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percetage

  1997

  1,066

  142

  13

  279

  26

  120

  11

  525

  49

  1998

  856

  140

  16

  199

  23

  109

  13

  408

  48

  1999

  1,018

  179

  18

  287

  28

  114

  11

  438

  43

  2000

  882

  172

  20

  206

  23

  98

  11

  406

  46

  2001

  1,040

  174

  17

  197

  19

  122

  12

  547

  53

  Notes:

  Data for 2001 are provisional

  Due to rounding, percentage totals may not sum to 100 per cent.

  It is not possible to further break down the cloakroom/lavatory category

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of individuals were responsible for intentionally starting school fires under the age of 18, when pupils were present, in each year since 1997. [122578]
  358W

  Malicious primary fires in schools between 9am and 4pm on weekdays excluding August, United Kingdom, 1997–2001

  Number

  1997

  263

  1998

  216

  1999

  348

  2000

  270

  20011

  328

  1 Data for 2001 are provisional.

  Note:

  Primary fires are those which cause damage to property or involve casualties.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of all intentionally started school fires during school time were started by children aged seven and under, in each year since 1997. [122441]

  Phil Hope
  The table below shows the percentage of deliberate fires started between 9am and 4pm on weekdays, excluding August, by children under the age of 10 between 1997 and 2001. It is not possible to identify separately fires started by those aged seven and under. 2001 is the latest year for which data are available.

  Malicious primary fires in schools between 9am and 4pm on weekdays excluding August, United Kingdom, 1997–2001

  Total fires

  Percentage caused by child under 10

  1997

  263

  19 (50 fires)

  1998

  216

  25 (55 fires)

  1999

  348

  24 (85 fires)

  2000

  270

  22 (59 fires)

  20011

  328

  15 (49 fires)

  1 Data for 2001 are provisional.

  Note:

  Primary fires are those which cause damage to property or involve casualties.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of deliberately started school fires which occurred internally were started(a) in a cloakroom, (b) in classrooms and (c) in storage rooms, in each year since 1997. [122442]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is shown in the following table. 2001 is the most recent year for which data are available.

  Phil Hope
  The following table shows the percentage of persons under 18 responsible for starting malicious school fires between 9am and 4pm on weekdays excluding August, between 1997 and 2001. 2001 is the latest year for which data are available.
  359W

  Malicious primary fires in schools between 9am–4pm on weekdays excluding August by persons under 18 as a percentage of all persons under 18, United Kingdom, 1997–2001

  Total malicious schooltime fires by persons under 18

  Total population under 18

  Percentage of under 18s starting fire

  1997

  222

  13,459,127

  0.00165

  1998

  171

  13,443,385

  0.00127

  1999

  291

  13,425,441

  0.00217

  2000

  235

  13,389,649

  0.00176

  2001

  263

  13,345,813

  0.00197

  Notes:

  Data for 2001 are provisional.

  Primary fires are those which cause damage to property or involve casualties.

  The percentage calculations assume that each individual fire has been started by only one individual and that no individual starts more than one fire.

  Brownfield/Greenfield Sites
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what basis the former collieries of Houghton and Grimethorpe in South Yorkshire have been reclassified from brownfield to greenfield sites. [123166]

  Keith Hill
  No collieries in South Yorkshire have been reclassified from brownfield to greenfield sites.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on reclassifying brownfield land in South Yorkshire to greenfield. [123168]

  Keith Hill
  It is not the policy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to reclassify brownfield land in South Yorkshire as greenfield.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority; [117217]

  (2) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting; [117233]

  (3) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if he will list the legislation by year; [117251]

  (4) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117264]

  Phil Hope
  Since the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created in May 2002, there have been no occasions when the Department has been involved in voting in the Council of Ministers.

  Council Tax
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many properties are eligible for a 50 per cent.360W
  council tax rebate; and how many of these are second homes, in each billing authority in England in the current financial year; [122487]

  (2) how much in rebate is provided to (a) those properties entitled to 50 per cent, council tax discount and (b) second homes in each billing authority in England in the current financial year. [122488]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is available in the Library of the House.

  Properties eligible for the 50 per cent, council tax discount, including second homes, benefit from the discount because their liability for council tax is less than it would otherwise be. There is therefore no reason for providing them with financial assistance as a result being eligible for the discount.

  The council tax income forgone by a local authority as a result of properties in its area being entitled to the 50 per cent, council tax discount is, however, taken into account when calculating the authority's entitlement to revenue support grant.

  The information available in the Library of the House includes estimates of the amounts of council tax income forgone by each billing authority in the current financial year as a result of the 50 per cent, discount. It is not possible to identify how much of these amounts are attributable to second homes. The precise extent to which the income forgone as a result of the 50 per cent, discount is compensated for through revenue support grant could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  County Council Staff
  Mr. Robert Key
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many employees work for(a) Wiltshire County Council and (b) Salisbury District Council. [122794]

  Phil Hope
  The information is as follows:

  Council

  Total headcount1

  Full time equivalent

  Wiltshire county council

  11,264

  6,831

  Salisbury district council

  659

  599

  1Includes part-time staff

  Government Offices for the Regions
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the function is of the Government Offices for the Regions. [122530]

  Phil Hope
  Government Offices are key agents of Government in the English Regions. Working with regional and local agencies, they are well placed to promote, manage and implement a wide variety of Government programmes. By working with regional development agencies, regional chambers/assemblies, local authorities, and local learning and skills councils they also play a significant role in managing regional and local relationships on behalf of central government.

  Government Offices bring together the activities and interests of 10 Government Departments within a single organisation, as follows:

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  Regional governance

  361W

  Local Government

  Neighbourhood Renewal

  Sustainable Communities (Housing and Planning)

  Urban Policy and Regeneration

  Department for Transport

  Local Transport Plans

  Regional Transport Strategies

  Transport Modelling Studies

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Sponsorship of Regional Development Agencies

  Business input to Neighbourhood Renewal programmes

  Communicating with business

  Regional economic intelligence

  Department for Education and Skills

  School improvement (working with education advisers),

  Links between neighbourhood renewal work and education floor targets

  Adult skills

  Support for Local Learning and Skills Councils

  Positive activities for young people

  Sure Start

  Children's Fund

  Connexions

  Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs

  Rural renewal

  Sustainable development

  Department for Culture Media and Sport

  Linking culture, tourism, and sport with other programmes and the New Opportunities Fund

  Home Office

  Crime Reduction programmes

  Community Cohesion

  Drugs Prevention

  Department of Health

  Public health issues

  Promoting engagement between the National Health Service and neighbourhood renewal

  Department for Work and Pensions

  European Social Fund Programme

  Links with Job Centre Plus

  Cabinet Office

  Emergencies

  Links with Regional News Network

  Government Office's are uniquely placed to take a cross-departmental approach to regional and local issues, and to provide a coherent view of the operation of, and interactions between Government programmes. As part of central Government, their role also includes providing a regional perspective to inform the development and evaluation of national policy.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homeless households were in priority need in each year since 1992. [122159]
  362W
  Keith Hill
  Estimates of the number of households accepted by local authorities in England as homeless and in priority need are as follows:

  1992

  138,740

  1993

  127,630

  1994

  118,490

  1995

  117,490

  1996

  113,590

  1997

  102,000

  1998

  104,630

  1999

  105,370

  2000

  111,340

  2001

  118,560

  2002

  124,880

  Source:

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister PIE quarterly housing returns

  Housing
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many socially rented houses have been built in rural areas in each year since 1997. [121782]

  Keith Hill
  The numbers of registered social landlord and local authority dwellings built in 'rural' local authorities are in the following table.

  Year

  Number of 'social rented' dwellings built in English rural authorities

  1997

  4,218

  1998

  3,459

  1999

  3,283

  2000

  3,542

  2001

  2,924

  2002

  2,021

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many houses there were in the rented sector(a) in total and (b) broken down by region in (i) May 2003 and (ii) May 1997. [121815]

  Keith Hill
  The information available is in the following table.

  Rented dwelling stock (000s) at 1 April 2002

  Rented dwelling stock (000s) at 1 April 1997

  North East

  399

  419

  North West

  875

  927

  Yorkshire and Humber

  692

  718

  East Midlands

  483

  501

  West Midlands

  651

  686

  East

  611

  617

  London

  1293

  1313

  South East

  819

  840

  South West

  541

  558

  England

  6365

  6578

  Local Government
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what mathematical formula was used in(a) the old standard spending assessment and (b) the new formula spending share to calculate the level of reimbursement received by each local authority in Hertfordshire to compensate for student council tax exemptions; [122495]
  363W
  (2) how much each local authority in Hertfordshire (a) lost in council tax per head and (b) received in reimbursement per head through formula spending share, as a result of student council tax exemptions in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04 estimates. [122496]

  Phil Hope
  Under both the standard spending assessment and formula spending share systems, each local authority is compensated for student exemptions from council tax in the calculation of its entitlement to revenue support grant. The calculation does not, however, involve a separate mathematical formula for student exemptions. Student exemptions are, instead, one of several factors affecting the size of a local authority's taxbase, and it is the overall taxbase for the authority that is taken into account in the calculation of revenue support grant.

  More specifically, revenue support grant is calculated as the difference between a local authority's standard spending assessment (or formula spending share) and the sum of its share of redistributed business rates and its assumed council tax income, with the reduction in the taxbase due to student exemptions being taken into account in the calculation of the assumed council tax income. The resulting revenue support grant allocations are then constrained so that the like-for-like increase in formula grant over the previous year is neither below the floor nor above the ceiling.

  The following table shows how much council tax per head of resident population was foregone by each local authority in Hertfordshire in 2002–03 as a result of student council tax exemptions.

  £

  Number of class M and N exemptions1

  Council tax income foregone per head

  Hertfordshire

  1,550

  1.04

  County Council

  Hertfordshire Police

  1,550

  0.12

  Broxbourne

  32

  0.03

  Dacorum

  53

  0.04

  East Hertfordshire

  195

  0.21

  Hertsmere

  125

  0.18

  North Hertfordshire

  56

  0.06

  St Albans

  126

  0.15

  Stevenage

  88

  0.13

  Three Rivers

  36

  0.07

  Watford

  75

  0.19

  Welwyn Hatfield

  764

  1.17

  1 Class M exemptions are for halls of residence provided predominantly for the accommodation of students, and Class N exemptions are for dwellings which are occupied only by students, the foreign spouses of students, or school and college leavers.

  Sources:

  CTB1(s) returns from local authorities and the Registrar General's population estimates.

  The above figures are equivalent to an average of £1.38 revenue foregone per head across Hertfordshire. Comparable figures for 2003–04 are not available because the relevant return for 2003–04 did not request information on the distribution across council tax bands of exempt properties. Assuming a similar distribution across bands as 2002–03 gives an average of about £1.70 revenue foregone per head for 2003–04.
  364W
  The precise extent to which the above losses were compensated for through revenue support grant could be calculated only at disproportionate cost. In general terms, however, a local authority spending at the level of its formula spending share is fully compensated for council tax income foregone as a result of council tax discounts and exemptions in the calculation of its entitlement to revenue support grant before the application of floors and ceilings.

  Postal Ballots
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many postal ballot papers and what percentage were spoilt during the 2003 local elections, broken down by local authority area; and what plans he has to simplify and standardise postal balloting. [122840]

  Phil Hope
  Information on spoilt postal ballot papers is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  A number of innovative measures for making postal voting easier and more secure were tested in May 2003 local electoral pilots. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will have regard to the Electoral Commission's evaluation of these (to be published at the end of July) and to the Commission's recommendations on voting by post in their recent report, 'Voting for change' before deciding on any steps to simplify and standardise voting by post.

  Regional Assemblies
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimates he has made of the cost of conducting local government re-organisation in(a) the North-East, (b) the North-West and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber following the introduction of regional assemblies; what factors contribute to the cost in each case; and if he will break down the cost in each case by factor. [123279]

  Phil Hope
  It is not possible, at this stage, to make an estimate of the likely costs of re-organisation. This will depend on the number of regions which move to having elected regional assemblies, the precise details of the changes proposed by the Boundary Committee and the preferred option of local electors. At the level of individual authorities, costs and savings will depend partly on decisions taken by the new authorities about the structures they put in place to deliver services and discharge their functions.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many social houses(a) in England and (b) in Shrewsbury and Atcham are inhabited which have been built using asbestos materials. [115032]

  Phil Hope
  The Statistical Evidence to support the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (published in May 2003 by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) estimates that approximately 394,000 flats in England (2 to 3 per cent, of the housing stock) are likely to have significant use of asbestos in construction. Three quarters of these dwellings were built between 1945 and 1980. The buildings most likely to be affected include high rise council estates built in the 1950s.
  365W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is unable to provide information on Shrewsbury and Atcham because they do not collect information on specific areas.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  House of Lords Reform
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when he expects to reply to the Second Report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, HC 668, session 2002–03. [123032]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government intends to reply to the Second Report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform shortly.

  Lord Chancellor's Department
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State if he will list the performance targets that(a) the former Lord Chancellor's Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies are required to meet; and if he will specify for each target (i) who set it and (ii) who was monitor achievement against it. [120924]

  Mr. Lammy
  My Department has taken over responsibility for the Lord Chancellor's Department's Public Service Agreement targets, which were agreed as part of the Spending Review and published in the Spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreements 2003–06 (Cm 5571). The Department monitors progress towards the targets, along with The Treasury and the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, and progress is reported regularly.

  Targets for the National Archives (formerly the Public Record Office) are set out in their Corporate Plan 2003–04 to 2005–06; for Her Majesty's Land Registry in their Strategic Plan 2003–04 to 2012–13; and for the Northern Ireland Court Service in their Corporate Plan 2003–06. Targets for the Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office can be found in the Court Service Business Plan 2002–03 and Public Guardianship Office Corporate and Business Plan 2002–05 respectively and, for the Legal Services Commission, in their Corporate Plan 2002–03 to 2003–04. Targets are agreed between the Department and the agency/non-departmental public body concerned. Achievement against the targets is monitored by the Department, by various means including meetings between the Secretary of State and the relevant Chief Executive.
  366W

  Special European Council
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to take forward conclusions reached at the Special European Council in Tampere in October 1999. [121892]

  Mr. Lammy
  Following the Presidency conclusions arising from the Tampere European Council, the Department has been keen to support the development of civil judicial co-operation on the basis of mutual recognition.

  We are actively co-operating with the EU in taking forward its civil judgment enforcement programme: we are currently finalising agreement on a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims and conducting negotiations pursuant to the Commission's Green Paper on small claims and a European Payment Order. We expect further items on that programme will he brought forward in the near future, including a European system for attachment of bank accounts (to prevent the removal of funds which may be the subject of a judgment).

  We are supporting work to improve cross-border arrangements in the field of family law, and in particular, extending the principle of mutual recognition to all decisions on parental responsibility, by establishing clear rules for attributing jurisdiction and proper arrangements for co-operation between national courts and authorities. This will greatly benefit families where there are cross-border disputes concerning children. Negotiations on the Parental Responsibility Regulation are nearing completion and steps on mutual recognition in the field of wills and succession will follow in 2004.

  Also in 2004, we expect close co-operation with the Commission in taking forward work on alternative means of dispute resolution, in which field the UK has considerable expertise.

  We will continue to lay stress on the principle of mutual recognition. We wish to ensure, as the EU grows and develops, that respect is maintained for the separate traditions of individual member states, and we are conscious of having a significant asset in our common law system. This has been, and will remain, central to our input into such issues as the Commission's Action Plan on the convergence of contract law.

  Supreme Court
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the Scottish Law Lords, (b) the judiciary in Scotland, (c) the Law Society of Scotland and (d) the Faculty of Advocates about the proposals for a Supreme Court. [122719]

  Mr. Leslie
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State will be publishing a consultation paper on his proposals for a Supreme Court on 14 July 2003. We shall be consulting widely on those proposals, including with members of the legal profession in Scotland.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Property Consultation Arrangements
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  I wish to announce the outcome of an internal review of our arrangements for consultation with the property sector.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister carried out the review to assess how we could more closely involve the property sector in developing and taking forward our sustainable communities agenda. We also wanted to see how the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister could more effectively fulfil its role in liaising with the property and development industries, taking account of recent consultation about how best to consult across Government on property issues.

  Among the major considerations in our review was the need to listen to the concerns of the property sector, to ensure that policy development takes account of market realities and to engage more fully with those able to deliver on our policy agenda. We decided that we need to overhaul our present machinery for consultation with the commercial property sector and to bring in those responsible for funding and building new housing development, to ensure that we can address all aspects of our major plans for physical regeneration.

  This led us to the conclusion that we should replace our two existing bodies for consulting the commercial property sector, the Property Advisory Group and the Property Industry Forum, with a single new group, the Property Consultative Group. The Property Consultative Group will consist of representatives of the existing bodies on the Property Industry Forum, together with those from several other bodies, including house builders and funders. The Group will meet regularly, with a Minister in the chair.

  The Property Consultative Group will be supplemented by working groups, which we will set up ad hoc to address particular issues in greater depth. The working groups will include other experts where this would be helpful as well as some of the members of the main Group. They will give us continued access to high quality independent expert external advice, of the type that the Property Advisory Group has provided over a number of years. The scope to set up ad hoc working groups with a limited life span, and a membership specifically selected to address the remit of the group concerned, will give us more flexibility in obtaining advice on particular issues, especially those to do with the building of sustainable communities. Initially, we will be setting up working groups on funding and delivery mechanisms and on commercial property markets and leases.
  14WS
  I would like to pay tribute to members of the Property Advisory Group for their considerable help to the Office. In particular, I would like to thank Robin Broadhurst for chairing the Group over the last five years. His second period of appointment is now ending, and we considered this would be an appropriate time to make these changes. The Property Advisory Group has played an important part in telling us about developments in the property market and in helping to ensure that new policy takes account of market practice. I am very grateful to members for all their hard work and commitment. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will want to include some individual members of the Group on the new ad hoc groups we are establishing, and I look forward to working with them. The Group's final meeting will take place on 8 July and we will shortly publish its final Annual Report.

  The new Properly Consultative Group will begin work on Monday 15 September, and I look forward to welcoming members to its first meeting.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Product Import Controls
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  As required under (Section 10A of the 1981 Animal Health Act) the Government will publish today a review of controls on the import of animal products for the financial year 2002–03.

  Government action during the period led to a threefold increase in the number of seizures of illegal imports of meat and animal products. This improvement was delivered by following three key principles: evidence-based policy; investment in enforcement; and securing better public engagement and awareness.

  The publication of the results of an assessment of the risks of foot and mouth disease entering the country through illegally imported meat has provided a basis to inform policy and help target enforcement.

  Additional resources were provided to existing enforcement agencies pending a review of enforcement structures that resulted in the transfer to HM Customs and Excise of responsibility for prevention of smuggling of these goods. A publicity campaign was run using a variety of methods to capture public attention.

  Looking to the future, the review describes the development of a new enforcement strategy at borders designed to respond better to changing risks and intelligence. Awareness and partnership building will continue both in the UK and in the international arena. Progress on all activities will be closely monitored.

  Copies of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the DEFRA Illegal Imports website http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/illegali/.

  The total amount spent on the illegal imports programme for 2002–03 was just over £3.7 million.

  Animal Movements Regime
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  The Government made a statement on 23 January 2003,Official Report, columns 21–23WS, on the risk assessment work carried out following the two independent inquiries into the FMD outbreak, setting out the future work on biosecurity and other issues they proposed and announcing their conclusions on the livestock movement regime to be put in place for the spring.

  On the condition that the farming industry worked towards improved disease protection and control, the Government announced a move to a six-day standstill for cattle, sheep and goats from March. However, key elements of the regime lapse on 1 August. The future standing arrangements therefore need to be determined now, in the light of the work done since that earlier decision, and other factors.

  THE RISK ASSESSMENT

  The Government now have two epidemiological reports based on different modelling techniques, an analysis of the costs of an outbreak and an integration report bringing these elements together in a formal cost-benefit analysis. These are all independent reports which have been peer reviewed.

  The key lessons from this work are:
  the most significant single factor in reducing the size of an outbreak is early detection of disease;
  a 20-day standstill regime does not appear justified on cost-benefit grounds unless more than one large outbreak every five years can be expected;
  a six-day standstill cannot be justified on cost-benefit grounds alone unless outbreaks are expected more frequently than around one in l2 years (and on some assumptions they would need to be even more frequent);
  however, even if outbreaks occurred only once in 20 years, the six-day standstill is not greatly more expensive than a zero standstill policy; and
  standstill regimes do effectively reduce the size (and therefore the cost) of outbreaks, especially the more extreme outbreaks such as that in 2001.

  OTHER FACTORS

  The Government do not believe that they can determine future arrangements solely on the basis of this cost-benefit analysis. There is a strong case for a standstill as part of the livestock movements regime on precautionary grounds.

  The Government's veterinary advisers are clear that a longer standstill is more effective in capping disease outbreaks but a six-day standstill is better than zero days because it reduces the spread of disease and increases the chances of early detection. Any standstill
  16WS
  regime would also help protect against the spread of other diseases and foster improved animal welfare more generally.

  THE DECISION

  The Government therefore support a standstill period as a valuable long-term element in the movement regime. However, the cost-benefit analysis clearly shows that a return to the 20-day standstill for cattle, sheep and goats could only be justified under very unlikely scenarios. The Government have therefore decided that the standing regime from 1 August should be based on a six-day standstill.

  The existing arrangements for pigs will continue, except that the arrival of a pig on a mixed holding will impose a 20-day standstill on any other pig on the holding, but only a six-day standstill on any cattle, sheep or goats there.

  EXCEPTIONS

  The Government have listened carefully to arguments for specific exceptions to the general arrangements and have made some provisions where necessary. For this reason, an exemption was introduced on 30 May for show animals.

  The Government now propose to introduce a further specific modification to the regime to facilitate the autumn sale and trading of male breeding livestock. In future, male breeding rams and bulls may move on to a farm during the period August to November without triggering a general six-day standstill for the farm, so long as it goes into a DEFRA-approved isolation facility, provided that a six day standstill applies to all livestock in that facility. Similarly they will be allowed to move from a farm under standstill to a market if placed in a DEFRA-approved isolation facility for six days beforehand. Similar arrangements will be put in place for goats. The Government believe that this new arrangement strikes the right balance between ensuring that farmers can trade successfully and ensuring that autumn breeder markets do not become a centre of disease spread.

  DETECTION AND BIOSECURITY

  The Government have made it clear that progress needs to be made to improve detection and biosecurity. They consulted recently on how to achieve this. As a result, from 1 August, there will be a limit of 48 hours for animals staying on market premises. There will also be some minor changes to the legislation on empty vehicles leaving markets without first cleansing and disinfecting.

  Work on veterinary farm inspections, the presence of vets at markets, cleaning and disinfection at markets, the role of dealers and distance limits will continue over the coming months in the context of the Government's animal health and welfare strategy. In particular, we will investigate the proposals for a veterinary presence at markets and the possibility of annual veterinary visits to farms, as part of our draft action plan to take forward animal disease prevention and control in partnership with industry and other key stakeholders. We hope to consult on a draft plan in July 2003.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  "Age Matters"
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I have today published a consultation paper covering options for transposition of that part of the EU Employment Directive that prohibits discrimination on grounds of age in employment and vocational training and guidance.

  The consultation period will run until 20 October. During this time views on the options for implementation will be actively sought from all stakeholders.

  Although the Employment Directive outlaws age discrimination in employment and vocational training, it does allow for differences of treatment on the grounds of age to continue in limited circumstances if they can be objectively justified with reference to a legitimate aim set out in the legislation.

  The key options for implementation on which we are consulting include:
  The abolition of employers' mandatory retirement ages (dismissal at a given age) unless employers can objectively justify them.
  The possibility of including in our implementing regulations, a default retirement age of 70, at which employers could retire employees.
  A list of proposed legitimate aims which employers, exceptionally, could use to help justify the retention of a small number of age-related practices.
  Some changes to the legislation regarding unfair dismissal and redundancy.

  Retirement age in particular is a crucial issue on which there is no clear consensus. For this reason we have provided a number of options for discussion and would invite all interested parties to engage in the consultation process. The information obtained from the consultation will be used to shape the content of the legislation.

  The Employment Directive deadline for full implementation of the age legislation is the end of 2006. However, it is the Government's aim to have the regulations in place but not in force by the end of 2004. This will provide all those affected by the legislation ample time to prepare for changes before the legislation comes into force in October 2006.

  I have placed copies of the consultation paper and other related documents in the Libraries of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Export Licences (Iraq)
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved two licences to export Military List 18WS
  goods to Iraq, The arms embargo against Iraq remains in place under United Nations Security Council resolution 1483 (2003), with the exception of

  "arms and related materiel required by the (Coalition Provisional) Authority to serve the purposes of this and other related resolutions".

  Accordingly Her Majesty's Government consider it appropriate to grant exemptions for these goods to be exported on the basis that they are to be used for the purpose of protecting companies working on reconstruction projects in Iraq which form part of the Authority's functions under resolution 1483 (2003). These exports are consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Future applications will continue to be assessed on a case by case basis against the UN Embargo and Consolidated Criteria, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time.

TREASURY

  Provisional Outturn for Public Expenditure
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  The Treasury will publish the 2002–03 Public Expenditure Provisional Outturn White Paper on Tuesday 15 July.

  The White Paper is an annual report to Parliament on the provisional outturn for public expenditure. It focuses on spending within Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) and Annually Managed Expenditure (AME), including information on individual Supply Estimates and administration costs limits.

  The outturn figures are described as provisional because they may be revised when the department's final accounts are published, usually in the autumn.

  A copy of the White Paper will be placed on the Treasury website.

DEFENCE

  Defence Housing Executive
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The following key targets have been set for the Defence Housing Executive for 2003–04:

  KEY TARGET 1:
  To give notice of address within 10 working days of receipt of an applicaticn for accommodation for at least 75 per cent. of applicants.

  KEY TARGET 2:
  Less than 3.3 per cent. of occupants should experience significant defects within 14 days of moving in.

  KEY TARGET 3:
  To complete the planned upgrade of 1,200 properties by 31 Mar 2004.

  KEY TARGET 4: To complete:
  at least 95 per cent. of emergency repairs within 24 hours of notification;

  19WS
  at least 90 per cent. of urgent repairs within five working days of notification;
  at least 95 per cent. of routine repairs within two months of notification.

  KEY TARGET 5:
  To reduce the management margin progressively towards 10 per cent. by November 2005, to better balance supply and demand while delivering other Key Targets (The DHE's interim target for 31 March 2004 is to have a management margin of 11.4 per cent.).

  KEY TARGET 6: To reduce dissatisfaction:
  with the quality of the property provided as SFA by 1 per cent. to 17 per cent. of occupants by 31 Mar 2004;
  with the service that occupants receive from DHE personnel by 1 per cent. to 19 per cent. of occupants by 31 Mar 2004.

  Copies of the DHE's Corporate Plan will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Estates
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  As detailed in the Defence Estates Corporate Plan 2003–08, the following Key Targets have been set for the Agency:

  KEY TARGET 1
  To improve Single Living Accommodation by delivering 1,000 Grade 1 bedspaces under Project SLAM, and report on the provision 1,500 bedspaces under parallel Single Living Accommodation Projects. To ensure that at least 65 per cent. of MOD Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the United Kingdom meet the criteria for satisfactory condition.

  KEY TARGET 2
  To provide an estate of the right size by producing and gaining agreement to a Core Sites Implementation Plan by 31 March 2004.

  KEY TARGET 3
  To achieve Accrued Estates Disposal Receipts of £661 million by 31 March 2008, including £187 million by 31 March 2004.

  KEY TARGET 4
  To achieve the key milestones planned during 2003–04 to allow for the implementation of the Ministry of Defence estates change initiatives of Project Alexander, Regional Prime Contracting and Project Aquatrine by 31 March 2006.

  KEY TARGET 5
  To pursue activities leading to the sustainable use of MOD estate assets over time by implementing Environmental Management Systems, on 40 per cent. of all MOD sites by 31 March 2004.

  In addition, recognising the role of the Agency in delivering a new way of managing the defence estate, the following development targets have been set for the Agency to achieve by 31 March 2004:

  a. To establish a new baseline of estate assets by function, condition and fitness for purpose.

  b. To achieve the level of DE service delivery agreed in Customer Supplier Agreements.

  c. To produce a methodology for assessing value for money efficiencies from the introduction of Prime Contracting.

  20WS
  Copies of the new Defence Estates Corporate Plan will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Housing
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  A business process review of the management and delivery of Defence housing is to be carried out by the Ministry of Defence. Following a scoping exercise, the Review will commence shortly, and will complete in December 2003.

  The aim of the Review is to examine the function, role, operation, funding and organisation of Defence housing. It will seek to identify the most efficient and effective process to support the management and delivery of Defence housing both in the UK and overseas.

  The review team will consult with a range of stakeholders during the course of the review including single-Service customers, TUs, other Government departments and other relevant bodies. The MOD is interested also to hear the views of other organisations or individuals who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those wishing to do so should send their contribution by 31 July 2003 to:

  The Defence Housing Review Team

  Ministry of Defence

  2nd Floor

  St Giles Court

  1–13 St Giles High Street

  London WC2H 8LD

  Or by email:

  mailto:dgmo-dmcs3@defence.mod.uk

  Al Majarr Al Kabir
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  On 24 June last week, I informed the House that six Royal Military Police soldiers had been killed, and eight other United Kingdom service personnel had been wounded in incidents in Iraq earlier that day. Since then, we have been working hard to establish what took place. It may be some time before we have a full picture; indeed, we may never know with absolute certainty precisely what happened.

  However, we will do all we can to establish the facts, and to hold to account those responsible. Accordingly, we have launched an investigation and the Special Investigation Branch have appointed a senior investigating officer. We are also looking at the wider, operational aspects of what took place, to determine whether there are any lessons we need to learn. It may be some time before this work is complete, and we do not therefore intend to respond to every piece of media speculation or conjecture in the interim.

  It would, however, be right for me to set out our current understanding of events leading up to, and on the day of the incidents themselves. In doing so I should point out that our understanding may change as new information comes to light.
  21WS
  The RMP were engaged in assisting with the regeneration of the local Iraqi police service, by ensuring that they had proper training, equipment and infrastructure to operate as professionally as possible. This task included routine visits to police stations in the area. The police station in Al Majarr Al Kabir is one of a number that the RMP planned to visit last Tuesday.

  Al Majarr Al Kabir is a town of approximately 60,000 people, situated to the south of Al Amarah, in Maysan province. The town has always been fiercely independent and was free of Saddam's regime by the time coalition forces reached it. The main focus of military operations in the area in recent weeks had been the implementation of a weapons amnesty, and thereafter, the recovery of illegal weapons.

  These weapons searches were unpopular with the local population, although none had been conducted in the town itself. Local religious leaders had called for further searches to be resisted and on 22 June, a 1 PARA patrol in the town were faced with a hostile crowd of some 500 people. The soldiers fired baton rounds in order to enable them to be able to withdraw from the town. At a meeting the next day, officers from 1 PARA agreed with the town council that weapons searches would be suspended, and that the council would themselves take responsibility for recovering heavy weapons.

  With this agreement in place, the following day the RMP section booked out at around 0910, planning to visit three towns in the area—Al Majarr Al Kabir being the first. Routine force protection measures in place required that they should all be armed, should have their body armour and helmets with them, should have working communications, and that there should be at least two vehicles—in fact they had three.

  We judge that they would have reached the town at around 0940–0955, shortly before a 1 PARA patrol also entered the town. We cannot yet be certain, but it may be that the attack on the PARA patrol took place before the attack on the BMP. The attack on 1 PARA commenced at around 1030, when the patrol was stoned by a large crowd. At some point a crowd also appears to have massed outside the police station. While attempting to move their vehicles inside the police compound, the RMP came under fire, and it seems at least one of them was killed at that point. The crowd evidently then stormed the police station. British forces were informed a short while later by local Iraqis that all six of the RMP personnel had been killed.
  22WS
  We understand that attempts were made to contact the RMP section as events unfolded. This is one of the details we will be trying to establish as part of the investigation.

  In the follow up to these incidents, Iraqi leaders in the province are continuing to work closely with us. We will not lose sight of our overall aim to support a better Iraq, and an Iraq that is for the Iraqi people. British forces in Iraq continue to do an excellent job in taking this important work forward.

  As they do so, our thoughts remain with those that have lost their lives, and their loved ones who mourn them.

HEALTH

  Health Inequalities
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  I am today publishing details of the Government's implementation plans for tackling health inequalities in England. The plans set out how our strategy (published on 15 November 2002) to narrow the health gap between disadvantaged groups, areas and the rest of the population will be delivered.

  Copies of the publication, "Health inequalities: a programme of action", have been placed in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Heritage Memorial Fund
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  Stage 1 of the Quinquennial Review of the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF) has been completed. Stage 2 of the Review will not take place, because the Heritage Lottery Fund (which is administered by the NHMF) is implementing its Strategic Plan 2002–07 which deals with the questions of improved efficiency and effectiveness which would have been the focus of Stage 2.

  The Government welcome the Review and agree that the NHMF should continue in existence, subject to modernisation.

  I am pleased to note the Review's recognition of the important role of the NHMF.

  The Review was published today and I have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The Review is also available on the DCMS website http://www.culture.gov.uk:/

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking ministerial visits to Hertfordshire and Lancashire on Friday, 4th July and Friday, 1lth July. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence on both occasions.

Gulf War Veterans: High Court Decision
2.38 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest—not a pecuniary one—as honorary parliamentary adviser for many years to the Royal British Legion.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to the implications for other Gulf War veterans of the High Court's recent decision in the case of Shaun Rusling; and what were their total costs in contesting the case all the way to the High Court.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, pensions have been paid to veterans of the 1992 Gulf conflict where there is evidence of disablement attributable to service. Neither eligibility for an award nor its level have been affected by the fact that, reflecting expert UK and international medical opinion, we do not accept that there is a single disease entity, Gulf War syndrome. The judgment in the case of Mr Rusling specifically declined to express any opinions on this issue. It is too early to say what the cost of contesting the case has been.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is it not very sad that this officer of the Parachute Regiment, in broken health ever since the conflict, waited 12 years for his case to be resolved? If, as the Government have implied, the High Court's decision changes nothing, why fight the case for so long at such cost? Is my noble friend aware of the Royal British Legion's concern
872
about the endless haggling in tribunals and courts with veterans—some of them terminally ill—and the utter confusion, stress and distrust among Gulf veterans and their dependants caused by the handling of this case? Is it not time now to stop haggling, without admitting liability, and to answer the Royal British Legion's renewed insistence for a public inquiry?
Lord Bach: My Lords, Mr Rusling currently receives a 90 per cent war disablement pension. Any suggestion that he receives no war disablement pension, which has been put around, is a lie. The symptoms that he attributes to Gulf War syndrome are already fully compensated for within this award under the World Health Organisation's classification of diseases category "Symptoms, Signs and Ill-Defined Conditions"—SSIDC. Nothing emerged during the High Court hearing or in the written judgment to suggest that Mr Rusling has an incorrect level of pension.
However, like any war pensioners, Mr Rusling can ask the Veterans Agency to review his claim at any time. Mr Justice Newman, in his clear judgment, said:
"This court is not in a position to express any view on the merits of the dispute as to whether, according to medical research, Gulf war syndrome is or is not a 'single medical entity'".
He concluded by stating:
"It has not done so by this judgment".
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, today—and on 22nd May—the Minister expressly seems to be saying that the dispute is whether there is something called Gulf War syndrome. Is not the issue, in fact, whether those servicemen were affected by their service in that Gulf War and whether they are entitled to compensation? Is that not absolutely clear? The Government's own expert, Simon Wesley, whom I quoted last time—the Minister tried to deflect it— said:
"There is irrefutable proof that going to the Gulf has affected the health of some UK servicemen".
Is that not absolutely clear?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is absolutely clear, and we have said so on I do not know how many occasions in this House and in another place. We acknowledge that some veterans of the first Gulf conflict are ill and that some, alas, have died. The issues surrounding the ill health reported by the veterans of that conflict remain a priority for us.
There is scientific evidence that some Gulf veterans report a large number of multi-system, multi-organ, non-specific, medically unexplained symptoms as well as some recognised medical symptoms, but, I repeat, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific and medical community is that there is insufficient evidence to enable this ill health to be characterised as

873
a new illness, condition or syndrome. We do pay war pensions to a large number of those who were in the Gulf.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords—
Lord Bramall: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, perhaps we may hear first from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall
Lord Bramall: My Lords, how can the Minister's department be quite so insistent, particularly after the High Court judgment, that there are no attributable medical conditions specifically emanating from service in the Gulf when the tests on what are most likely to bring about such conditions—the cocktail of inoculations—have still to be completed? Can it not possibly speed up those tests instead of contesting in the courts every one of these cases?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we pay pensions where there is evidence of disablement caused by service. We accept that some members of the Armed Forces became ill in the Gulf. We pay pensions including in those cases where non-specific symptoms are claimed, as I say, under the World Health Organisation's diagnostic label. So far as concerns vaccinations, they are just one exposure cited as the cause of ill health among some veterans. Our research programme, as the noble and gallant Lord knows, is due to report at the end of this year.
If the medical evidence changes, of course we will respond. We are absolutely open to responding in this field. At the moment the medical evidence is against a concept called Gulf War syndrome.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, since it has been often repeated in this House that the MoD does not accept that there is a proven Gulf War syndrome, will my noble friend explain briefly and clearly the exact grounds on which the MoD is now awarding war pensions to veterans of the first Gulf War?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Veterans Agency does not normally use the term "Gulf War syndrome" when accepting or rejecting entitlement to an award. Using a generic identifier that has no medical or scientific consensus would, frankly, be inappropriate, even if it would be easy. Instead, for war pension purposes, any vague, ill-defined, non-specific symptoms are normally accepted, as I have said, under the diagnostic label, "Symptoms, Signs and Ill-Defined Conditions". That was not thought up by ourselves, it is a documented diagnostic category of the WHO International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, 1992.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister recall his right honourable friend Dr John Reid, as Minister for the Armed Forces, saying in 1997 that the
874
British Government would shadow the United States Government? Can he explain why, when the United States Government accepted Gulf War syndrome several years ago, our Government are not shadowing the United States Government?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I explained to the House why we do not agree that there is an entity called Gulf War syndrome. As we do not agree that there is such an entity—and the reason why not is because the medical evidence so far is against it—it would be ridiculous just to copy what any other country, however close, may have done.
Lord Winston: My Lords, given that there is now quite a lot of evidence that strange things happen when the immune system is depressed, and given that Gulf War veterans clearly face multiple threats to their immune systems, can my noble friend reassure us by telling the House what active research is following up the immune systems of Gulf War veterans?
Lord Bach: My Lords, a large amount of research is under way at present. I shall not go into the detail— that would be too much for the time that I have—but I shall write to my noble friend to tell him what is happening and place a copy in the Library. A few weeks ago a review of the research that has so far taken place made absolutely clear that, as yet, there is no proof that the entity called Gulf War syndrome exists.

Child Abuse
2.45 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the refusal of social services officials to expunge from their child abuse registers allegations against individuals of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, which prove to be false, is an abuse of the human rights of the individuals concerned.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, well kept records provide an essential underpinning to good child protection practice. To expunge allegations of child abuse or neglect, including those which subsequently prove to be unfounded, from local authority records would undermine the proper function of social services' recording and the effectiveness of the area child protection committee. Provided that a social services department complies with legislative requirements in the way that it records and discloses information, it would not breach the human rights of an individual.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, but I am frankly appalled by it. Is she aware that once that label is attached to the family, the children and, especially, the parents, are blighted? Women who have been trained to work with children can never do so again. They cannot even teach

875
children in a Sunday school. Many such cases go to court and the courts impose gagging orders on the parents, which is also an abuse of human rights and the right to family life.
Will the noble Baroness think again about what is happening? The day before yesterday there was a demonstration of extreme cases of Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, but there are thousands of much less publicised cases that must be dealt with.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, good record keeping is a fundamental part of good work by social services and other agencies that work with children. The professional behaviour of those true professionals means that they ensure that record keeping is done in a way that recognises the importance and value of showing what has happened to a family. Where families have been investigated—sometimes, I accept by people who are acting for their own motives, perhaps maliciously, but, most importantly, to inquire into the protection of children—it is important that that remains on the record but that the outcome is also fully recorded. That is to achieve the objective which we all share: the full protection of children.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Question in the name of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, concerns cases which have been proven to be false. It is well known, and the noble Baroness ought to accept, that those allegations dog the families for ever. In the age of enhanced criminal checks, that enhanced information will stand as a material reason why they should not be given another job, work with children, or whatever. If the information is not expunged, the families are dogged for life on the basis of allegations that have been proven to be false in the first place.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Well, my Lords, if the allegation has been proved to be incorrect, that will also be part of the record. Those who are able to inquire under the enhanced disclosure to which the noble Baroness refers would also know that that was the case. What is fundamental is that where an investigation has taken place, that must be recorded, the outcome must be fully recorded and the information must be available only to those who have the right to receive it. I understand that Article 8 is a qualified article under the Human Rights Act 1998 and we are fully complying with it.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that where a decision to place someone on a child abuse register is based in part on a medical decision, anyone wishing to raise a complaint could do so under the social services complaints procedure or the NHS complaints procedure? If such a decision were made by a care trust, which of those complaints procedures could someone use?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the relevant lead organisation would be the organisation to which the complaints procedure applied. However,
876
I think that the noble Baroness is alluding to multi-agency working, to which we are increasingly moving and which is for the greater protection of children and families. We would therefore expect the area child protection committee to have set up appropriate complaints procedures. That would be the appropriate avenue to which to refer a complaint.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the circumstances of the case outlined by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, suggest a breach of nearly every principle enshrined in the Data Protection Act 1998? Is not the fourth principle in particular,
"Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up-to-date",
being abused by the social services department involved?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that is exactly what we are doing; we are keeping the records accurate and up to date. In other words, an investigation took place and was recorded, even though it was unfounded. That is accurate, up-to-date information.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the Minister accept the point made by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that accusations of sexual abuse have an effect simply as accusations, whether or not they are proved in court? Does the Minister accept that that rather exceptional situation could be used by people wishing to cause damage to a second party? Indeed, accusations of sexual abuse are being used frequently in the United States by mothers who have been abandoned by the father to prevent the father getting custody of the child?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot comment on the frequency with which allegations are made. What I am clear about, however, is that we are talking about the protection of children. When allegations are made, it is very important for all parties concerned that records are kept and that they are kept fully and properly. Noble Lords will remember discussions in your Lordships' House not long ago about the lack of record-keeping in the Victoria Climbié case. We should ensure that records are kept well and accurately, including information that says that the allegation was unfounded. If I may describe it thus: tippexing out accusations does not necessarily support families effectively.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever the label of the allegation, what really matters is a good assessment by social services, which I think is what she is suggesting? However, would she also agree that such assessments are highly complex and difficult and that staff working for social services are not always recognised for the excellent work they carry out in trying to deal with

877
these extraordinarily difficult family circumstances? For the most part, they would like children to remain with their families.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, says. The particular cases involving of fabricated or induced illness to which the noble Countess, Lady Mar, referred, are extremely complex and difficult. The Department of Health recently issued guidance designed specifically to ensure that incredibly difficult and complex cases are dealt with in a multi-agency way. Those dealing with the cases should bring in professionals who have expertise in the area and work together with all the agencies concerned to ensure that any allegations made are accurate and that the family are fully supported. It is absolutely the case that social workers, doctors, the police or anybody else involved are working first and foremost to try to secure the protection of children within the family and not to remove them unless that is the only logical outcome.

Brownfield Development: Environmental Considerations
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wathasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take to recognise and commend examples of brownfield development where environmental considerations have been well served.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the principles of sustainable development require that, when brownfield sites are being developed, they meet environmental as well as economic and social considerations; they must all be taken into account. That applies to the regeneration of former coalfields, for example, as well as to urban regeneration. The Millennium Communities Programme and the Queen's Awards for Enterprise play their part in raising awareness of what can be done.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, which clearly demonstrates that the Government and public agencies are committed to this good cause. However, does my noble friend accept that there are many superb examples of achievement in the environmental transformation of what was dereliction, and that far too little attention has been paid to the particularly good examples that can be found throughout the country?
878
Does my noble friend the Minister also accept that it might be a jolly good idea if, either at regional or national level, we developed the means of recognition and attention, if only to encourage further progress in this important field?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that a number of significant achievements have been made in the area. By mainstreaming those environmental considerations, we would anticipate far more to be done. I referred in my first Answer to the role of the Millennium Commission and its Communities Programme in pointing up good examples and also to the Queen's Awards for Enterprise. In addition, there are green flag schemes. My noble friend is probably right to suggest that we should consider wider ways of communicating best practice and promoting centres of excellence in that area. I shall certainly take his points back for consideration.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the Question of the noble Lord is about social ethics. It is also about affordable and cheap housing. I encourage the Government to take further steps, because it is urgent that good local practice, such as in Havant, north of Portsmouth, is blazed around the country to prevent the kind of economically and ecologically undesirable outcomes that we would otherwise see.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate offers another dimension to the need to generalise and promote awareness of best practice and make it more available both to local and planning authorities and to private developers in those areas. An effort is being made by all departments involved to ensure that that should now happen.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have the Government considered a system of awarding commendations for excellence in protecting the environment on the lines of the awards for export achievements which have existed for many years?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Queen's Awards for Enterprise can include awards for environmental achievements. It may be that much more needs to be done in that field.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, will the Government ensure that brownfield developments, where they are planned in large urban areas, will include a substantial proportion of green space? Does the Minister recognise that that will moderate the harshest effects of global warming on the health of people in urban areas, which are especially severe in heatwaves and episodes of high pollution? I declare an interest as vice-president of the National Society of Clean Air.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend in that capacity and to the society. It is true that it is important that the possibility of green public space

879
should be taken into account in planning decisions. It is also true, however, that a number of the brownfield urban sites present problems in the sense that they are rather too small to make any significant contribution to large new public spaces. In total, that is a dimension which should be taken into account.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I declare an interest as the patron of the Somerset Trust for Sustainable Development. The adequate recognition of best environmental practice, particularly in the housing field, is very important. Without it, the extra costs that those houses often incur will put developers off building them. Should not such recognition be seen as one of the tools in their armoury for justifying why they are developing best environmental practice?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, encouragement is certainly given in planning guidance and in the discussions between planning authorities and developers to make more use of sustainable building techniques and to use resources more sustainably in all such developments. The most obvious example is in the Millennium Village. In considering major developments such as the Thames Gateway, and so on, the Government will also bring to bear the need to ensure that the building is carried out to best sustainable and environmental standards.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, how are the Government getting on with the total amount of brownfield sites that are still underdeveloped? I am thinking of the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. In Leicester, we have seen a lot of development, particularly around canal areas. That has brought benefits, not only to the inhabitants, but also to the canal and its wildlife. Do the Government receive updates on what progress is being made in developing brownfield sites?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am familiar with the development to which the noble Baroness refers. The waterways are now being used as a catalyst for development, whereas 20 years ago towns and cities turned their backs on the waterways. British Waterways and the Environment Agency have played a major role in partnership with private enterprise to turn some of those apparently brownfield sites into some of the more desirable areas of the city. That is a good example of how everybody is acting together to develop those areas.
We have a general monitoring process for the overall development of brownfield sites, as do the planning authorities. It is true that we have hit the target of having 60 per cent of housing development on brownfield sites.
Lord Bridges: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are over time.

CAP Reform: Decoupling and UK Farmers
3 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarthasked Her Majesty's Government:
What impact different levels of decoupled common agricultural policy support in various European Union countries are likely to have on the future profitability of United Kingdom farming.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, economic analysis of the common agricultural policy proposals shows that full decoupling would give fanners in the UK the opportunity to cut costs and increase their incomes. The benefit to farmers in other countries will, of course, depend on the extent to which they decouple, but it is unlikely that if they adopt a partially coupled approach they would have any competitive advantage.
The CAP package includes several options. Farmers can retain 25 per cent in arable or 50 per cent in sheep, and there is a variety of recoupling percentages for beef. It is difficult to work out the total effect, but our contention is that full decoupling, which we intend to pursue in the UK, will give our farmers greater clarity and greater ability to produce for the market, rather than for the subsidy.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I wish that a fully independent and objective analysis could be made of the comparisons that need to be made. Will the Minister and his right honourable friend commission an independent report by one of the university agricultural economics departments, so that an evaluation can be made of the impact on the profitability of different UK farming systems of last week's agreement on CAP reform? That could then be fed into the public domain and used for policy initiatives to the benefit of UK agriculture.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is not clear what kind of study the noble Lord wishes. It will be a dynamic situation in the various farming sectors in the UK and in the other member states. The outcome will be affected not only by the changed CAP system but by the outcome of the WTO talks later this year.
The Government will, of course, take the best economic advice—as, no doubt, will the industry—on how things will work out in practice. Our assessment, based on the economic advice that we have, is that UK farmers will benefit, provided that they meet the opportunities with which the change provides them.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that by far the best outcome would be for countries such as France, which have extracted the ability not to engage in full decoupling, to be persuaded that exercising that discretion would not be in their interest, as it would be administratively complex, expensive and, ultimately, not to the benefit of their farmers? Will he do everything possible to

881
persuade such countries that, having achieved their politically necessary aims, they should not exercise the right given to them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord. As he will know from his long experience, persuading the French of what is logically and clearly the case is not always the easiest task. I suspect that, in a few years, the sou will have dropped, both with French farmers and with the French Government.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is it not correct that UK farmers have a head start because we have gone for full decoupling? Why on earth should we try to persuade the French to create a level playing field?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is right. British farmers, if they take the opportunities provided by the package, should be ahead of the game in meeting the markets nationally and internationally. It is not up to Her Majesty's Government to support the French Government in continuing to hobble their own farmers. In this country, we like to see fair competition, so I would not go along entirely with my noble friend's anti-French remarks.
Earl Peel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the new entitlements that will be paid to farmers under the CAP reforms will be attached to the land or to the farmer? If the entitlements are attached to the farmer, there is a real possibility, because of the environmental cross-compliance conditions that go with the entitlement, that the farmer could walk away from the land, taking with him the responsibility for environmental management that will have been built up on the back of taxpayer's money. The taxpayer will have a bad deal, unless the entitlement is firmly attached to the land and not to the farmer.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, there are arguments both ways. The system agreed in Luxembourg will mean that the entitlement—the single-farm payment—would go to the producer on the land as of 31st May this year. The amount would depend on an earlier reference period. It would be transferable, but only if the land to which the then producer was attached were replaced by an equivalent amount of land elsewhere. The aggregate amount of land to which the cross-compliance arrangements applied would continue to be constant for the same amount of subsidy.
I agree that there are downsides to that, but there are also upsides. Eventually, the whole country will, at some time, be covered by the cross-compliance arrangements.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, following my noble friend's question, I ask the Minister to tell us what happens if the person who is entitled to the payment dies. Does it go back into a common pool?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the person to whom the entitlement applies is the inheritor of the land, it will go to the heir to that land. There are, of course, complex, different systems of tenure throughout Europe.
882
If the lease ends because of the death of a tenant, the entitlement would revert to the landowner in the short term and would be available to the new tenant, if a new tenant were to take over the land. The new tenant would then have the option—as the deceased tenant would have had—of moving to another part of the country with the same amount of subsidy. Even through death, the total amount of land would remain in cross-compliance.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, can my noble friend remind us whether the successful CAP reform brought home this week was achieved by qualified majority voting, thus preventing the exercise of any veto that might have scuppered that successful deal?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in agricultural policy, as my noble friend knows, there is no veto. Had it come to a vote, a result could have been achieved by qualified majority voting. However, the way in which the Council proceeded ensured that, in the end, despite the reluctance of—principally—one country, the package was agreed without a vote.

CAP Reform: UK Produce
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domerasked Her Majesty's Government:
In what ways they will ensure that the opportunities afforded by reform of the common agricultural policy result in United Kingdom consumers having increased access to fresh, quality United Kingdom produce.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the decision to decouple subsidies from production provides a significant incentive for farmers to produce only what the market wants. Also, the cross-compliance provisions should contribute to improving the quality of agricultural produce. In addition, many of the domestic measures being pursued by the Government under The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food in England are aimed at strengthening links between processors, manufacturers, caterers and retailers, in order to reconnect the food chain with its customers.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he confident that the situation now where it is much easier to buy chocolate or chewing gum than an English apple will be reversed? Can he assure me that the extra money that the Government could take up under the second pillar will go into schemes for young entrants to encourage them perhaps to go into vegetable production, and that agri-environment money can apply to all types of agriculture, including orchards, soft fruit and vegetable production? In doing so, I declare an interest, as my brother-in-law is an apple

883
producer—albeit cider apples. Will consumers benefit by having fresh quality produce available in a way that they do not have now?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, regrettably, under the previous and new systems, cider apples were never subsidised under the CAP. Nevertheless, the overall effect of the switch away from coupling to particular forms of products and the shift from pillar 1 to pillar 2 of a significant amount of money to provide for rural development, environmental outcomes and outcomes designed to bring farmers—co-operatively, in many cases—closer to their market, should enable enterprises producing quality food in this country to be closer to their customers, to be more efficient and to receive the support of the CAP and taxpayers' money in so doing, with a variety of schemes most of which could apply to most sectors of agriculture.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, does my noble friend accept the proposition that there is no good, fresh produce available in the shops? My impression is that there is a great deal around and I hope that the change in the CAP will mean that there is more.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is true that there is a good choice of fresh food available. I think that my noble friend—I apologise; we are not yet in coalition politics—the noble Baroness was attempting to assert that this should help more of that fresh produce to be locally produced or produced in Britain.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the overall cost of the new system greater or less than that of the old one?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a small element of reduction in the total quantum. In total, the figures, and therefore the burden on the European taxpayer, as a whole, is not significantly reduced from the pre-agreed ceilings. Of course, beyond next year that money will have to apply to 25 countries rather than 15. In terms of both the burden and the benefit, there will be a reduction for the existing 15.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the onus is on farmers and growers to find out what the market wants from them? If Her Majesty's Government are to help them, it would be in terms of how to carry out market testing and the running of a business appropriately. Perhaps I may declare an interest again: we have had a lot of help from Business Link. Can I suggest that the money is put into Business Link so that it can help farmers with business management and market testing rather than having farmers receive direct grants?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a place for both. Business Link and the Farm Advisory Service, which by and large Business Link has run, have helped farmers adapt in difficult times to spot additional business opportunities. For example, processing and
884
marketing grants given to farmers individually or co-operatively have also helped. So I think that there is a role for both.
Earl Peel: My Lords, can the Minister acknowledge the advice given to him by his noble friend Lord Haskins that his department should be abolished?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have received no such advice from my noble friend. His report is due in a few months' time.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Curry report encourages co-operation among farmers and farm producers. What assurance can the Minister give that the Competition Commission will not decide that those co-operatives have become too large?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the competition authorities are at arm's length from (he Government, therefore I cannot speak for them. The rules on competition are, however, clear; namely, that people should not abuse their market position whatever their size or whether they are co-operatives, limited companies or whatever. The measures that the OFT has taken to explain the position to potential and actual farmers' co-operatives have achieved an understanding within the farming sector of what the limits to the market position might be and what would be regarded as an abuse. That has greatly helped in establishing co-operatives and other collaborative arrangements that do not transgress the competition rules.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a noble Lord once said in this House that he had a friend who hired an aeroplane and flew over France, where he released thousands of parachutes that all said, "Every French tart needs an English Cox"?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, thankfully, until this moment, I was totally unaware of that. God knows what the French farmers made of it.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, to return to the answer that the noble Lord gave, we are now required to compete globally. The Competition Commission has tended to look at UK rather than global competition. Therefore, have the Government given any advice to the Competition Commission that it must look at the issue in a world-wide sphere rather than a UK sphere?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the competition authorities make their own judgments on every case. They look at the appropriate market. I know that there has been some criticism at the small area of market that they have looked at in some cases, but they are operating on the same broad competition framework which is operated Europe-wide these days. There are no overall criteria for what constitutes the market. Those decisions are taken on a one-by-one basis. As I

885
indicated, the competition authorities are now engaged in a process where they will inform potential co-operatives and potential collaborative ventures of whether there would be a problem were their structure to infringe certain market rules. It is—I repeat—the abuse of one's market position and not the size of one's market position with which the competition authorities are concerned.

Hereford Markets Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Business of the House: Standing Order 47
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with tomorrow to allow the Finance Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gambling
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any clauses of a draft Gambling Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the committee shall report on the draft Bill by 8th April 2004.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to seek their agreement thereto.

Aviation (Offences) Bill
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Corbett of Castle Vale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Communications Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 312 [OFCOM's standards code]:
Lord Gordon of Strathblanemoved Amendment No. 182:
Page 275, line 37, leave out "unsuitable" and insert "which may be misleading, harmful or offensive"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, last night my noble friend Lord McIntosh, in replying to one of the debates, said, at col. 835, that the great advantage of the words "suitable" and "sufficient" is that they are capable of a wide meaning. To that I reply that one man's flexibility is another man's uncertainty. That is the core of the reasoning behind my amendments.
Over the years, the advertising industry has acquired widespread respect for the way in which it has regulated itself and submitted to regulation in the case of broadcasting. I think that it is safe to say that very few political speeches would meet the standards of the Advertising Association or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Adverts are extremely expensive to make and no one in the advertising world would want to incur a great deal of expenditure on an advert which might ultimately fall foul of the regulator. For that reason, producers seek to pre-clear the scripts and treatment so that they know, before they commit to expenditure of what can often amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds, that the advert will be all right in terms of regulation.
The terms that the industry has become used to are very precise: "misleading", "offensive" and "harmful". While I concede that they were not set out in the 1990 Act, they have certainly been used in all the codes governing advertising control since then. Let me say in passing that the word "unsuitable" was not used in the 1990 Act either. We are concerned about the huge uncertainty that could arise as a result of the introduction of such a vague term, perhaps resulting in advertising campaigns falling foul of the regulator.
It is that very imprecision that is causing the bother. By chance I bumped into my noble friend Lord McIntosh a little earlier. He told me that a letter was on its way, but I have not yet received it. My noble friend was kind enough to show me the draft. I have read it and, while I do not wish to appear ungracious, if all we can do is seek a synonym for "unsuitable", that simply will not address the problem. It would be more honest for me to divide the House today than to save the matter for Third Reading. I do that with regret because I very much admire my noble friend for having

887
given ground over the past few days where it has been important to do so. The whole approach to the Bill has been transformed.
I am also grateful to him for allowing me to see the draft of his letter. However, no amount of searching through Roget's Thesaurus for a word other than "unsuitable" will help, especially if we substitute it with another vague term that would give Ofcom more power in a hitherto undefined form. I do not believe that that is going to be acceptable.
My noble friend's letter mentions that one of the problem areas might be the ban on certain categories, such as political advertising. He goes on to state that while,
"it may not be misleading, harmful or offensive in itself—
I believe that many noble Lords might question that— Ofcom must have the power to enforce such a ban. But the ban on certain categories of advertising is still in the Bill. There is no problem about that. I have done nothing to vitiate the position in any way.
A further problem we must deal with is scheduling. When I raised this matter in Committee, Ministers objected by saying that this might not catch scheduling that could affect the under 16 year-olds or children in general. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, intervened to point out that the commission had always interpreted "misleading, harmful or offensive" in terms of the audience which might be watching at the time. But I have gone further and tabled a second amendment, Amendment No. 183, which, in his letter, the Minister kindly acknowledges would meet the scheduling problem.
I have also weakened Amendment No. 182 to make it state not only "misleading, harmful or offensive", but,
"which may be misleading, harmful or offensive",
thus widening its scope to give Ofcom surer ground on which to defend itself against any advertiser who might unreasonably think that he had been ill treated.
I feel therefore that I must press these amendments today. Every noble Lord who spoke in the debate in Committee was in favour of them. They met with the approval of a former chairman of the Advertising Association, a former chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, with her long experience of broadcasting standards and, at the time—although I gather that it has been leant on since—the ITC. So we want to press ahead and try to settle the matter today. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I should inform the House that there is a misprint in the Marshalled List. The amendment proposed should read:
"Page 275, line 37, leave out "unsuitable advertising" and insert "advertising which may be misleading, harmful or offensive".
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in Committee the Government stated that they were keen for Ofcom to have a broad power to ban the advertising of certain products and services—some, no doubt, it could not know of in advance. The Government have indicated
888
that they want Ofcom to have that broad power in order to prevent the inappropriate and unsuitable scheduling of certain types of advertisement, say, around programmes aimed at children. Such concerns on the part of the Government are understandable, but to enable Ofcom to ban "unsuitable" advertising is, in the minds of supporters of the amendment, much too sweeping a power to give to any regulatory agency because it would become almost immune to challenge.
I hope that the Government will recognise that Amendments Nos. 182 and 183 are designed both to achieve the Government's own practical objectives and to introduce precision to the powers being given to Ofcom. As my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane indicated, the protection of persons aged under 18 is now mentioned specifically; so that particular worry has been dealt with. Moreover, the power to enable Ofcom to prevent advertising,
"which may be misleading, harmful or offensive",
should give Ofcom ample ability to do what the Government feel is needed, whether it be a power to ban advertisements for gun clubs and other examples that we know about or to ensure that adverts scheduled around children's programmes are adequately controlled. I support both amendments. I hope that the Government will feel able to do the same and accept them.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for faxing over to me at lunchtime today the letter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. I strongly support the amendment, to which both my name and that of my noble friend Lord Saatchi have been added. Notwithstanding our gratitude to the Minister for what he had to say in his letter, I too am not yet satisfied and feel that the matter should be pressed to a vote today. I shall set out the reasons.
As someone who was an advertising practitioner and lawyer, albeit some time ago, I have enormous sympathy with the concerns being expressed by the advertising industry about the sweeping terminology, "unsuitable advertising". First, what is unsuitable for one is not necessarily unsuitable for another. Advertising that is misleading, harmful or offensive embraces concrete and objective concepts. That is the difference.
Every time this issue has been raised during the passage of the Bill both in another place and in your Lordships' House, the legitimate concerns of the advertising industry have been, to be frank, rather cursorily and inadequately addressed by the Government. The Minister in another place said that the word "unsuitable" is needed to enable the regulator to ban the advertising of products such as tobacco. However, in the current environment I would be most surprised if the regulator was not able to prohibit the advertising of such products under the heading of "harmful". I believe that that word is used frequently in the warning on the front of cigarette

889
packets. Having given up smoking, I cannot remember, but I think that that is fair; I do not think that the cigarette packet would say "unsuitable".
The Minister also said that the word was needed to implement international obligations, in particular the "TV without frontiers" directive, but the need to take account of such obligations is specifically required in Clause 312(7). The Minister went on to say that the word was needed to implement the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, but so far as I can see the sections of that Act applicable to advertising already appear in the Bill.
In the debate on Second Reading in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, remarked that "unsuitable" simply means advertising that may be unsuitable for certain times and certain audiences and that it is similar to the current powers of the ITC. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that the word "unsuitable" was purposely broad and sweeping and went on to remark that none of the contributions from Peers in support of the amendment had commented in any way on the specific nature of broadcasting and the concept of the watershed. However, I do not think that that is quite true.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, made specific reference to the fact that the BSC had taken the timing of the broadcast and its audience into account and she backed the use of specific criteria such as Amendment No. 182 allows.
So many reasons have been given with so little clarity in giving them that it is no wonder there has been no resolution of this quite focused and technical issue. The Government have defended "unsuitable" with different reasons on different occasions—and on none of those occasions have they succeeded in reassuring the advertising industry that the clause represents a good basis for primary legislation on advertising.
It would appear that the problem has arisen because of the structure of the Bill. All the provisions of the 1990 Act are contained in the Bill, but the big difference is that in the Bill the provisions relating to advertising have to be interpreted against the standards objectives in Clause 312. So "unsuitable" is a "suitable" standards objective, say the Government, precisely because it is a catch-all word. "Misleading, harmful or offensive" are not suitable standards objectives because they may or may not exclude some things that the regulator may want to ban.
It has never been the intention of the advertising industry to restrict the scope of existing codes, which have worked well for the past 20 years. Nor was it the intention, of that I am sure, of the ITC and Radio Authority, both of whom supported the original amendment at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House. I know from my own experience in the advertising business that it is most important to encourage certainty in terms of the application of the rules.
890
The Minister's letter addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, referred to Section 93 of the Broadcasting Act in relation to radio and stated:
"Although the word 'unsuitable' does not appear, nor do the words 'misleading, harmful or offensive'".
In practice, everyone beyond your Lordships' House, in industry and across the whole media industry, understand the meaning of "misleading, harmful or offensive", and know the parameters, to a large extent, of how that fits in on a day-to-day basis.
I have a real problem with the word "unsuitable". I am grateful that in our negotiations we have encouraged the Minister to consider an alternative but I am not sufficiently assured not to press the amendment to a Division. It is our duty to support the interests of the industry and to confirm everything that we have said at every stage thus far in your Lordships' House.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I, too, find much that is persuasive in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. His amendment provides a clearer definition of the standards to which broadcast advertisers must adhere. It is akin to the standard required by the Advertising Standards Authority for non-broadcast advertisements.
The word "unsuitable" in this context is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, indicated, difficult to define. In my view, it is more difficult than the words "misleading, harmful or offensive". For example, in the advertising slots in and around children's programmes, adverts for the latest craze toys at Christmas time are no doubt very suitable from the viewpoint of the children watching but they may be highly unsuitable from the point of view of their parents.
Again taking the example of children's programmes, I am concerned that there are occasions when the advertising slots between pre-watershed programmes are used to advertise more adult pursuits and products and more adult television programmes. I know that there are commercial pressures on broadcasters but I should like an assurance that Ofcom will be watchful and strict about such matters and, indeed, about all matters relating to the enforcement of the watershed.
If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, I look to him to give a robust semantic defence of the word "unsuitable" to show that it is more appropriate here than "misleading, harmful or offensive"; that its meaning, as teased out by the Minister, will be carefully and firmly applied by Ofcom to uphold standards in this area rather than to let them drift; and that, in any case, misleading, harmful or offensive advertisements will be proscribed.
If the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, is intent on pressing his amendment to a Division, the Minister's response will help me to decide whether to support the Government or the noble Lord, Lord Gordon.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, who

891
has made an earnest attempt to meet the anxieties expressed by the Government at the Committee stage. As a former regulator with both the ASA and the IBA I find myself very uncomfortable with the broad and sweeping terminology currently contained in Clause 312(2)(g). The word "unsuitable" means different things to different people and in the debate so far we have not had enough comfort from the Government in terms of its precise meaning or purpose. I share the views of the right reverend Prelate in that regard.
An Act of Parliament should be drafted to leave as little room as possible for unintended interpretations by courts in the future. We know what we mean by "misleading, harmful or offensive", and have done so over many years. They are well tried terms which form the basis of the existing radio and television advertising codes.
I note from the Committee stage debate on 3rd June that the Government want the standards objective for advertising to be as broad as possible, to cover both undesirable product categories and inappropriate scheduling. I well understand their concern but, in my view, the new amendments would generally achieve both aims. "Harm" or "offence" can be used to apply to all kinds of things, including scheduling. For example, section 7.3.6 of the ITC code of advertising standards requires that appropriate timing restrictions be applied to advertisements which might harm or distress children or which would otherwise be unsuitable for them. This falls within the main section on "harm and distress" in Section 7.3 of the ITC code.
The Radio Authority has a similar requirement. Section 11 of its advertising and sponsorship code states that,
"advertisements likely to be heard by a significant number of children … must not include any material which might result in harm to them, whether physically, mentally or morally".
If the Government are going to persist with the word "unsuitable" as a standards objective for advertising they must produce good examples that would not be covered by "harm", "offence" or "misleading". In my experience, these terms have been usefully applied in a wide-ranging way by regulators to date. The words have been used very widely for a very long time and the self-regulation system of advertising standards has worked very well.
I am genuinely puzzled as to why the Government are resisting the amendment and making such heavy weather of it. I have not had the advantage of a letter from the Minister and so I cannot speak about that. We have more fundamental and serious matters to discuss at this stage of the Bill and I wonder why the Government are digging themselves in on this matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill before and I hope that your Lordships will not mind me saying that I find it very strange how the Government are talking themselves into the odd use of words. Only the other day the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, told us that, whatever our nationality, we must consider ourselves citizens if we
892
lived in this country rather than members of a community. That seems a rather refined way of using language.
The concept of suitability is subjective. The right reverend Prelate made the point that it depends on who you are and what you consider to he suitable. The amendment makes a very good attempt to be far clearer. We do not want a regulator to decide about the "suitability" of something when the word is so subjective. It would be better for him to decide whether something was "misleading, harmful or offensive" because they are much clearer concepts. I support the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, share the concern and puzzlement expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, as to why the Government should be digging in their toes about this. Everybody who has spoken and who spoke on the previous occasion felt that the three words in the amendment were far more indicative of what we were all talking about than the single word that the Minister preferred. Not only that hut, if I may say so, I think all three words give a concept to each one of the words used and help better to define the individual's interpretation.
I will repeat what I said last time. All the previous regulators took into account the timing of the programme, which is crucial, and I see no reason why that will not continue to happen. Obviously, at certain later times of the night things would be permitted which would not be permitted earlier or, rather, it would not be a question of finding against the advertiser. But a major problem is that adverts come upon you suddenly. Unlike the increasing encouragement to broadcasters to put warnings on their programmes, which are extremely effective in helping parents and others to decide whether to turn off, suddenly the adverts come on. That aspect needs to be taken very seriously.
Given all the things that have been said about combining the advertising standards approach and this amendment being the right way forward, I hope the Government will decide that they can change their mind.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the debate and the attempt to clarify an issue which has exercised the Government and to which we have attempted to respond as positively as possible. Let us be absolutely clear: there is no real difference of principle between the Government, the regulators and the industry about what we are seeking to achieve. However, I will develop my response in terms of indicating that we are not holding fast to the term "unsuitable" so I will not respond to the invitation from the right reverend Prelate to produce a robust definition of the word. That would take me rather longer than your Lordships would bear.
I shall indicate, as we sought to indicate in our letter to colleagues who were signatories to the amendment, that we were prepared for further discussion. But I shall resist the amendments because they will not improve the Bill. Therefore, they ought not to be

893
pressed to a vote this afternoon. I hope they are not, and, if they are, I hope noble Lords will recognise that the Government have reservations about the terms contained in them and are prepared to discuss the situation further prior to Third Reading.
The current advertising standards for broadcasting are generally considered effective, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and others said. There is, it seems clear, no desire to limit Ofcom's ability to address issues of public interest and public concern in the most effective way. The question is simply whether, on the one hand, the amendment would provide the necessary scope to Ofcom and, on the other, whether "unsuitable" is too broad a term which would open the way to mischievous pressure to ban advertising on flimsy grounds.
Let me make it absolutely clear, therefore, that the Government's policy from the outset has been that Ofcom should have the same scope to regulate broadcast advertising as the ITC and the Radio Authority. The current statutory scope has obviously been wide enough to accommodate the current codes. I emphasise that it is not the issue of what is in legislation that is the determinant of the effectiveness of Ofcom's operation; it is the code, where the necessary terms will appear, that we need to address. That is why, if the Bill becomes an Act, we need a term which is sufficiently broad for the code to have the flexibility, over time, to define itself with some precision according to the needs of our community. The concept must be wide enough to address any future concerns—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he agree, however, that in view of the impact on freedom of commercial speech that regulation has in the context of, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights, reasonable legal certainty has to be achieved, either on the face of the Bill or in a legally binding code? Is not the virtue of the amendment that it achieves greater legal certainty than the very vague word that is there?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says and treat it with respect, as I always do. But we consider that the term "harmful" in the amendment might well be open to the same problem of being difficult to define legally. If we relied upon "harmful" to deal with the watershed, we might have great difficulty in establishing the legal certainty of just how "harmful" a programme was in relation to whether it came before or after the watershed.
It was suggested in Committee that the three words in the amendment defined the current scope of the ITC
894
and Radio Authority powers. In fact, Section 9(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 specifies only this:
"It shall be the duty of the Commission—

(a) after the appropriate consultation, to draw up, and from time to time review, a code—

(i) governing standards and practice in advertising …

(ii) prescribing the advertisements and methods of advertising … to be prohibited, or to be prohibited in particular circumstances; and

(b) to do all that they can to secure that the provisions of the code are observed in the provision of licensed services".

Similar provisions apply to radio. There is no mention of the three words in this amendment. The statute gives the current regulators the widest discretion. I repeat: the words "misleading, harmful or offensive"—which I recognise have had their value in the code with regard to regulation in recent years—are not the basis of broadcast advertising regulation in the parent 1990 Act.
However, as in the 1990 Act, the Bill provides for the development of a code after consultation. It is the code which provides the clear rules and the regulatory certainty which is necessary. The three words in the amendment appear in the current codes which will be inherited by Ofcom. They could continue to form the core of any new codes developed by Ofcom or a co-regulatory body. As my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane indicated in Committee, these words have indeed provided some regulatory certainty for a number of years. Nothing in the Bill prevents them from continuing to form the core of Ofcom's codes, but they do not necessarily justify all that is in the codes. That has not needed to be tested because the statute does not limit the codes to "misleading, harmful or offensive" matters.
We therefore cannot he confident that these words would provide a sufficiently secure basis for the regulation of broadcast advertising. If the amendment were accepted, Ofcom could he subject to challenge if it could not prove that the advertisement was "misleading, harmful or offensive" ultimately to the satisfaction of a court.
Our policy, therefore, is to roll forward the wide scope of the 1990 Act, with detailed rules set out in a code produced, of course, after wide consultation. I can assure the House that the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority have discussed these provisions within the department. They recognise the need for the wide scope of the 1990 Act and fully support the Government's policy of rolling that forward in the Bill.
I accept that we need to discuss the word "unsuitable" further, and we are prepared to have discussions with colleagues before Third Reading. However, I should explain why it appears in the Bill. It is because the Bill is structured differently from the 1990 Act. It sets out the high-level principles applying to broadcasting standards. These apply to advertisements in the same way as they apply to programmes.
Clause 312(2)(g) effectively answers the question: what is Ofcom's particular duty in relation to advertising standards? All Ofcom's responsibility for

895
advertising, whether specified in national or international legislation, must be consistent with that duty. Further detail specific to advertising is provided at Clauses 314 and 315. So, for example, the ban on political advertising, specifically provided for in Clause 314, must be within the scope of the provision of Clause 312. Such advertisements may not be misleading, harmful or offensive but, as Ministers have tried to explain at previous stages, we believe that there are good reasons for maintaining the ban on political advertisements. That is one example of why we are obliged to draw the statute widely. A similar example is the distinction between radio programming and advertising. Listeners must be aware when they are hearing a commercial promotion rather than programming. That would not fall within the terms of the amendment. Other examples have been mentioned in previous debates.
The point has also been made that "unsuitable" might be misinterpreted by interest groups, but that is the problem with "harm" too. If it were to have the wide meaning necessary to maintain even the current levels of regulation, it would be open to the same challenge. But the regulator cannot regulate advertising on a whim. The current statutory provisions provide full regulatory flexibility, but the regulator has to come to a reasoned and defensible view on what should or should not be allowed. That is tested in the statutory consultation on the specific provisions of a draft code. The Bill's provisions require exactly the same and make it no easier than now for the regulator to act on inadequate evidence.
However, we are prepared to consider alternative ways in which to achieve the policy, which is not one of a clash of principles. We want to ensure that we have the chance to discuss matters further. I cannot promise to succeed hut we shall certainly examine whether there is any scope to make further progress.
In summary, the draft Bill simply places the current statutory scope for broadcast advertising regulation within the new structures of standards objectives. It provides for clear regulatory rules to be defined in codes so that industry has regulatory certainty and knows where it stands. It provides a robust base for current standards to be rolled forward and for flexibility to address future concerns so that viewers' and listeners' interests are safeguarded. The amendments would not achieve that.
For those who take the view of the right reverend Prelate that there are anxieties about the Government's position as enshrined in the Bill, we are prepared to have further discussion. However, we do not believe that the case has been made by those who have presented the arguments for the amendments today. We shall seek to make progress on the matter.
In presenting the amendments, my noble friend Lord Gordon asked whether the Government were offering some attempt to produce a synonym for
896
"unsuitable". He will recognise that I have shied away from that invitation, which was reinforced by the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, the invitation still stands, and if the Minister wishes to respond to it, I am sure that your Lordships would be most interested to hear him.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the renewal of the invitation, but I shall resist it for the second time. We are not seeking a synonym for "unsuitable"; we are seeking to ensure that the Bill does not offer a peg for lobby groups to demand inappropriate advertising bans. We are trying to ensure that the Bill has the breadth to create the opportunities for the codes to be specific but also to guard against mischievous activity in those terms.
My noble friend Lord Borrie said that the problem with the phrase "unsuitable" was that it would be unchallengeable in court, but that is not so. The specific regulatory rules must appear in any code that we produce under the legislation—a code developed after the fullest consultation. Those specific rules, rather than the breadth of the legislation, must be robust against the challenge, provided that the legislation has a proper basis for the development of the code.
I apologise to noble Lords for taking so long over my reply, but interesting points were raised and the Government are seeking to achieve a solution on the basis of consensus. However, we cannot accept the amendment and I ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing it.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I have considered withdrawing, but I have rejected the option because there is still a gulf in this matter. The Minister's letter suggests that the Government want to continue the current situation. It is certainly true that my words do not appear in the 1990 Act, but neither does "unsuitable". It simply gives the ITC and the Radio Authority an obligation to draw up a code—it says nothing beyond that. My words have the advantage of being in the current codes. Therefore, although I fully concede that even my words are very subjective—after all, one could argue about the meaning of "harmful" and "offensive"—they are slightly more precise than either "unsuitable" or any other single portmanteau word designed to give Ofcom wider powers than the current codes give it.
My feeling is that the advertising industry has grown up with the term, "misleading, harmful or offensive", knows how to interpret it and how not to offend against it. More importantly, the regulators know how to apply it. Why trade certainty, which has produced good regulation and self-regulation in the past 20 years of the industry, for something that manifestly produces uncertainty?
I do not want to appear ungracious, and I am grateful to the Minister for his letter and his offer to talk, but I have a feeling that we are not going to get

897
anywhere. We shall simply overcrowd Third Reading, which will already feature quite a few postponed Divisions. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
3.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 182) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Addington, L.

Hooper, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hooson, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howe, E.

Attlee, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Avebury, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Barker, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hylton, L.

Biffen, L.

Jacobs, L.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Borrie, L.

Jopling, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Kimball, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Kingsland, L.

Bridges, L.

Laird, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Laming, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lindsay, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Buscombe, B.

Liverpool, E.

Byford, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Luke, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carrington, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

Chalfont, L.

Chan, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Chorley, L.

McNally, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Maddock, B.

Coe, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mar, C.

Cox, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Marsh, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Methuen, L.

Cuckney, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Denham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dholakia, L.

Mishcon, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Elles, B.

Moser, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L,

Elton, L.

Moynihan, L.

Ezra, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Falkland, V.

Naseby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newby, L.

Flather, B.

Noakes, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Northesk, E.

Glentoran, L.

Northover, B.

Goodhart, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L. [Teller]

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Onslow, E.

Greaves, L.

Palmer, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Patel, L.

Hamwee, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Peel, E.

Higgins, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

898

Portsmouth, Bp.

Southwark, Bp.

Rawlings, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Razzall, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Redesdale, L.

Taverne, L.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L. [Teller]

Russell, E.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Saatchi, L.

Trefgarne, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sandberg, L.

Truro, Bp.

Ullswater, V.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Vivian, L

Seccombe, B.

Waddington, L.

Sharman, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Wakeham, L.

Sharples, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Walmsley, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Warnock, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ahmed, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Alli, L.

Harrison, L.

Ampthill, L.

Haskel, L.

Andrews, B.

Haskins, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hayman, B.

Bach, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Barnett, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bhatia, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bragg, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brett, L.

Jeger, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jones, L.

Brookman, L.

Judd, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carter, L.

Lea of Crondall.L.

Christopher, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

David, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Manchester, Bp.

Desai, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dixon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Parekh, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Pendry, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Filkin, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gale, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Rea, L.

Golding, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Richard, L.

Goudie, B.

Rix, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rooker, L.

899

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Sheldon, L.

Thornton, B.

Simon, V.

Turnberg, L.

Slim, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Warner, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Stallard, L.

Whitty, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Strange, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.10 p.m.
Clause 314 [Objectives for advertisements and sponsorship]:
Lord Gordon of Strathblanemoved Amendment No. 183:
Page 277, line 45, leave out "312(2)(g)" and insert "312(2)(a), (g)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 330 [Promotion of equal opportunities and training]:
[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 184A:
Page 290, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) The conditions imposed by virtue of this section may include provision for treating obligations to make the arrangements mentioned in subsections (1) to (3), or to do anything mentioned in subsection (4), as discharged where a member of a group of companies to which the licence holder belongs—

(a) has made the required arrangements in relation to employment with the licence holder; or

(b) has done anything required by subsection (4) in relation to those arrangements."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 184A, I wish to speak also to the other government amendments with which it is grouped.
This group of government amendments fulfils the commitment that we gave in Committee to consider Amendment No. 271A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The aim of that amendment was to ensure that the equal opportunities and training requirements set out in Clause 330 apply to companies which, while individually small, are part of a much larger group of companies.
Clause 330 requires Ofcom to impose conditions in Broadcasting Act licences for services to which the clause applies that oblige licence holders to make arrangements for promoting sex and race equality and fair treatment for disabled people and for training.
In response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, we announced last week that we would change the current references to fair treatment for disabled people to the more up-to-date term of "equalisation of opportunities".
The conditions in Clause 330 currently apply to a service if (a) the licence holder employs more than the threshold number of people—currently 20—in connection with providing his service and (b) in any year the service is provided for more than the threshold number of days, which is currently 31.
Both those threshold arrangements are intended to avoid imposing disproportionate burdens on small companies. However, there is a potential loophole in that, as drafted, the requirements of Clause 330 would not apply to companies that, while individually small, were part of a much larger group of companies. We propose to address that issue by allowing for the numbers of staff employed across a group of companies or a range of services to be aggregated. In particular, as well as being satisfied when a single licence holder employs more than 20 staff in connection with broadcasting services, the threshold will also be met if the licence holder is in a group of companies that together employ more than 20 staff in that connection. That is achieved principally by Amendment No. 184D, by the new definition of "licensed service" in Amendment No. 184E and by the definition of "a group of companies" in Amendment No. 184G.
Two companies are in a group if, for instance, one controls the other or both are controlled by a third company. The definition of "control" set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 applies for this purpose. However, it is staff employed only in connection with broadcasting who are counted. Employees who are not engaged in broadcasting activities are not counted.
These amendments also cater for the case of a single company that provides more than one service. All staff employed in connection with any of the services are counted. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in Committee I tabled an amendment which attempted to close the particular loophole to which the Minister referred. I am very grateful to him for meeting the commitment made on that occasion that suitable government amendments would be tabled. I am wholly satisfied with what has been done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 184B to 184G:
Page 290, line 31, leave out from beginning to "employs" in line 34 and insert—
"(b) the requirements of both subsections (6) and (6A) are satisfied in the case of that service.
(6) The requirements of this subsection are satisfied in the case of a service provided by a person if—
(a) that person"
Page 290, line 35, leave out "persons" and insert "individuals."
Page 290, line 36, leave out from "or to "on" in line 3S and insert "licensed services; or
(b) the threshold number is exceeded by the aggregate number of individuals who are, or are likely to be, employed in that connection by members of a group of companies comprising that person and one or more other bodies corporate.
(6A) The requirements of this subsection are satisfied in the case of a service if the licence authorising the provision of that service authorises either that service or another service authorised by that licence to be provided"
Page 290, line 43, at end insert—
""licensed service", in relation to an employee or likely employee of a person, means a service the provision of which—

(a) by that person, or

(b) by a body corporate which is a member of the same group of companies as that person,

is authorised by a Broadcasting Act licence;"
Page 291, line 1, leave out "persons" and insert "individuals"
Page 291, line 2, at end insert—
"(7A) For the purposes of this section a person is a member of a group of companies to which a person licensed to provide a service belongs if, and only if, both of them are bodies corporate and either—

(a) one of them is controlled by the other; or

(b) both of them are controlled by the same person.

(7B) In subsection (7A) "controlled" has the same meaning as in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 184B to 184G en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Corresponding obligations of the BBC and Welsh Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 187:
Page 402, line 43, leave out from "under" to end of line 45 and insert "the BBC Charter and Agreement"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
Schedule 13 [Financial penalties under the Broadcasting Acts]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 188A:
Page 424, line 14, after second "to" insert "television multiplex services and general"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 188A, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 188B to 188H, 213A, 213B, 216A to 216D and 241C. As we know, digital radio is becoming more and more popular but it is also available on digital television, although I cannot seem to get it on my freeserve.
In licensing terms this means that a television multiplex service or general multiplex can carry digital radio services. That is provided for in the Bill. Some consequential amendments were necessary to ensure that the penalties for contraventions relating to digital radio programmes services take into account the services carried on a general multiplex or on a TV multiplex as well as those carried on a national radio
902
multiplex. Some of the amendments necessary to achieve that are already contained in the Bill but it has been brought to our attention that others need to be made, and these amendments complete the picture. They also make minor corrections to amendments in Schedules 13 to 15 of the Bill that for television already achieve the necessary extension of the basis on which penalties are calculated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 188B to 188H:
Page 424, line 38, after second "to" insert "television multiplex services and general"
Page 426, line 32, leave out "national radio multiplex revenue" and insert "relevant multiplex services"
Page 426, line 41, leave out from "revenue" to "is" in line 44 and insert—
"(a) attributable to a person in relation to national radio multiplex services,"
Page 427, line 1, leave out "in any other case" and insert "attributable to a person in relation to television multiplex services or general multiplex services"
Page 427, line 19, leave out "national radio multiplex revenue" and insert "relevant multiplex services"
Page 427, line 31, leave out from "revenue" to "is" in line 34 and insert—
"(a) attributable to a person in relation to national radio multiplex services,"
Page 427, line 36, leave out "in any other case" and insert "attributable to a person in relation to general multiplex services"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 188J:
After Clause 339, insert the following new clause—
"STATEMENT OF CHARGING PRINCIPLES
(1) OFCOM are not to fix a tariff under section 4(3) or 87(3) of the 1990 Act or under section 4(3) or 43(3) of the 1996 Act (tariffs for fees payable under Broadcasting Act licences for recovering OFCOM's costs) unless—

(a) at the time they do so, there is in force a statement of the principles that OFCOM are proposing to apply in fixing that tariff; and

(b) the tariff is fixed in accordance with those principles.

(2) Those principles must be such as appear to OFCOM to be likely to secure, on the basis of such estimates of the likely costs that it is practicable for them to make—

(a) that the aggregate amount of the Broadcasting Act licence fees that are required to be paid to OFCOM during a financial year is sufficient to enable them to meet, but does not exceed, the cost to them of the carrying out during that year of their functions relating to the regulation of broadcasting;

(b) that the requirement imposed by virtue of paragraph (a) is satisfied by the application to such fees of tariffs that are justifiable and proportionate to the matters in respect of which they are imposed; and

(c) that the relationship between meeting the cost of carrying out those functions and the tariffs applied to such fees is transparent.

(3) Before making or revising a statement of principles OFCOM must consult such of the persons who, in OFCOM's opinion, are likely to be affected by those principles as they think fit.
(4) The making or revision of a statement of principles for the purposes of this section has to be by the publication of the statement, or revised statement, in such manner as OFCOM consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons who, in their opinion, are likely to be affected by it.
(5) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, OFCOM must publish a statement setting out, for that year—

(a) the aggregate amount received by them during that year in respect of Broadcasting Act licence fees required to be paid during that year;

(b) the aggregate amount outstanding and likely to be paid or recovered in respect of Broadcasting Act licence fees that are required to be so paid; and

(c) the cost to OFCOM of the carrying out during that year of their functions relating to the regulation of broadcasting.

(6) Any deficit or surplus shown (after applying this subsection for all previous years) by a statement under subsection (5) shall be—

(a) carried forward; and

(b) taken into account in determining what is required to satisfy the requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (2)(a) in relation to the following year.

(7) References in this section to OFCOM's functions relating to the regulation of broadcasting do not include references to any of their functions in relation to the BBC or the Welsh Authority.
(8) In this section—
"Broadcasting Act licence fee" means a fee required to be paid to OFCOM in pursuance of conditions included in a Broadcasting Act licence under any of the following provisions—

(a) section 4(1)(b) or 87(1)(c) of the 1990 Act; or

(b) section 4(1)(b) or 43(1)(c) of the 1996 Act;

"financial year" means a period of twelve months ending with 31st March."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 188J, I wish to speak also to government Amendments Nos. 210A, 210B, 213ZA, 216ZA, 226B, 238ZA, 238ZB. 241A and 241B.
During the consideration of the Bill in Committee, a number of amendments were tabled regarding the funding of Ofcom. One of those amendments, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, Lord Puttnam, Lord McNally and Lord Hussey of North Bradley, was designed to provide that administrative charges set under the broadcasting legislation should be set in accordance with clear principles and relate only to functions related to broadcasting.
In responding to that amendment I made clear that it has been our general approach that the costs of sectoral regulation should be borne by those who are regulated and I indicated that the Government would consider tabling provisions which would introduce a statement of charging principles for broadcasting comparable to that for networks and services. Therefore, I should now like to speak to the amendments which are designed to give effect to such a statement of principles.
First, Amendment No. 188J will require Ofcom to have in place a statement of the principles which it proposes to apply in fixing tariffs for licence fees payable under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 and for any such tariff to be fixed in accordance with those principles.
Those principles must be likely to secure that the aggregate amount of Broadcasting Act licence fees required to be paid to Ofcom in any financial year is sufficient to enable it to meet, but does not exceed, the costs to Ofcom of carrying out its functions in relation to the regulation of broadcasting during that year. The tariffs which apply to such fees must be justifiable and proportionate to the matters to which they are imposed and there should be a transparent relationship between the costs of carrying out those functions and the tariffs applied to such fees.
Subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause would require that, before making or revising any statement of principles, Ofcom consults anyone it considers likely to be affected by it. Ofcom would also have to publish any statement of principles or revisions to it in such a way as to bring it to the attention of anyone likely to be affected.
In addition, under subsections (5) and (6) of the proposed new clause, Ofcom will have to publish a statement after the end of each financial year setting out the aggregate amount of Broadcasting Act licence fees received by it that year, the aggregate amount of Broadcasting Act licence fees remaining outstanding and likely to be paid or recovered, and the cost to Ofcom of carrying out its functions in relation to broadcasting during that year. Any deficit or surplus would then be carried forward by Ofcom and taken into account in determining the amount required in the following year.
As it is not the intention that the costs associated with Ofcom's regulation of the BBC and the Welsh Authority should be borne by other broadcasters, subsection (7) of the proposed new clause specifically excludes Ofcom's functions in relation to the regulation of the BBC and the Welsh Authority. Of course, there are provisions in Clauses 195(4) and 204(6) that enable Ofcom to charge the BBC and Welsh Authority for the costs of carrying out their functions associated with their regulation. The proposed new clause will ensure that broadcasters have a similar comfort to that given to the providers of networks and services as a result of the electronic communications directives—that the costs that they will be charged by Ofcom will be only in relation to the regulation of their particular sector.
Of course, there was concern about general issues on the funding of Ofcom. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, raised issues on that about which he sought assurance. Although I do not think that they need to be addressed through provisions in the Bill, I want to respond to the thrust of his points.
The first related to the general costs of Ofcom, for which it will not be able to make a charge on the providers of networks and services or where such costs are not clearly referable to the regulation of a particular sector. As I made clear in responding to the earlier debate, the Government have always recognised that there would be such costs, mainly due to restrictions put in place by the authorisation directive, and that, where they clearly cannot be

905
covered by other means, the costs will be covered by payment of grant from the Exchequer. I am pleased to give that assurance to the House again.
One area of particular concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, related to the funding of Ofcom's competition functions under Part 5. The House will be aware that the general principle applied to regulators in other sectors operating with similar concurrent powers has been that the cost of investigations under those powers should be borne by the relevant sector. In the case of Ofcom, the effect of the authorisation directive is to rule out such charges being made in relation to networks and services. That will mean that, where such costs are incurred by Ofcom in relation to networks and services, they will have to be met by the Exchequer.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, also sought further assurance that, should Ofcom have substantial legal costs or damages awarded against it by the courts, the Government would support Ofcom and underpin those costs. Again, in responding, I indicated that that would indeed be the case. The matter is not unusual to Ofcom. For example, the consideration is central to the funding of the Office of Fair Trading, which carries an equal uncertainty about the outcome of its investigations. Of course, Ofcom would need to consider the possible consequences of any action that it may undertake and the risks associated with them, including the financial risk, and make appropriate provision in its budgets to bear such risk. However, we would not want Ofcom to be in a position in which it was deterred from taking the necessary action because of fears of the possible financial consequences of losing a legal challenge to its decisions.
Therefore, given the difficulty of forecasting litigation costs, where Ofcom has acted perfectly reasonably but finds that it has large and unavoidable increases in legal costs or damages awarded against it that it could not reasonably have predicted and cannot meet by other needs, it would be necessary for it to make the case for support to be provided from the Exchequer. I am therefore happy to assure the House again that, in such circumstances, the Government would consider access to the reserve.
Amendments Nos. 210A, 210B, 213ZA, 216ZA, 226B, 238ZA, 238ZB, 241A and 241B are minor consequential changes resulting from the provisions in the proposed new clause. Amendment No. 226B makes paragraph 8(1) of the schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002, relating to Ofcom finances, consistent with the proposed new clause. Amendments Nos. 210A, 210B, 213ZA, 216ZA, 238ZA, 238ZB, 241A and 241B make consequential amendments and repeals in Sections 4 and 87 of the 1990 Act and Sections 4 and 43 of the 1996 Act. I also need to draw attention to Amendments Nos. 216ZA and 241B, which correct an unconnected amendment in Section 43(2)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1996,
906
consequential on the transfer of the Secretary of State's spectrum management functions to Ofcom, which had been missed previously. I beg to move.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment No. 224A, which is grouped with this set of government amendments. Before doing so, I should tell the Minister that, although I did not understand everything that he said on the amendments, I felt a sense of reassurance, particularly when it came to the financing of Ofcom.
Amendment No. 224A has two purposes. First, it welcomes Clause 394 and the obligation that it places on Ofcom. Secondly, it ensures that the objectives of the clause are achieved as early as possible in the life of what will then be the Act.
Noble Lords will appreciate that Clause 394 sets out a principle which has worked successfully in broadcasting. It is that Ofcom's function of collecting, on behalf of the Treasury, the economic rent from the use of the airwaves should be separate from the process of funding Ofcom itself. Once the system envisaged by that clause comes into effect, it will allow Ofcom to retain that part of the sums paid to it for use of the spectrum, which is required to cover Ofcom's costs of carrying out the functions relating to the use of the airwaves. To do that, Ofcom will be required to publish a statement of principles authorising the retention of the sums paid to it.
When in operation, Clause 394 will therefore reinforce the independent status of Ofcom, and free it from the need for direct government funding for the purposes of activities relating to the use of the spectrum. The clause as drafted, however, is silent about when all that must start to happen. I am keen to ensure that Clause 394 is brought into operation speedily, to establish the independence of Ofcom. The proposed amendment seeks to ensure that Ofcom institutes the new arrangements as early as possible. I hope that the noble Lord can reassure me that, if he cannot accept Amendment No. 244A, he will try to make such provisions go through.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I thank the Minister. It is an extraordinarily generous and full decision by the Government to address what were very real problems. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, first raised them in Committee more than a year ago, and has gnawed away at the bone. I find it quite interesting that, with no sound and fury, we are about to pass what may end up as the most important single amendment for the future life of Ofcom. It is a relatively small child entering a very big playground with a lot of tough kids in it. That the Government have been prepared to put their arm around that child and see it through to maturity is a very important step. Were I the noble Lord, Lord Currie, I would regard this as the most significant concession that the Government have given. I am truly grateful.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, will welcome the concession. I want to highlight and welcome the more general

907
point that the Minister made about the funding of Ofcom. He will recall that, when Ofcom was set up, there was a general assumption that the bringing together of five regulators into one would bring savings with it, and that Ofcom would be a leaner beast. I understand that, during the Bill's passage through Parliament, 53 new responsibilities have been given to Ofcom. All that I ask the Minister is to keep an eye on his colleagues in the Treasury, and make sure that they do not go candle-end saving. We want an Ofcom that works, and Parliament is willing to pay for that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would refrain from placing more obligations on Ofcom and undertake to do that during the remainder of the passage of the Bill, both the Treasury and I would be very happy. I am grateful for what has been said, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, but I need also to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and the point is slightly complex.
Let me explain the system for Ofcom recovering the cost of carrying out its spectrum functions. Spectrum payments are made for the use of a scarce national resource, and prices are generally set using either auctions or by reference to spectrum management considerations, not in relation to the cost of regulation. Payments can be regarded as fair recompense for a resource that is a public asset and is, rightly, income for the Exchequer.
Clause 393 requires amounts received by Ofcom under the Wireless Telegraphy Act to be paid to the Consolidated Fund. In practice, an administrative arrangement will be put in place between Ofcom and the Treasury to allow the requisite amount needed to meet the cost of Ofcom carrying out its spectrum functions to be taken out of those moneys and appropriated to Ofcom. So that Ofcom can have similar arrangements for each of its main income streams, Ofcom has indicated that it would eventually like to move to a new system in which it could retain sufficient amounts from the payments made under the Wireless Telegraphy Act to meet the costs of carrying out its spectrum functions. Under the new arrangement, Ofcom would make a statement of principles, which would be approved by the Treasury, setting out the basis on which it would calculate the costs of carrying out its spectrum functions and retain the necessary amounts. Clause 394 would therefore allow those new arrangements to be put in place.
Ofcom intends to move to the new regime as soon as practicable but, realistically, it is unlikely to be able to do so before 2005. There will be further discussion between Ofcom and the Treasury to settle the detail of how the system would work before it was possible for it to be introduced. Indeed, Clause 394(10) requires the Treasury to give its consent before a statement of principles, which is required under the clause, can be made, revised or withdrawn.
Clause 394 provides the legal mechanism for bringing the new system into force. When that further work has been done, I am sure that Ofcom will want to start the discussions as soon as it can but I do not
908
believe that it would be appropriate to place a deadline on it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, will therefore not press the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, I am grateful for that reply, which I will study carefully. If he could use his good offices to ensure that that is done as quickly as possible, I should certainly be content.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is in everyone's interest that that should be done. I hope that the amendment will be agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Puttnammoved Amendment No. 189:
Before Clause 340, insert the following new clause—
"MEDIA PLURALITY PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATION
(1) Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) (specified considerations) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2B) (which is inserted by section 368 of this Act) there shall be inserted—
"(2C) The public interest in the promotion and maintenance—

(a) of a plurality of media owners committed to a balanced and impartial presentation of news and to a balanced presentation of comment, and

(b) of a wide range of voices such as to satisfy a variety of tastes and interests

is specified in this section."
(3) In subsection (3), after the words "any consideration", there shall be inserted "(other than the consideration specified in subsection (2C))"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 190, 191, 192, 199A, 222B and 222C.
I know that I speak for all members of the Joint Scrutiny Committee in this House and another place. I received this morning an Early-Day Motion signed by all six Commons members of that committee supporting the amendment. More particularly, I spoke this morning to the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, who I always felt was the conscience of our committee. He asked me to apologise to the House for the fact that he is unable to join us, having only just returned home from hospital. I know that the House will join me in wishing the noble Lord a speedy recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, when we completed our report, the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, made it clear that he regarded the "public interest plurality test" as the most important and far-reaching of all our recommendations. During our telephone conversation this morning, he asked me to tell the House that, having had almost a year in which to reflect and review dispassionately developments in the media, he has slightly changed his mind. He now regards the amendment as twice as important as he did then!

909
In the statement accompanying the publication of our report on Wednesday, 31st July 2002, the Joint Scrutiny Committee said:
"At the heart of our conclusions and recommendations about media ownership is the proposal for a new plurality test to be used in connection with mergers and takeovers across all media. We hope that this recommendation will stimulate an important and timely debate".
Little did we know how right we were.
For us, the legislation rested on three vital pillars. The first was that the citizens' interests were paramount in respect of the provision of content and information; we dealt with that last Monday, when the House made its view overwhelmingly clear. The second was that Ofcom was sufficiently well resourced to withstand attack from the biggest beasts in the jungle and was able to slug it out on equal terms in respect of firepower and expertise. We dealt with that a few moments ago. The third was that a plurality test should be introduced that was sufficient to look across all media and make determinations in the best interests of the citizen. Those were, if you like, the three non-negotiables.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made the most interesting and concrete contribution to our discussions on the plurality test. I will repeat some of his comments. He said:
"I believe that the same sort of consideration which influenced people concerned with democracy in the 1960s in relation to the press now justifies a stricter control over cross-media mergers that is applicable to other goods and services. Amendment No. 280A"—
now renumbered as Amendment No. 189—
"proposes a reporting role by the Office of Fair Trading. It proposes that by amending the Enterprise Act, the Competition Commission, when faced with a reference concerning cross-media ownership, would be concerned not just with economic matters but with the much wider concern for plurality and diversity in the media.
"The Government claim … that a Competition Commission involvement in such cross-media mergers would lead to uncertainty. Indeed it would. One cannot deny that during a period of a reference there must be uncertainty as to the outcome—otherwise what would be the point of the reference? However, I would suggest that that is a small price to pay for ensuring a free and diverse media. Once ownership is changed, it is exceedingly difficult to revert to square one; the damage may have been done".—[Official Report, 5/6/03; col. 1437.]
I have nothing to add to the thoroughness of those remarks, beyond saying that they possibly lay the ghost once and for all that the provision of information within the media is anything but the sale of widgets.
There has been a terrifying situation for a number of years in which the media are seen as just another business. They are not just another business. There has been a great deal of confusion, which I will illustrate. The honourable Member of Parliament for Maldon and Chelmsford East said in today's Financial Times that,
"the plurality test undermined the government's desire to relax the laws governing the media.
910
"The whole thrust of the communications bill is to liberalise the rules on ownership. A plurality test erects another obstacle in the way of takeovers within the media sector".
I am puzzled by that because in last Friday's Guardian, the honourable gentleman was quoted as saying:
"My view is that a plurality test has some merit, but it is very difficult to define. I would rather the test applied across the board, however, than just to certain companies".
It is absolutely clear that the test is designed specifically to apply across the board; otherwise, frankly, there would be very little point in pressing the amendment.
It has been possible at times during the endless discussions surrounding the clause to believe that the Bill is something of a "luvvies' charter", as it was put to me. During the earlier and noisier stages of an orchestrated appeal to the hearts and minds, we were lured on by the promise of access to high-quality US programming. The same six or seven titles were trotted out—always, I found, starting and ending with "The West Wing".
It is interesting to note that at last week's congressional hearings on media ownership, one Congressman typified the current output of programming from America's commercial media as "The Axis of Drivel", referring to the preponderance of look-alike reality programmes on so many broadcast and cable channels, and so little substance in news reporting and public interest programming. The truth is that television in this country has always enjoyed a greater variety and diversity of output than has ever been genuinely available in the United States. It is rather odd that in recent years, modesty seems not to have allowed us to trumpet that fact!
Another Member of Congress at the same session, Mr Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, was thoroughly unimpressed when a broadcast lobbyist, testifying before his committee, insisted that there was no need for regulations regarding ownership because there were, after all, in America more choices, more channels and more voices in the media landscape than ever before. "Yes", Mr Dorgan replied,
"more voices but only one ventriloquist".
Much has been made in the past few weeks of the underlying rationale of the amendment. I have heard it referred to as the "Murdoch clause"; it has even been described as something that attempts to demonise sections of the media. That is not and never has been the case. The Secretary of State was entirely right in insisting that the Bill and the amendment were entirely "proprietor neutral". It is more to do, as I see it, with attempting to make our democracy proprietor neutral.
In view of the change occurring today in the presidency of the European Union, it seems entirely appropriate to look at what we are trying to protect against in that context. It is what I see as a drift in media ownership and a drift in the relationship between media ownership and, as it were, a census of power. We have spoken at length about the Bill being "future-proof'', because the situation that we face is not current. I can well envisage a time, 10 years from

911
now, when I, among others, may say, "Come back, Rupert, all is forgiven", and we shall look upon today as the golden age of media plurality.
I want to talk about something a little more serious. In Prospect magazine of January 2003, John Lloyd wrote briefly about the government of Silvio Berlusconi. He said that it is,
"an affront to the democratic values which the nations of the European Union affirm as their most precious heritage. It ruthlessly manipulates the large majority it gained in both Houses of Parliament in the election of spring 2001 to pass legislation tailored for the Prime Minister's commercial benefit. It controls almost all of the nation's television channels. It is, in many respects, comparable with governments of post-Soviet states. Most worryingly, Berlusconi's form of politics may be showing us our own future.
Italy has often been in the vanguard of history. Berlusconi has brought to democratic government another novelty—a populist videocracy. Berlusconi symbolises the logic of modern media politics. He focuses on the present and on presentation. Contradictions disappear down a memory hole. It is a kind of soft version of 1984, where everything that is asserted now is true, and is capable at any time in the future of being declared false—or just forgotten.
The vast and delusive power of television is now linked to a politician who has shown that he has few scruples in its use. It may also be prompting other would-be tribunes of the people to think that they too can, with impunity, unite media and political power into one party or one person. Berlusconi in power is a danger to a great country, a danger to Europe's proclaimed ideas and a danger to a world in which the media have 'wrapped themselves around public life', and may, in the end, strangle it".
That is what the amendment attempts to achieve. It is a move towards making the "Berlusconi-isation" of British democracy an impossibility. That is what the issue over our future-proofing of the Bill is all about. The amendment is no luvvies' charter—far from it. Achieving a rigorous public interest plurality test is something that this House as a whole can, in my judgment, be very proud of.
In moving the amendment, I must put the following to the Minister. If the Government indicate today their intention to move amendments at Third Reading to extend the relevant Enterprise Act provisions to cover media plurality, 1 hope that my noble friend will be able to answer the following specific questions. First, can he give the House an assurance that such provisions will be brought into force before, or at the same time as, the lifting of restrictions on media ownership contained in the Bill? Secondly, can he indicate whether or not it is intended that the Secretary of State's powers of intervention under Sections 59 to 66 of the Enterprise Act will extend to the media plurality provisions, and, if not, why not? With my heart very slightly in my mouth, but full of hope, I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, a number of people have suggested to me that it would help the House if I intervened now. I have no wish to curtail debate and certainly, with the leave of the House, I wish to respond before my noble friend Lord Puttnam concludes the debate. But I have things to say which I hope will be found helpful.
912
I want to deal, first, with the amendments before us and then make it clear that, although we cannot accept them in their current form, we nevertheless accept the principle behind them. I then want to outline our own plans to bring forward amendments for consideration at Third Reading.
I shall start with the amendments that we are discussing. We are supportive of the principle behind them that essentially we should safeguard plurality and diversity, or "the public voice", as my noble friend Lord Puttnam described it. But I have to be negative for a moment and say that we have grave doubts about the way that the drafting does not appear to distinguish adequately between broadcast media and newspapers.
We fear that the amendments would blur the distinction between the two in a way that would be damaging to both. For example, Amendment No. 189 refers to the need for "a wide range of voices". The word "voices" is further defined as,
"views and opinions represented to a significant degree in the media",
rather than any sense of diversity as such. That confuses broadcast media, where there is already strong content regulation, with the print media, where there is none. The concept of "views and opinions" is completely alien to broadcast media. All licensed broadcasters are already required by law to ensure that news—1 quote from Clause 312 of the Bill—is "presented with due impartiality" and "reported with due accuracy". Furthermore, all broadcasters must exclude from their programmes—I quote from the Broadcasting Act 1990—
"all expressions of the views and opinions of the person providing the service on matters … which are of political or industrial controversy or relate to current public policy".
Broadcast media services, therefore, do not, and should not, have "views and opinions" in the same way as newspapers, quite rightly, have an editorial stance. Taken to one possible logical conclusion, the text of the amendment could have the effect of stopping broadcasters from being impartial and allowing them to have "views and opinions". I cannot believe, and would not want to argue, that that is the intention behind the amendments. But they would introduce uncertainty into the proper functions and role of broadcasters. That could be absolutely catastrophic for the integrity of British broadcasting.
The amendments would also seem to encourage the introduction of content regulation into newspapers. A free press is a cornerstone of democracy, and we tamper with it at our peril. That may not be the intention behind the amendments—indeed, knowing my noble friend Lord Puttnam as I do, I am sure that it is not—but it is how the need for,
"a balanced presentation of comment",
for example, could be interpreted. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendments as they stand.
With the technical points aside, I can be far more positive. I now want to turn to the subject of media ownership and plurality. Media plurality is important for a healthy and informed democratic society. The

913
underlying principle is that it would be dangerous for any one person to control too much of the media because of his or her ability to influence opinions and set the political agenda. It is therefore essential to set limits on concentrations of ownership. Competition law will do that to some degree and may, in fact, be all that is needed in many cases. But there is no guarantee that that will always be so.
That is particularly true in the case of cross-media concentrations, where the competition authorities may well take the view that the markets are separate and that consequently there is no effect on competition. That is a completely proper conclusion as regards competition but it may not be sufficient to safeguard the appropriate level of plurality. That is why we have specific restrictions on media ownership which are additional to competition rules.
Plurality is a very subjective notion. It is not susceptible to the same kind of economic analysis as competition issues. It is very much a matter of judgment of what "feels" right. For this Bill, our approach has been to examine each media audience, including cross-media audiences, and to judge the level of plurality that we consider necessary. It is important to recognise that setting artificial limits on markets can make them economically less efficient. But we need to protect plurality and recognise that there is a minimum level of plurality below which we must never go.
However, it is important to recognise that more is not always better. A very fragmented industry is certainly a very plural industry, but small, weak players may not have the necessary resources or skills to produce high-quality programming. Greater consolidation which does not threaten plurality should improve services to viewers and listeners. High-quality, really memorable TV programmes are usually only possible because we have TV companies with the necessary resources to make them.
The purpose of the amendments before us is to introduce an additional level of protection to plurality by extending the public interest test in the Enterprise Act to enable a media plurality test to be carried out in the event of a qualifying media merger. A qualifying merger is one where enterprises cease to be distinct and either the United Kingdom turnover of the acquired enterprise exceeds £70 million or the new entity has at least a 25 per cent share of supply of goods or services of any description in the UK or in a substantial part of the UK.
We originally proposed the idea of a plurality test in the consultation document on media ownership, which we published in November 2001. The responses were generally unenthusiastic as it was felt that the test introduced an unhelpful degree of uncertainty into media mergers. However, the world has moved on since then and a number of our policies have changed and developed. We are now proposing a more liberal ownership regime for local radio. We are proposing removing the restrictions on foreign ownership and allowing a major national newspaper to own Channel
914
5. We have also listened carefully to the points made in this House and elsewhere. Indeed, no reader of the broadsheet press can have avoided this debate.
Two main arguments have been used in favour of a plurality test, both essentially about the need to "future-proof" the Bill. First, it is argued that a plurality test allows for the gradual dismantling of media ownership rules over time. As we move towards a digital, multi-channel future, the degree of choice available to us will make it increasingly difficult for any one person to have a dominant position in the media and may remove, or reduce, the need for ownership rules. Under these circumstances, a plurality test may be a sufficient safeguard of plurality.
Secondly, circumstances may change. We took the view that there were many good reasons for removing the restrictions on a major newspaper owning or controlling Channel 5. I shall not repeat the arguments now. However, it is possible that over time Channel 5 may become much more similar in size and reach to Channel 3. It is impossible to predict whether this will happen but, given the possibility, we must have a plurality regime flexible enough to react to changing circumstances.
I add a third argument in favour of a plurality test. I have already mentioned the rule which prevents a national newspaper with more than 20 per cent of the market, or a body in which such a paper has more than a 20 per cent interest, from holding a Channel 3 licence—sometimes referred to as the 20:20 rule. This rule has served us well, but it has a "cliff-edge", all or nothing, element to it. On the one hand, it makes an absolute distinction between a national newspaper with 19.9 per cent of the market and one with 20.1 per cent—a kind of Mr Micawber distinction. On the other hand, it makes no distinction between a newspaper with 20.1 per cent of the market and one with 35 per cent or 40 per cent or more. The rule is therefore somewhat arbitrary in its effect. A plurality test would, in principle, allow the Secretary of State to make a judgment on media mergers, based on the particular circumstances of the case. The Government are therefore persuaded that we should accept the principle behind these amendments, and bring forward government amendments at Third Reading to introduce a plurality test.
Let me outline how we think such a test would operate. We propose to extend the scope of the Enterprise Act so that qualifying mergers could be subject to a media plurality test. In these cases the Secretary of State will be able to intervene where she believes the merger would have a damaging effect on plurality. The test would not be, "Does the merger lessen plurality?". Any merger, by definition, reduces plurality to some extent. It will be for Ministers to determine whether the merger causes sufficient plurality concerns for it to be blocked, or for conditions to be attached. Similarly, the test must also recognise that there is a minimum level of plurality which must be maintained.
We propose that the power be wide enough to capture all media mergers, including cross-media mergers. We would intend as a matter of policy

915
normally to apply the test in practice only to those areas where the current rules are being removed completely. This means that, usually, the Secretary of State would consider intervening on plurality grounds only in the following areas: national newspapers with more than 20 per cent of the market/Channel 5; national newspapers with more than 20 per cent of the market/national radio service, Channel 3; Channel 3/ national radio; Channel 5/national radio; and national radio/national radio.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, asked whether this test would "effectively rule out" a major national newspaper owning Channel 5. The answer is that the test will ensure that the Secretary of State can investigate any merger which threatens plurality. It will clearly prevent unacceptable levels of cross-media dominance. But it is inherent in the nature of a test that one cannot predict the outcome in advance in any individual case. It will be necessary to analyse and consider all the relevant circumstances at the time on a case-by-case basis.
This, of course, is in the nature of merger legislation. It is exactly the same approach as would have to be taken if the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, were agreed. I do not believe that it would normally be sensible or desirable to intervene and apply the test to areas where there have never been media ownership restrictions, or to areas where there continue to be ownership rules, as the continuing rules will protect plurality.
In order to give the media industry some degree of certainty, the Government will publish guidance setting out in more detail the areas where the test will generally be applied and the factors that will be considered. It is not the Government's intention that the test should apply more widely. However, guidance obviously cannot fetter the Secretary of State's discretion or her ability to respond to changing market circumstances and we would not rule out its wider use in an extreme and rare case.
I believe that the plurality test should consider the number of owners in the relevant market. That will have resonance if one looks at the amendments before the House. The market would be a single medium or, in the case of a cross-media merger, a number of media markets. The test will also address—and again I ask noble Lords to look back at the test of the amendment before us—the need for a wide range of high-quality broadcasting calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests, and the need for a genuine commitment to the issues covered in Ofcom's standards code set out in Clause 312 of the Bill, including the need for impartiality and accurate presentation of news. The plurality test would sit alongside the special newspaper regime, which would continue to consider newspaper-only mergers.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, asked for an assurance that such plurality provisions will be brought into force before or at the same time as the lifting of restrictions on media ownership contained in the Bill. The answer is yes, I give him that assurance. He also asked whether it is intended that the Secretary
916
of State's powers of intervention under Sections 59 to 66 of the Enterprise Act will extend to the media plurality provisions. The answer again is yes.
I hope that the assurances I have given about our intention to introduce a media plurality test, and my detailed explanation of how the test would operate, will persuade the House not to press the amendment before us. I shall be tabling government amendments for consideration at Third Reading before the end of the week. I shall also circulate the text of our amendments to every noble Lord who has expressed interest in the issue.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, my name stands below that of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on the amendment. I do not have to say much because we had an admirable introduction to the subject from the noble Lord. Those who heard his speech will understand why we who served on the Joint Scrutiny Committee came to admire his contribution so much.
He referred to the noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley, who I am pleased to hear is out of hospital. During the Committee stage, I was greatly influenced by his views on this topic. Before I reached a conclusion on the subject when we debated it, I specifically asked that he should give the Joint Scrutiny Committee his opinion. After hearing it, I came firmly behind him.
The Minister has made an important statement. The difficulty about statements of this kind during a Report stage, when deals have been done, is that we are put in a considerable difficulty. The issues are important and the amendments which will be tabled are complex. We cannot make final judgments on the nature of the deal that has been done until we see the amendments on the Marshalled List and have had an opportunity to examine them. Therefore, we must reserve judgment.
That is of particular significance when we come to consider the next group of amendments, about which I have a further word to say. However, I cannot resist picking up two of the Minister's phrases. The first is, "The world has moved on". If the world has moved on, it owes a great deal to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in applying pressure on the Government to consider the matter.
I also smiled, as I believe did the noble Lord. Lord Puttnam, when we were told that the scale of the activities of Channel 5 and Channel 3 might alter. That was a point made repeatedly in the Joint Committee to Ministers and one to which we received an unhelpful response at the time. However, again, I am glad that the point is now accepted and understood.
I have only one other remark at this stage. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, made some extremely pungent and effective remarks about the state of broadcasting in other parts of the world, in the United States and Italy in particular. The amendments will not have a significant impact one way or another on the question of foreign ownership; the pros and cons of that argument rest on different points. I shall develop that point when we come to debate that group of amendments.

917
I hope that those who heard the observations by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about what is happening in other parts of the world and the activities of the conglomerates will perhaps stay to hear our debate on the important issue of foreign ownership. Clearly, there are powerful arguments on both sides. However, I believe that the issues are almost as important as those we are discussing on this amendment.
I thank the Government for listening to the views expressed, particularly by those of us who served on the Joint Committee. I hope that when I come to study the amendments at Third Reading I shall find that they wholly meet the requirements we have set for them.
5 P.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the House owes a tremendous debt to my noble friend Lord Puttnam and, indeed, to the scrutiny committee for the way in which on this and related issues they have persisted, especially in Committee, in pursuing this exceedingly important matter of cross-media ownership. The work of my noble friend Lord Puttnam has not been confined solely to chairmanship of that committee or, indeed, to speeches made in this House but included work behind the scenes. The outcome of that has been demonstrated to the House today. My compliments to my noble friend Lord Puttnam must be equalled by my compliments to the Minister. I listened to him with increasing admiration for the thoroughness with which he has "married" this Bill with the Enterprise Act and married the objectives and intentions of what I might call the Puttnam amendment to the Government's desire to ensure a practical, legally watertight system which will be successful and useful no doubt for many years to come.
It is difficult for us all to appreciate the full extent of the detail of the amendment which will now be tabled. It would be useless on my part or, if I may suggest, for other noble Lords to speculate too much about that today. We shall wait with tremendous interest but our final views will depend on a detailed study of that amendment. We have achieved a great deal today and I am grateful to the Minister.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on his success in winning this government concession, at which, self-evidently, he has worked so hard and for so long. We shall wait to see the final details of the amendment, but I agree with the comments of the Minister about the distinction between newspapers and the broadcast media. Clearly, as regards content, there is an important distinction.
As regards the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, the "media plurality public interest" test is perhaps not the snappiest title the noble Lord has come up with in his career. It is some way from "Chariots of Fire". However, I believe it will have a tremendous impact.
I have one comment in support of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I am slightly puzzled as to why he should have removed his name from a later
918
amendment on foreign ownership. It seems to me that, important as this concession has been, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is entirely right that it does not settle the issues on foreign ownership, in relation not only to his amendment but to other amendments too.
In practical terms, the test will include a group which already has major investments in the United Kingdom but may exclude a major group that has no investments at this point inside the United Kingdom. In normal circumstances I would not object to that. However, I would point out that a United States company can still take over ITV while no British company can take over even a United States radio station, let alone a major television company. We shall, very shortly, I hope, come to that.
However, at this stage I want to make the point that important as the government concession has been, it has by no means settled all the questions and important arguments there are on the Bill. I believe that the one I have just mentioned, subject to an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, is one of the greatest importance. Having said that, like my noble friend I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on his very substantial success.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, from the Back Benches of this corner of the House I join in the tributes paid first to all Members in all four quarters of the House who served on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and prepared the ground for what we have just arrived at today, which is a remarkable and constructive achievement. I pay a special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for his quiet leadership and the persistence with which he has brought about the situation we are in today.
As compliments are flying around. I too pay mine to the Minister for his speech, which we all need to read and carefully study. It was an important, analytical and also rather eloquent speech. I do not want to detract from the compliment in any way but his view of the state of the old but vitally important virtue of due impartiality in the broadcast media was a little romantic when one sees what happens on some of the channels these days. That applies equally, perhaps, to his view of the other side, the print media, if one looks back to the great dictum of CP Scott all those years ago and his model for print journalism that comment is free but facts are sacred. I am bound to say that one of the least obvious practitioners of that great golden rule of CP Scott is the modern Guardian. However, having said that, this has been an important stage in your Lordships' House today. We are all deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his colleagues, and to the response from the Minister.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, from these Benches perhaps I may add our congratulations to the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord McIntosh. It is heartening to know that the Government support the principle behind the plurality public interest test, to which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoke eloquently and effectively. On these Benches we believe it is important to have such

919
a test for the common good; that economic regulation alone cannot provide it and that it is not sufficient to leave such matters to chance.
The way forward proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and to which the Government have given such a positive response today would avoid the more absurd consequences of over-reliance on market forces. If after further negotiation between the Government and the noble Lord a consensus is achieved, certainly we believe it would find felicitous and widespread support in a way that other proposals are unlikely to achieve.
Perhaps I may add a particular point of interest. We have here a potential solution to the question of religious ownership restrictions. That was voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in Committee and recorded in Hansard at cols. 1433 and 1434. It was also voiced in Committee in another place, where there was also cross-party support.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, referred to three aspects in favour of his proposed public interest test. Of the third, he said:
"The third aspect, which is very important, is that it could be used to address the knotty issue of religious ownership. Rather than banning all religious bodies from owning licences and then giving them exceptional leave to do so when there is no longer any evidence of spectrum scarcity, each case could be examined on its merits".—[Official Report, 5/6/03; col. 1433]
As noble Lords know, I have been trying hard to find a solution to this sensitive issue of religious ownership restrictions. I very much want the interested parties to reach a consensus. Therefore, my hope is that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, especially in Amendment No. 189, will either be accepted or—as government assurances indicate—renegotiated both as a way forward which strengthens plurality of ownership, broadcasting companies and competitive choice and as a potential means of meeting the Government's concerns about religious ownership.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Puttnam on his success. I briefly reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, among others, who said: "Yes, we will have this and then we will go on to debate foreign ownership and Channel 5". Of course we shall debate that, but the two issues are fundamentally linked. It is not a question of a deal—that is, the Government accept the public interest test and those of us who had doubts on the other issue will let them go.
Some of us were rather uncomfortable with the Bill in the form in which it arrived. It seemed to contain a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, we were not satisfied that purely economic competition regulation was a sufficient safeguard for the integrity and plurality of our media—we believe that—but, some were also uncomfortable with the argument being put on the other side for ownership restrictions. That seemed to say that it was absolutely fine for Signor Berlusconi to own large parts of British media, but that certain very reputable foreign owners—far too much
920
focus has been on Rupert Murdoch as though he is the only one with all the vices and virtues that exist—must be ruled out. That seemed chauvinistic.
This breakthrough has removed that deplorable chauvinistic aspect but has preserved, and indeed put in lights, the public interest which is at the root. It will not be where you come from; it will not even particularly be what kind of chap you are; it will be whether your ownership is such that it endangers public interests by reducing plurality. Incidentally, plurality in media law is a concept that stretches much more widely than simply numbers, as was shown by the verdict of the regulatory authorities in the Bristol radio cases. That is why this is such a tremendous breakthrough and why some of us can now, with a song in our hearts, go through the government Lobby in the unfortunate event that there is a Division, for example, on foreign ownership.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, sits down, I am intrigued. He said: "It won't in future be a question of what sort of chap you are"—I think those were his words—"it will be a question of whether you can reliably uphold the public interest in the manner indicated in the amendment". Surely, those two issues go together. If the nature of the proprietor is of, for example, a Berlusconi pattern, it will be directly relevant to the public interest.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, yes, I think that I misspoke there. I take the point made by the noble Lord.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, the Cross Benches do not have a view, each one of us has an individual approach. From my viewpoint, and possibly from that of one or two other noble Lords who have followed the debate from the beginning, it is a huge relief to have this new concept of plurality and public interest test brought in. Whether in due course we can all be convinced that it applies to all the issues that still worry us, 1 think will need a little more explanation over time.
However, it is a very worthwhile beginning to this debate. Again, I most warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Yet again we have more than one reason to be grateful to the noble Lord and his colleagues. Equally, I give my congratulations, along with those of everyone else, to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who has spoken so eloquently and with such understanding.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that even if a public interest test were not included on the face of the Bill, the Secretary of State has the power under Section 59 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to introduce such a test at any time by order?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have confirmed that Clauses 59 to 66 of the Enterprise Act will be included in any provision that we make. Yes, of course there is an order-making power, but the house

921
is demanding that we put the provision on the face of the Bill, and that in addition we set out not just a numbers test—because that could happen under the Enterprise Act—but the need for a wide range of high-quality broadcasting, which is calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests. We propose to include that and the need for a genuine commitment to the standards objective. I doubt whether that would be possible under the Enterprise Act.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the Commercial Radio Companies Association. I add my congratulations to the universal congratulatory tone for my noble friend Lord Puttnam. He has sought to achieve something very important: that as many voices as possible provide many viewpoints and a wide diversity of programming throughout the media.
However, I confess that I am slightly worried by the belief that plurality will be a universal panacea to achieve those goals. I am also a little worried about the identity which has emerged in discussion between plurality and the public interest test. They do not seem necessarily to be the same thing.
When my noble friend introduced his amendment he pointed out that the plurality test was designed to apply across the board. Although most of the discussion has taken place with respect to television, perhaps I may be forgiven for reflecting for a moment on the impact on the radio industry.
First, a number of important qualifications were made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh with respect to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Puttnam. He made three points with which I agree completely. I shall list them without going into the arguments. First, he pointed out that there is some confusion in this discussion—a confusion which emerged in the contribution of the right reverend Prelate—between plurality and diversity. Plurality and diversity are not the same thing. A reduction in plurality may often increase diversity of programming and vice-versa. They are not the same thing.
I see some puzzlement on noble Lords' faces, so perhaps I should elaborate a little. Let us suppose that in a given area there are two owners of local music stations. In order to maximise their revenues their rational business strategy would be to play exactly the same kind of music—the most popular music in the area. If those two owners combined, their rational business strategy would be for the two stations to play different kinds of music and thereby maximise the coverage in the market. Therefore, the reduction in plurality would increase diversity and consumer choice.
There have been significant examples of that occurring in the radio industry. For example, the mergers which have taken place in London by Capital Radio have actually increased the diversity of programming across the radio stations taken over by it. So my noble friend the Minister was quite right: plurality and diversity are not the same thing.
922
Secondly, my noble friend pointed out that there is a degree of elision in the amendments between the newspaper industry and other media. They are not the same. The newspaper industry does not have content regulation, whereas, in this country, we have strict content regulation for broadcast media. Not only does the regulator apply content regulation but, in the radio industry, content regulation is strongly supported by the industry. That helps it to become much more effective.
The third point that my noble friend made with which I agree was that, with respect to the presentation of news, there are requirements on broadcast media to present a fair, balanced and impartial news coverage. That already exists in legislation.
There is a fourth point that my noble friend could have made about the impact in the United Kingdom on plurality issues that does not apply abroad. It is that commercial broadcasters in this country—commercial radio in particular—face a powerful and creative competitor in the form of the BBC. If commercial radio does not provide a wide variety of programming appealing to local tastes, it will inevitably lose its listeners to the BBC. The fact that the BBC is there forces improved performance by commercial radio. Indeed, the effect is reciprocal; they mutually reinforce one another.
I hope that those four elements will be taken into account when the Government draw up their plurality amendment. Those issues are important and mean, with respect to format regulation and the presence of a powerful BBC, that analogies based on Italy, Australia or America—which have been widely used in consideration of the matter—are not valid for the UK.
I draw the House's attention to a wider point. An important book dealing with the issues of media ownership, competition and plurality was published in 1997. It was entitled, The Undeclared War: the struggle for control of the world's film industry. One clear message of that book was the importance of scale in underpinning success in competitive media markets. As we all know, the author of that book was my noble friend Lord Puttnam.
It is therefore ironic that my noble friend's amendments could prevent British companies in other sectors of the media industry from achieving the competitive scale shown to be so important in the history of film. I am worried about that. One factor underlying the failure to build a successful commercial television company of world class in this country—there is not one—has been the fact that we have restricted the growth of commercial television companies and prevented them from competing on a suitable scale with foreign companies.
If we are so determined to force our media companies to be small, we must be sure that we are happy to hand all the long-term competitive advantage to companies based outside the UK. If we are prepared to accept the consequences of that, that is fine, but we should be aware that those are the consequences. In the long term, the consequence will be an ever weaker UK commercial broadcasting sector

923
facing more and more powerful competition overseas. Therefore, the UK sector will be sustainable only by erecting larger and larger protective barriers.
With strong commercial companies overseas and weak commercial companies here, we could also face a BBC able to maintain its position only by getting into bed with those powerful foreign interests. That is happening already.
I am worried about the notion that plurality is a panacea. In drawing up their amendments, I hope that the Government seek to achieve a balance between the attempt to create an environment within which companies can grow and be strong and competitive on a world scale and the diversity of voices, programming and consumer choice that we all seek.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I shall be brief, but I cannot let this moment pass without adding my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Puttnam whose work in this respect has been mighty, as I and several other noble Lords know, and to my noble friend the Minister for the intelligence and directness of his answer. It proves to me that the Government have listened to their supporters—to those of us who, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, want to make a good Bill better. The new clause sets out to do just that and I am very pleased that the Government have responded so carefully and so effectively to my noble friend's amendment.
Plurality and adversity—I mean diversity; I have been thrown a bit by my noble friend Lord Eatwell—applied to the spirit of my noble friend the Minister's remarks, should see us through—us being the British public—to preserving the public service interest at the heart of the Bill. We are much further forward after today.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I want to avoid making a second speech and, with three very brief—the stopwatch starts—exceptions, I can do so. I shall respond to all the points about the relationship between plurality and foreign ownership when we deal with Amendment No. 193. I shall deal with the point about religious broadcasting when we reach the appropriate amendment.
Apart from that, I want only to correct something that I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. In fact, under Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002, a public interest consideration may be added by an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That would cover the two media plurality considerations that I cited. However, in the light of the debate, it has been generally agreed that it is advantageous to write the provision into the Bill.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, no Oscar speech, I promise. It goes without saying that I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have supported this endeavour—it has been an endeavour—for the past 14 months and have brought us to this point. There is one thing that I want to get off my chest. I am very conscious—and not at all comfortable with the fact—
924
that I have been unable to extend to the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord McNally, the loyalty that they extended to me. That troubles me.
It is hope fulfilled, I suppose, but I suspect that my heart will remain in my mouth for a few more years. Ofcom will find itself challenged—quite quickly, I suspect—and only then will we know if we have placed our trust in the right quarter. As a matter of fact, I have every confidence that we have.
There are a few people whom I should like to thank because they have been very much behind the scenes. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, who has, as it were, been "behind the behind the scenes", has steered me magnificently on the legal aspects of the conclusion at which we have arrived today. I know that my noble friend Lord McIntosh would join me in thanking the noble Lord for his help. The honourable Andrew Lansley—who, I believe, may well be in the Chamber, but I shall not look to find out—was in every respect the architect of this concept. The rest of us have been happy messengers. I hope that he feels that we have handled his child with sufficient care.
It is also well worth saying that 12 people from each party and from both Chambers have supported the concept from day one. If that is not an example of politics at its best, and of the way that scrutiny and cross-party relationships can bring about an excellent result, I am not sure that I shall ever live to see one. Without embarrassing her, perhaps I may also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. She has been a model of consistency and common sense in the most difficult and trying of circumstances. I am not sure how I should have managed during the past week to 10 days if she had not been so utterly fair-minded and so genuinely helpful whenever she could be.
With that said, this has been a good day for the House and maybe—who knows?—a good day for the country. I beg to move.
Noble Lords: Oh.
Lord Puttnam: I knew that I should not get to the end of this properly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 190 to 192 not moved]
Lord Crickhowellmoved Amendment No. 193:
Before Clause 340, insert the following new clause—
"INTERIM RETENTION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON NON-EEA OWNERSHIP
(1) For paragraph 1(2) and (3) of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act, there shall be substituted—
"(2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall apply in relation to any Broadcasting Act licence other than a licence to provide a Channel 3 service and a Channel 5 licence as if paragraphs (a) and (b) (and the reference to those paragraphs in paragraph (i)) were omitted."
(2) OFCOM shall carry out the initial review for the purposes of this section within a year of the coming into force of this section.
(3) OFCOM may carry out a subsequent review for the purposes of this section at any time during the period which commences a year after the completion of the initial review under subsection (2) and which concludes with the coming into force of the order made under subsection (7).
(4) A review under this section shall consider whether, in the opinion of OFCOM—

(a) the provisions of section 273, 274 and 280 to 284 are operating in such a manner as to provide for a fair and transparent programme supply market with respect to Channels 3 and 5;

(b) the relevant provisions of Chapter 4 of this Part are operating in such a manner as to provide for effective content regulation of Channel 3 and Channel 5 services;

(c) the provisions of sections 260 to 267 are operating in such a manner as to provide for a continuing significant contribution by Channel 3 and Channel 5 services towards the achievement of the purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom specified in section 260;

(d) the provisions of sections 344 to 349 provide adequate additional safeguards in case of change of control of Channel 3 services or Channel 5; and

(e) the powers available to OFCOM under the Competition Act 1998 (c. 41), Part 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) and sections 309 to 311 of this Act are adequate to promote effective competition in the broadcasting market in the United Kingdom.

(5) When, as a result of a review carried out in accordance with subsections (2) or (3), OFCOM consider that each condition specified in subsection (4) has been met, they shall make a report to that effect to the Secretary of State, giving reasons.
(6) The Secretary of State shall lay any report made to him under subsection (5) before Parliament.
(7) When a report has been laid before Parliament in accordance with subsection (6), the Secretary of State may by order repeal paragraph 1(1)(a) and (b) of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act and make such consequential amendments to that Part of that Schedule or to other provisions of that Act or this Act as he thinks fit.
(8) No order is to be made containing provision authorised by subsection (7) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have just heard that the Government are to introduce very important amendments at Third Reading. However, nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said about the matter makes me change my mind and I do not believe that they are likely to make any difference to the issues covered by my amendment, Amendment No. 193.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, need not feel any guilt. He has negotiated a deal that greatly improves the Bill. It is the nature of deals that something has to be given in return and the House will understand perfectly why he has now withdrawn his name from the amendment. However, the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Hussey of North Bradley, and I have not been party to the negotiations and we feel that the arguments in favour of our amendment remain as strong as ever.
Amendment No. 193 would delay the lifting of restrictions on non-EEA foreign ownership. The Joint Scrutiny Committee, of which we were all members, saw no immediate need for the lifting of the present restrictions. We concluded that to do so before Ofcom is firmly established and has the opportunity to review the state of the market and the way in which regulation is operating would put at risk some of the crown jewels of British broadcasting.
The amendment would require Ofcom to hold an initial review within a year and subsequent reviews as required. If, as a result of a review, it concluded that the restriction could safely be lifted, Ofcom would report that to the Secretary of State and Parliament. An appropriate order could then be laid to be approved by affirmative resolution.
The case in favour of lifting restrictions on foreign ownership now were summarised in Committee by the Minister then in charge of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who said that it should lead to increased investment, productivity and efficiency, together with new skills and ideas. That argument had been advanced at Second Reading by my noble friend Lady Buscombe. My noble friend asked, "What is there to fear?" She told us that we should have more confidence in our culture and allow the consumer to choose. The Minister took a totally different line. She did not propose to leave it to unfettered consumer choice. Responding to what I and others had said about the state of broadcasting in the United States and the massive power of conglomerates, she said that the Government wholeheartedly understood and sympathised with the concerns that had been expressed. She argued that,
"the UK has strong content regulations which will maintain the quality and impartiality of our programming'—[Official Report, 5/6/03; col. 1474.]
Those who regard public service broadcasting as one of the greatest glories of British broadcasting may, like me, have more confidence that it would be better protected by effective legislation than it would by leaving it all to consumer choice. I shall return to the subject of consumer choice, but I wish first to examine the circumstances in which Ofcom will have to try to enforce regulation and compare them with the very different circumstances in which the rich culture of public service broadcasting was established and developed. Professor Michael Tracey of the University of Colorado, in his latest, remarkable contribution to the argument, reminds us that,
"the ITV system, while commercially funded, was not market driven. It was based on a monopoly of advertising in a given region, all based on the expectation that it would fulfil certain public service commitments. Channel 4 had a guaranteed income precisely so that it did not have to worry about the market".
As a former director of an ITV company, I can vouch for the fact that in those happy, far-off days, when the advertising revenue came in a rich flood, those of us with responsibility to our shareholders were immensely careful to obey in the minutest detail every regulatory command, and the regulators had no problem in enforcing their will. By the time I finally left the industry, the situation was rather different. A combination of large bids to retain licences and rapidly declining advertising revenue meant that the companies had to cut costs to survive and that the regulators had to relax their controls and respond with understanding to the financial realities of the market.
Ofcom will be taking over its responsibilities in circumstances that will make its task of enforcing regulation very difficult. As the Joint Scrutiny Committee pointed out, and as my noble friend Lady Buscombe observed last night, it will face an enormous

927
range of challenges immediately after it assumes its functions. It will also be taking over at a time when the fall in advertising revenue for Channel 3 licence holders is so severe that it threatens the ability of some of them to fulfil existing commitments and maintain existing standards. In this situation Ofcom will have to use its powers with discretion or may find that the very existence of those companies is imperiled.
Some people might say, "Well, that's one reason why we need foreign investment". However, if foreign investment were to be made in those circumstances, it would not be to obtain the rich pickings from the advertisers' table, or in the expectation that the arrival of investment and ideas would suddenly boost advertising revenue. No, the aim of new owners would be to buy when share prices were depressed, cut costs—by reducing original drama output, for example—and to bring in as much existing material as possible already paid for by US sales on which margins would be large. At the same time, local content would increasingly be created with the object that it could be marketed to international audiences rather than with the particular aim of retaining local character and meeting local need.
In Committee, I referred to the large amount of evidence received in the Joint Committee that that was exactly what would happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, reinforced the case on the basis of their own direct experience in the market. The usual challenge was thrown out that, if this was the case, why did European countries that have no restriction on their ability to buy British companies not take advantage of the situation and do the same? The fact is that they do not have vast existing libraries of English-speaking product waiting to be disposed of in that way.
I add only two more points before turning to the question of consumer choice and the alleged benefits to the UK of opening up our market. One of the principal benefits of attracting investment and ideas that has emerged in markets other than television is that it can be of great help in making possible sales to other countries, including the United States. Bizarrely, however, the proposal is that we open our markets without any reciprocal opening of the US market. That is one more good reason for not moving fast down the route proposed by the Government, and I warmly support Amendment No. 195 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and my noble friend Lord Fowler.
There are those who argue that because content regulation has been tightened up, there are now adequate controls to ensure that new overseas owners would have to behave themselves. As a regulator of a different industry, I learned that there is a huge difference between regulating the conduct of those who respect what the rules hope to achieve, and who are, by instinct, inclined to conform, and attempting to regulate those who have contempt for the rules and seek to avoid them for their own advantage. I remain to be convinced that Ofcom will find it easy to ensure compliance by a great international conglomerate.
Public service broadcasting is now comprehensively defined in Clause 260 in legislative language. We are talking about creativity, diversity and standards. Can we be confident that such matters will be what consumer choice will safeguard? I suspect that Hugh Carleton Greene, a great director general of the BBC, was right when he argued that what he called the "basic moral values" of truthfulness, justice, freedom, compassion and tolerance are constantly endangered species that one needs to breed and then protect.
In the competitive marketplace of the US, the demand of advertisers always to maximise audiences has led to a reduction in real news broadcasting, the decimation of children's broadcasting and the extraordinary success of reality TV. In a world where the consumer may have a hundred channels he can watch, there is plenty of scope for reality shows. Yes, we can and should have consumer choice, but we have got it, and there is no shortage of choice available to consumers. I am not arguing that there should he. I am arguing that if we value the standards that have been established for public service broadcasting, we cannot and must not leave those to consumer choice.
Speaking in this building on 26th June, Pat Mitchell, the president and CEO of PBS, the United States' public service broadcasting organisation, who has spent nearly 25 years in commercial media and the past three years with the only non-profit media organisation in the United States, warned of a further consolidation of power among a few global conglomerates. My noble friend Lady Buscombe says that we should allow the consumer to choose. Pat Mitchell says that we cannot have a democracy without having a healthy, democratic media system and that the media are too important to leave to the marketplace to control, or direct.
Public service broadcasting, as we know it in this country, is too important to be put at risk by rushing helter-skelter down the de-regulatory slope at a time when the new regulator is likely to be overstretched and relatively feeble, when market conditions make regulation hard to enforce and when the moguls may see an opportunity to exploit. My amendment would not shut the door for ever. It would provide time for Ofcom to establish itself and give it the opportunity to explore the validity of the arguments that we are considering today.
The Government, for reasons that are remarkably unconvincing, are trying to persuade Parliament to take a risky road. We should not allow them to do so, and I find it extraordinary that my Front Bench should be prepared to underwrite the Government's approach. When my noble friend the Chief Whip circulates a note saying that we are being watched closely—minute by minute and in detail—by the media and that the most careful consideration has been given to the issues by senior colleagues in both Houses, I know that those who tell me that heavy pressure has been applied by media moguls are right. My reaction is not to climb down in the face of such pressure but to feel even more strongly that the Bill needs strengthening, not weakening.
The Government and Opposition Whips will usher their flocks into the same Lobby. I hope that there will be many in all parts of the House, and a substantial number in my party, who will feel as I do and will insist on retaining effective safeguards for a system and for standards that are immensely valuable and need our protection. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 195, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I agree entirely with the remarks made in the previous debate by the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Fowler, to the effect that this is a separate issue from that of the public interest test and should not even be considered in the same breath.
I favour Amendment No. 194, the second of the noble Lord's amendments, rather more than I favour Amendment No. 193. It is not good enough just to give Ofcom breathing space. Amendment No. 194 takes out the disapproval altogether. My amendment is an attempt to achieve reciprocity: we will do it, if they do it. I freely concede that, frankly, if we achieve reciprocity, events will overtake us all, and it will happen automatically.
The man in the street would think that we had taken leave of our collective sense, if he heard that we had decided unilaterally to allow the Americans to own British media, without insisting that they grant a similar right to us. It is, after all, a fundamental principle of trade that it is bilateral. I welcome the removal of barriers. I concede that there are some concerns about United States ownership that, even if the barriers were down and we had reciprocity, might fall foul, in certain circumstances, of the public interest test proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. But that is a separate matter.
Discussions go on constantly in GATT on the matter. The great irony is that this might happen at precisely the point at which America might consider it sensible to drop our media restrictions that stop anyone owning more than 20 per cent. I remind the House that one of our most able and talented Commonwealth citizens had to renounce his Australian citizenship, take a primary school test in American history and become an American citizen in order to own anything in the United States. That is how strict they are; that is how resistant they are, even to big media moguls. If progress is to be made, it will not help our negotiators if we give in in advance as regards precisely the prize upon which they might feel tempted to remove their own restrictions.
The reason that America might give in is that boundaries are becoming meaningless nowadays, anyway. Any of us could sit at home and watch al-Jazeera all day, if we wished. We can receive it through satellite. Likewise, in New York, the highest-rated radio programmes on the Internet are both British. I concede that there is an element of distortion of the market, in that expats probably use the Internet
930
because they do not have access to British programmes any other way. However, television is now crossing frontiers—in fact, that is the title of a directive from Europe. To some extent, we can keep out ownership, but we cannot really keep out programmes. It is programmes and programming that influence the public. I am not trying to say, "Never"; I am simply saying, as a principle of trade, "Let us in, if we let them in".
I squirmed with embarrassment at the statement about how ridiculous it was that we were allowing the French, the Germans and the Italians to own but not the Americans, the Canadians and the Australians, as though, somehow, it had been a slip of the draftsman's pen. It is straight common sense. For all that we may dislike some of our European colleagues, particularly the media owners, the fact is that, at the moment, as part of our membership of the European Union, we have access to ownership of their media, and they have access to ownership of ours. Prior to that, Section 12(5)(a) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 insisted that British media must be owned by people who were British. It was only when we joined Europe that we extended it.
We have not felt the impact of Europe very much for the obvious reason that, because of language differences, there has not been the degree of vertical integration—sometimes called "dumping"—that there has been from the United States. That has not happened. It could happen with the United States, Canada or Australia. We must consider that—quite properly—under the public interest test. Even if we had reciprocity of ownership, it would be proper, under the public interest test, for the Secretary of State to say, "I know that we are treating you on all fours with European and UK media, but we think that the danger that you will unload your junk programmes is such that it is not in our interest". That would be fine. The only thing that would happen is that no media owner could be debarred simply because he was American. There might be other issues. That is where the public interest test is required, as well as the foreign ownership restriction. But one is not a substitute for the other.
I invite noble Lords to re-read paragraphs 247 and 248 of the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I shall not go on about it, as 1 know that he feels embarrassed about it. In those paragraphs, he examines the arguments made for the benefits of foreign ownership. The noble Lord said that he found the arguments "variously lacking in force", which is a polite way of saying that they do not stand up to too much examination.
I am open-minded on whether we should follow the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell—I prefer the second to the first—or, indeed, people might vote for mine. In the light of some amendments that the Government have tabled, which I do not quite understand, it might be appropriate for us to delay a Division until Third Reading. I do not want to heap up more trouble for Third Reading, but I believe that this is such an important matter that a Division is appropriate. I will

931
support another amendment, if that is the preferred route, or invite others to support mine in the Division, which might be more appropriate at Third Reading.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, as the other signatory to Amendment No. 195 with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, I shall speak briefly to support what he said in an outstandingly succinct speech.
There are two points that I should like to make. First, in no way is this an anti-American amendment. I am strongly pro-American. In the media field, Mr Murdoch deserves great credit for what he has done in this country, particularly in the newspaper area, sweeping away some of the old restrictive practices that were moving a great number of our newspapers towards bankruptcy. He therefore deserves a great deal of credit for that.
Secondly, in no way is this anti-free trade. I am strongly in favour of free trade and of businesses competing with one another on a level playing field. In the case of television and broadcasting, the playing field being created by this Bill is anything but level. Basically, United States companies are being allowed to buy ITV in Britain without any reciprocal arrangement for British companies to do anything like the same in the United States.
With respect, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, consistently seems to miss the contrast with the position in the European Union, with which there are reciprocal arrangements. Here, we are introducing a new measure without any reciprocal arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, and I find it quite inexplicable in pure business terms. I cannot understand why any country would want to do that.
I think that the arrangement is neither sensible nor in our national interest; apart from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I have found few people who do. It is a complete mystery why the Government are introducing this change. Only a few months ago they, too, took my view. Going back to November 2001, the view of the Government was,
"Without reciprocal arrangements with other nations that will allow our own companies to expand into their markets, we do not feel we could justify lifting our ban at the present time".
That was the Government's own statement.
In Committee, I asked what factors had persuaded them to conduct this extraordinary U-turn in policy. Unfortunately, time was such that the Minister never got round to that point in her summing up. Perhaps the new Minister can say why there was this change of mind—after what consideration and after what meetings. Perhaps he can even say who lobbied for this change in legislation. The extraordinary thing is that the Government, apparently, still want reciprocal arrangements with the United States.
On the face of it, giving away one's strongest negotiating card before the negotiations have begun seems the most extraordinary negotiating tactic, if that is the case. Free trade does not mean simply rolling on one's back, kicking one's legs in the air and allowing the negotiations to be settled in that way.
932
Perhaps I may put it another way. For a moment let us imagine that we had reciprocal arrangements with the United States, but not with Germany and France. Nevertheless, without any reciprocal agreement, we allowed France and Germany to enter our market unchecked. It is perhaps just conceivable that attitudes therefore might be a little different. My Front Bench might be opposing this measure and not supporting it. Whips might be bussing in old friends of mine who I have scarcely seen in the first two years of my life here.
In the debate so far, I have not heard one argument—I have scarcely heard an argument of any kind—put by either Front Bench which even half persuades me to go along with the Bill on this issue. I strongly support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, and will most certainly vote for it.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, I rise not exactly to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Gordon, because I suspect that the issue of reciprocity may be something of a red herring. I have some regret in saying that although my noble friend Lord Puttnam has taken his name off this amendment—as a fellow member of the committee, normally I support the noble Lord in everything—in this case I cannot go along with him. I do not believe that plurality regulation will amount to the same thing as an ownership restriction. Ownership restriction, which I unhesitatingly say must apply far more to any country which makes its programmes in English, I continue to believe is extremely important. I regret to divide the ranks of the committee further on this point but it is important.
I am not sure that reciprocity in the amendment is not a red herring. As I understand it, there are people in the DTI negotiating these kind of agreements through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade arrangements at the moment. For me, the real point is not reciprocity but the whole problem of ownership of channels.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I believe that the United States is right in its policy. So many limes it has been said that in dealing with cultural goods one is dealing with something completely different from virtually anything else. I am concerned that if we allow American investment in our television and radio channels, with the force of their wealth they might very easily and rather quickly invade the jewels of our own television and radio. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, I am not as sanguine as some may be that the Puttnam amendment—if I can call it that—will come to the aid of our own television and radio companies in those circumstances. I fear that one is moving into a legal minefield in that circumstance. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is gently nodding his head in agreement with my point.
The fact that we allow European Union members to have free access to ownership of our television and radio companies is a matter of history. Two wrongs do not make a right. In any event, there is a huge difference between the United States, with a common

933
language and a parallel history, and European Union member countries, with no commonality of language and a lesser cultural commonality, if I can put it that way. For those and the many other reasons already expressed, I strongly support this group of amendments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I warmly support what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said and what my noble friend said in his very eloquent moving speech. I shall do so with real, not merely promised, brevity. The whole passage of this very complicated Bill has been a powerful reminder to me of how difficult it is to sustain standards. Standards tend to fall, not to rise. Someone quoted Sir Denis Forman on the qualities that those who are responsible for standards would need to show for them even to be sustained, let alone to rise. Surely, this is not a time when we should think of diminishing the defences that we have. I can see absolutely no grounds for getting rid of the need for reciprocity before doing so.
The amendments have not removed consumer choice from the high table at which it ordinarily sits these days: consumer choice has been told fairly firmly—not before time—that it does not own the high table; it has the privilege of sitting there.
It seems slightly unreal that we should leave this subject without referring to Mr Murdoch. I received a rather strange letter from News International, as did many of your Lordships. It told me one or two things which I knew before and something which I did not know before—that is, that Mr Murdoch did not intend to bid for Channel 5—but I was not quite sure what News International wanted of me. At this stage, I am left with the need to say that Mr Murdoch seems to me to have acquired a position of almost unparalleled influence over our affairs, and I see no possible reason for making it easier for him to expand on that.
I have said what I intended to say, and I have said it with all the conviction that I can muster. I warmly support my noble friend in his amendment and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, only that I, too, prefer Amendment No. 194 to Amendment No. 193.
6 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I support the views expressed by my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
This is not primarily a matter of economic reciprocity, although it is a useful device in the argument. This is not primarily an economic issue; rather, we are considering the whole character and quality of the broadcasting system of this country, one which is distinctively different from that which has grown up in the United States; it has a quite different history. If we were to open our marketplace to American broadcasting capital, I think that Ofcom would have an extremely difficult job trying to preserve the essential character of broadcasting in this
934
country. I see no reason why we should put ourselves in that position, so I warmly endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I had thought of wearing a form of flak jacket in your Lordships' House today in order to debate these amendments, because I am going to stand four-square with the Government. Her Majesty's Opposition does not support these amendments. Indeed, we are entirely in favour of lifting restrictions on the ownership of national terrestrial broadcasting licences.
As I made quite clear at Second Reading, we believe that lifting the restrictions will open up the broadcasting media to new sources of investment and ideas. Foreign investment has already enabled cable and satellite television to grow in this country. The concern that liberalisation will lead to a flood of foreign content is, we believe, misplaced. Commercial companies operating in a commercial marketplace simply cannot afford to ignore consumer demand. Moreover, all the evidence suggests that domestic programming is popular in the United Kingdom and therefore any media company that wants to be successful in this country must provide the local content that people want or it will not survive. In essence, content is driven by consumer demand, not by ownership, and the two issues should not be confused.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell was right to point out that I did say at Second Reading that we should have more confidence in our culture and allow the consumer to choose, but I take issue with his suggestion that, in a sense, I sought to take a different view from that of, as I recall, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on that occasion. I say that because we stand four-square with the Government in the light of the fact that, unlike the United States, we have already, and will continue to have, what has been set out so clearly on the face of the Bill: strong content regulation. That, we believe, makes all the difference.
I am not in the habit of standing at this Dispatch Box to support the Government, but this is one of those rare occasions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may take the points in a different order from that in which they were debated and start by discussing reciprocity. I shall do so because a number of noble Lords have pointed out that reciprocity is a red herring in the major debate that we are having about foreign ownership. I have to say that I think that that is true.
We have been told that to remove restrictions on non-EEA countries owning UK broadcasting licences without reciprocity would be contrary to all the principles of negotiation and of free trade. I simply do not think that that is the case. First, I should say that it is not the case that there are no reciprocal arrangements with the United States, in particular for UK firms. There is not a complete ban on UK companies investing in US media. A UK company may own up to 20 per cent of a US company with a

935
broadcast licence, and can also own up to 25 per cent of a company whose subsidiary company comes with a broadcast licence.
Secondly, it is not the case that we would be in an unusual situation for the European Union. A number of countries have taken this deregulatory step, including Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Belgium and Luxembourg, as well as New Zealand, without reciprocity—and we shall encourage others to do likewise. If it is right to liberalise trade, then our general approach within the World Trade Organisation—formerly GATT—is not to wait for reciprocity before liberalising trade. If it is a good thing to do, we do it. If we did not do it, there would be no progress whatsoever on globalisation and the liberalisation of world trade.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, can the Minister explain why, in November 2001—which is not a long time ago—the Government took precisely the opposite view?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for the past 18 months the Government have been listening to everyone who has taken part in this debate including, if I may say so, the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee agreed with me and has said that the issue of reciprocity was not pivotal to this debate, and I agree. It is a politer way of saying that it is a red herring, but I really do not think, when we are considering an issue of such importance as the liberalisation of world trade, that we should be diverted by the issue of reciprocity.
I shall now discuss the major issue; that is, whether we should maintain the ban on non-EEA countries. We propose to open up to foreign ownership for one very simple reason: that there is benefit in it for UK broadcasting. It is in our interests to open up.
The current rules are not coherent. I do not doubt that there are noble Lords who would wish to impose the same kind of ban on countries within the European Economic Area, but they know that they cannot do so because of European rules. Those noble Lords are not going to resign from the European Union for that purpose; I can say that with impunity because I see that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is not in his place. We are doing this because it is right to do so and because we have so much protection, including the additional protection that has been introduced in debate this afternoon and which will be brought forward by way of amendments tabled at Third Reading.
As a general rule, surely to open up the industry to foreign ownership will allow investment in UK broadcasting from a wider range of sources. No one has denied that point. In other industries, foreign investment has boosted new ideas and improved customer service both within individual companies as well as in that of their competitors. We have seen many examples of foreign investment in our industries, including those so close to the ones we are now discussing—the cable and satellite industries—and we
936
have seen the benefits of such investment in both directions. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that our economy is in very large part dependent on it.
Amendment No. 193 proposes that Ofcom should test the content and competition rules in the Bill before changing the rules on foreign ownership. I take it that this is the ingenious way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, of softening the difficult position he has in the opposition between himself and his own Front Bench. Of course he has had support, hut not so much for Amendment No. 193 as for Amendment No. 194, which proposes a complete ban.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I intervene on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. His amendment reflects what the Joint Committee recommended. It is the Joint Committee recommendation he is putting forward. I do not like it as much as his subsequent amendment but, to be fair to the noble Lord, it is not brought forward as an attempt to resolve the difficulties within the Conservative Party.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I readily absolve the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, of that. I should never impute motives to anyone. I caught myself out by doing so. However, the noble Lord does have two amendments side by side which seek to do different things.
Let me make two points about this group of amendments as a whole—that is, Amendments Nos. 193, 194, 213 and 239. The first concerns the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about content rules. The Bill protects content quality and any comparisons made with the United States system are bound to be misleading. We will have in place robust and wide-ranging public service remits—which Ofcom will strictly regulate—and the United States has no comparable system.
I have read in the broadsheets—as have we all—passionate articles by people we respect. In particular, I remember an article in the Guardian by Richard Hoggart, whom I not only respect but venerate. He argues against opening up and in favour of Amendments Nos. 193 and 194. But he does so on the false basis that this would overturn the content rules that we have in our broadcasting and that there is a comparability between the nature of content regulation in the United States and in this country. It could not be more different.
The Bill will put in place quotas for original production, EU production, regional and independent production. There will be flexibility in the content provisions. Ofcom will be able to renew the licence commitments on change of control to ensure that new owners maintain the standards of the old. In other words, any change of ownership to any owner from outside the European Economic Area will entail compliance with our content regulations. I do not know whether that is clear to those who argue about the dumbing down of British television as a result.

937
In radio, Ofcom will have to protect the local content of radio. It will also be able to vary the licence conditions when local licences change control in order to preserve the local character of the station and maintain the quality and range of the service.
Unlike the United States, we also have rules preventing broadcasters from using their companies to further their own political agenda. Broadcast news must be accurate and impartial and companies must not use television or radio in order to express their own views on politics or current public or industrial policy.
I do not know what motivated Rupert Murdoch when he went into the American market and took American citizenship to do so. Although I used to know him very well I have not met him for 50 years and so I am somewhat out of contact. But, whatever were his motivations, they could not apply here. If he was looking to do in this country what he has done with Fox, for example, in the United States, he could not do it. Our regulatory system makes it impossible.
The next matters I want to address concern the plurality amendments we propose to table at Third Reading and the plurality issue which was the subject of our previous debate. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, opened his speech by saying that the plurality issue was irrelevant to this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, said that this is a totally separate issue and should not be considered in the same breath. That is simply not the case.
The government plurality test addresses the concerns expressed over foreign ownership. My noble friend Lord Puttnam has already acknowledged that case. The test will cover the need for a wide range of high-quality broadcasting calculated to appeal to a wide range of tastes and interests. It will cover the need for a genuine commitment to the standards objectives. Just like existing domestic players, foreign acquirers of UK media could be and will be judged against those tests. I stress that the tests would bite even if foreign companies had no existing UK assets.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he is now dealing with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, does he not accept that that is posited on the basis of plurality of media owners? So it would scarcely be possible for objection to be raised if, for example, one of the big American combines were to purchase one of our television channels.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I said, we have considered changes to the Bill to introduce a plurality test. As I have explained, this test would allow us to look at a proposed foreign acquisition from the point of view of the number of owners in the relevant market—the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right, in some cases such an acquisition would not change the numbers—and it would enable us to look at a proposed foreign acquisition in the light of the need for a wide range of high-quality broadcasting
938
which is calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests, and the need for a genuine commitment to the Ofcom standards code.
Even if the numbers were not changed—and I acknowledge that that could happen—the other criteria in our test, which will be debated at Third Reading, will still apply. Therefore I flatly contradict the view that what we have done and what we have said to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on the plurality test does not affect the issue of foreign ownership.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again. Is the noble Lord saying that the Government will go further than the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam? There is no reference in that amendment to the "high quality" mentioned by the Minister. The only requirement in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is for balanced and impartial presentation of news and balanced presentation of comment. There is nothing about sufficiency of news or comment. It then goes on to refer to a wide range of voices. It mentions nothing about quality.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I am saying that we are going further than the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I am saying that I have done my best in my contribution to the previous debate to set out the basis on which we will uphold the principles of plurality, with which we agree. I am saying that that is directly relevant to the issue of foreign ownership. A very much better argument needs to be brought forward for the paradoxical wish to retain national restrictions when these restrictions have to be shown to be damaging to the national interest.
I am saying to the House that it is in this country's national interest to have free trade. I am saying that it is in our interest to have investment to and from this country. I am saying that there is protection not only in the content regulations which are already part of the Bill, but there is additional protection in the amendments on plurality which will be introduced at Third Reading.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's indignation, but the basic facts are that any of the American groups that will come calling—for example, Disney—would walk past the plurality test. If the Government tried to stop them, I suggest that the Prime Minister would be hauled over to Camp David and any objections would be removed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a good rhetorical trick to intervene into someone's peroration, is it not? A very good rhetorical trick.
I am saying that if Disney or Viacom or any such organisations want to enter this market they will have to meet the conditions we will set down in a plurality test, which will include the quality conditions and the commitment to a code of standards conditions. On that basis, I would argue that the House should not

939
approve the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, but should sustain the principle we unanimously supported in the previous debate on plurality.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I can be relatively brief because I am in the happy position that the Minister, for understandable reasons, prepared his speech before he heard mine. Virtually every point he made I had specifically dealt with in the course of my speech, except, perhaps, the last. On the last point, I can only say that I still do not believe it really makes a difference. If and when the company has passed the test and acquired, the question is whether regulation will be an effective weapon with which to defend one of the jewels in our broadcasting system.
I do not often find myself dealing with remarks made from my own Front Bench, but they are relatively easy here, too. My noble friend Lady Buscombe has simplified my task. She advanced only a single argument—one that she advanced at Second Reading—she did not speak in the Committee stage and she repeated her words from Second Reading this afternoon. I am not being difficult; they are useful words. I shall repeat them again so that we are all clear about them—
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but I did speak in Committee. I confirmed and reaffirmed what I had said at Second Reading.
Lord Crickhowell: Exactly, my Lords—my noble friend repeated what she had said at Second Reading. She said, in essence, that content is driven by consumer demand, not by ownership, and that because domestic programming is popular, it will be produced.
The noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, whose experience is probably second to none in this House, said something rather different in Committee:
"In the television world, the whole point of acquiring another company is distribution. If it increases distribution, it increases profits, as my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington pointed out. If American companies bought English companies, we would get not greater inward investment but the sale of American programmes in this country".—[Official Report, 5/6/03; col. 1467.]
I share that view.
One sometimes wonders what to do when the Whips on both sides, and the principal opposition party, decide to march their troops into the Lobby with the Government. Should those who disagree with them press the issue to a vote? Perhaps it is inevitable that, in the face of those great forces, one will go down to defeat. I believe that I should press the amendment to a vote because I believe, for the reasons I have set out, that one of the greatest jewels of our broadcasting system is being put at risk. I think it is right that I should at least give those who, like me, feel that that is not something that we should support, the opportunity to express themselves. Therefore, I propose to press the amendment to a Division.
6.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 193) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Maddock, B.

Avebury, L.

Mancroft, L.

Barker, B.

Mar, C.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Methuen, L.

Bowness, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Bridges, L.

Monson, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Newby, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Northbrook, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northesk, E.

Chadlington, L.

Northover, B.

Chan, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Chorley, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay. L.

Clement-Jones, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Onslow, E.

Colwyn, L.

Palmer, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Patten, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Craigavon, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crickhowell, L.[Teller]

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Razzall, L.

Dholakia, L.

Redesdale, L.

Elton, L.

Rees, L.

Ezra, L.

Rennard, L.

Falkland, V,

Renton, L.

Feldman, L.

Rix, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Flather, B.

Russell, E.

Fookes, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Fowler, L.

Sandberg, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sandwich, E.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Greaves, L.

Selborne, E.

Green way, L.

Sharman, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sharp of Guildford.B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sharpies, B.

Haskins, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hooper, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hooson, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Stern, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hylton, L.

Strange, B.

Jacobs, L.

Taverne, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jopling, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kimball, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Tordoff, L.

Laird, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Laming, L.

Truro, Bp.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Waddington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lucas, L.

Weatherill, L.

McNally, L. [Teller]

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Ahmed, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Alli, L.

Attlee, E.

Amos, B.

Bach, L.

Andrews, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Biffen, L.

941

Blackstone, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Blatch, B.

Kingsland, L.

Borrie, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brett, L.

Layard, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Buscombe, B.

Lipsey, L.

Byford, B.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L.

Luke, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cox, B.

Manchester, Bp.

Crawley, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

David, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Moynihan, L.

Desai, L.

Noakes, B.

Dixon, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pendry, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Eatwell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rawlings, B.

Falkender, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Rooker, L.

Fitt, L.

Saatchi, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Seccombe, B.

Glentoran, L.

Simon, V.

Golding, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Stallard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Temple-Morris, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Thornton, B.

Harrison, L.

Turnberg, L.

Haskel, L.

Uddin, B.

Hayman, B.

Ullswater, V.

Higgins, L.

Vivian, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wakeham, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Warner, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hollick, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Whitty, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Williams of Elvel.L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.34 p.m.
Clause 340 [Modification of disqualification provisions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 193A:
Page 295, leave out line 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Grenfell): My Lords, I should tell the House that if Amendment No. 194 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 195 or 195A.
[Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should not have moved Amendment No. 193A formally, as it is about advertising agencies. May I move Amendment No. 195A?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I may be wrong, but I thought that the amendment had already been dealt with and put to the shout.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, it has been agreed, but I somewhat misled the House by moving it formally when I should have spoken to it.
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 195A:
Page 295, line 8, leave out from "States):" to end of line 9 and insert "shall cease to have effect"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the communications White Paper, we proposed removing the ban on advertising agencies holding broadcasting licences. We did so on the grounds that we should prevent bodies from holding broadcasting licences only when there was a clear case for doing so. We took the view that any concerns that might arise could be met through the regulation of competition, including through the licensing regime and the operation of general competition legislation, such as the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act.
However, it is clear that many are concerned about that step and do not believe that sufficient safeguards exist to prevent abuse or, perhaps more importantly, the perception of a conflict of interest for an advertising agency that holds a broadcasting licence. We were particularly influenced by the recent correspondence that we have received from the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising—the IPA—which made it clear that the advertising industry itself is now opposed to the change.
We have considered all the representations carefully and have decided to amend the Bill through Amendments Nos. 193A, 195A and 238ZC, so as to restore the restrictions on advertising agencies holding broadcasting licences. In the light of our amendments, we consider Amendment No. 197 is unnecessary, but Amendment No. 241 completes the package. My noble friend Lord McIntosh has added his name to the amendment, and we shall be happy to accept it today. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I must warn your Lordships that if Amendment No. 195A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 196 or 197.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, this may be out of order, and noble Lords may slap me down by all

943
means, but I am not clear about the effect of Amendment No. 193A, since Amendments Nos. 193A and 195A are together. Amendment No. 193A says, "leave out line 6", which is the line that states that,
"the following shall cease to have effect".
If that line is being left out, the Government have restored the ban on foreign ownership.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I assume that we will agree with the Government's proposal, but it is extraordinary to have that proposal without any explanation about how the Government came to put themselves in that position. There would have been total astonishment if anyone had suggested, before we started on this Bill, that the Government would propose that advertising agencies could own commercial television franchises. However, the Minister said that the advertising industry had decided that it did not want that.
The advertising industry never wanted the measure and was totally astonished that it was being put in. It came to the conclusion that it would produce great complications with conflicts of interest for the industry. That was an amazing mistake for the Government to make. Sometimes they get the bit between their teeth in the marketplace and forget about the consequences.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall be brief. I very much welcome these amendments. However, as I did not say anything on this point at Second Reading or in Committee, I am surprised that the Government have brought forward the proposal. As one who worked at the IPA some years ago, I was fully aware that members of the IPA are not allowed to have interests in the media. If they had such an interest they would have to resign. An important point about institutes such as the IPA is that they underpin self-regulation in the advertising industry. I therefore believe that to remove that restriction could be to erode that very important self-regulatory aspect of the advertising industry.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. However, there was a very full discussion in Committee, where it was generally felt that that was not a good thing to do. We took it away, thought about it and took further advice. We have now come back, and noble Lords have heard our position. I find that wholly admirable.
If I may, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, and try to clear up that issue—if there is an issue—well before Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as Amendment No. 195A is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 196 or 197. Is Amendment No. 198 not moved?
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, may I intervene at this point? It was made very clear to me this morning that we had tabled Amendment No. 196A so as to avoid any possibility of pre-emption.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the manuscript amendment before us is Amendment No. 198A, in place of Amendment No. 198. Amendments Nos. 196 and 197 are indeed pre-empted.
Baroness Buscombe: I apologise, my Lords.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 198A:
Page 295, line 10, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
"( ) Paragraph 2 of that Part (disqualification for religious bodies) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise also for the late tabling of manuscript Amendment No. 198A, which is effectively a redraft of Amendment No. 196. It has been tabled to allow us to debate this extremely important issue, which would not otherwise have been possible following the acceptance of the previous group of amendments.
One of the most extraordinary and unwelcome elements of the Bill comes with the stance taken by the Government on religious broadcasting, as set out in Clause 340. Amendments Nos. 196, 198, 198A and 199—which we tabled and I shall speak to now—seek to remedy the blatant injustice found on the face of the Bill.
I am sure that over the course of this debate we shall hear many excellent arguments as to why religious groups should not be excluded as they currently are, and I shall not attempt to cover all the points here. The Minister knows as well as I do many of the issues concerning human rights, competition law, spectrum scarcity and unfulfilled demand, to name just a few, but I should simply like to tease out a few details to bring to his attention in the hope that it may generate a favourable response.
I begin with a quote from Mark Fisher in another place, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in what was then the Department of National Heritage, now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. He said:

945
"As Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, I was not satisfied with my officials' changing answers when I investigated the Christian broadcasters' disqualification. I believed in their democratic freedom to broadcast to the third of a million people who wrote and petitioned the Department, asking to be allowed to listen. The consumer need could easily have been met, if officials had allowed the Christian music broadcasters to use the additional national radio frequency from the Isle of Man.
"It was never a technical matter when I was Minister, I don't believe it is a matter of spectrum now. I believed then, and I believe now, that religious broadcasters should bid for national and local licences on a level playing field with other applicants".
The quote touches on a number of points on which I should appreciate responses from the Minister. Does the Minister appreciate that there is unfulfilled demand for religious broadcasting, and that by disqualifying religious groups, many would-be consumers are denied the right to appreciate the broadcast media that they demand? As Mr Fisher commented, a third of a million people petitioned the department on this issue. People want to listen to religious radio stations, but the Bill prevents them from doing so. An example will illustrate this.
Liberty AM Women's Radio, in London, is owned by religious people, resulting in its being disqualified from applying for a digital DAB licence. So, unlike other local radio licensees in the UK, it was denied an automatic rollover of its analogue licence. That resulted in its analogue licence being put out to tender last year. Liberty lost its licence, and this month it is having to shed the last of about 30 full-time jobs in east London. London is losing its only women's radio station. Therefore, Premier Radio is London's only remaining religious radio station. However, it faces a new hurdle, which is digital AM, or DRM.
I should like to ask the Minister whether Premier will be allowed to continue broadcasting on a 1305 DRM multiplex with, say, a gospel music programme, a classical and easy listening contemporary Christian music programme and a current affairs and phone-in live local talk station? Or will some of Premier's AM frequencies be a new casualty of the religious disqualification on DRM, just like Liberty on DAB?
The human rights aspect is ongoing. I wish to make only one brief point on that aspect of the debate. At Committee stage there was reference to a Mr Abdelfattah Amor, a rapporteur on religious freedom in the UN Human Rights Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, questioned why Mr Amor had not done something about the representations made to the commission by the United Nations Association, if he thought that the representations were valid. Subsequent to that remark, Mr Amor has been contacted and is requesting copies of all the UNA papers about the UK's disqualification of religious persons in broadcasting law. We wait and see what his conclusions shall be.
Mr Fisher also refers to the fact that, with better spectrum management, new spectrum could be made available so that the scarcity argument no longer applies. I understand that the Minister has received a copy of the Report on UK Radio Broadcasting Spectrum Availability from the Centre for Justice
946
and Liberty, which persuasively sets down the opportunities available to the Government for making additional spectrum available and which is endorsed by a number of radio communications experts. Although I am unable to boast their level of expertise and experience in this field, as I understand it, several options are open to the Government which would create new spectrum availability.
Mr Fisher referred to the Isle of Man, which would have been the location of a transmitter site for an additional independent analogue frequency at 279 kHz, and has yet to be brought into use. Additionally, 225 kHz has been allocated to the United Kingdom as another possible national independent radio station. Moreover, technological advances make way for a host of opportunities. I am thinking in particular of Digital Radio Mondiale—DRM—which could double or even triple radio services on AM. The list goes on.
The long and the short of it seems to be that the Government's arguments on spectrum scarcity are severely flawed. What little water is held at present by this logic will certainly be eliminated in the future due to technological advances. As "future-proofing" is something we are striving to do with this Bill, I do not see why it should not apply here.
While I certainly do not believe that spare spectrum should automatically be allocated to religious broadcasters, surely they deserve the opportunity to bid for the licence alongside everyone else. Importantly, Ofcom could then exercise its discretion as to whether the bid has sufficient merit to warrant full consideration. It would be a level playing field for applications. Putting a disqualification on the face of the Bill is therefore both short-sighted, as spectrum scarcity is not a long-term problem, and draconian, as there are more than enough safeguards in place.
As we discussed at length in Committee, the Bill as it stands already ensures that fanatical organisations or those that are otherwise unfit to broadcast are prevented from being granted a licence, or have it removed if they broadcast unsuitable material. Indeed, if, following today's proceedings, we have included in the legislation a public interest test—effectively an additional layer—then to continue with a religious disqualification with that additional safeguard in place might underpin the claim that it could never be in the public interest to have religious broadcasting, and that is surely not the case.
It now seems doubly unacceptable to exclude religious groups and I hope that the Government will reconsider their stance in the light of this. The point is a matter of principle. As such it is not a matter of entering into negotiation on which type of licences religious groups should or should not be disqualified from. Religious groups should not have been disqualified from any type of licence, and the Government should now seek to rectify that.
I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, has not arrived. I suspect that he may not arrive in time given that he is in court in the Midlands. The noble Lord contacted me and other noble Lords to confirm that he

947
continued to support the amendment notwithstanding that he was not able to be present. Noble Lords will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made a very powerful speech in Committee which we believe was valid then and is valid now. The noble Lord talked much about democratic choice. Noble Lords might like to remember that as that is what the matter comes down to. It is about democratic choice and seeking a level playing field, at least as regards applications for licences. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I support the amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, spoke with such eloquence and conviction. I spoke in some detail on Second Reading and in Committee on the issues that the amendments raise. I shall not, therefore, repeat what I said in those debates save to emphasise that I recognise the constructive contribution and potential of the independent religious broadcasting industry.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, indicated, independent religious broadcasters find themselves disadvantaged by the means of controlling licence allocation, which I suggest could be achieved in other ways. For example, there are strong content regulations which could be even further strengthened, as the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, recommended. Some of the more damaging and possibly unintended consequences could then be avoided, thereby removing the necessity for current disqualifications.
The Church has expressed concerns over several areas of the Bill and throughout its progress I have sought to bridge the gap in those areas between the Churches, the Government and the broadcasters. Indeed, I led a cross-party delegation to the Secretary of State to find a way forward on these religious issues. I have encouraged my colleagues to negotiate a solution and to find a consensus but up to now on this particular issue there has been no success. I am disappointed about that. But even though there may be a Vote on the amendment tonight, I still very much hope that the door will not be closed to further negotiations in the future. Indeed, I hope that such negotiations will have been made more possible by the debate we had earlier on the public interest plurality test. It is all the more necessary because independent religious broadcasters will now face yet another hurdle of regulation in the Bill under the public interest test.
In supporting the amendment, I look for the Minister's assurance that he will engage in discussions in the hope—this is my deep hope—that a solution may be brought to Third Reading.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, support the amendments in the group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester I had hoped—indeed, I still hope—that we would find an agreed solution to the issue of the remaining prohibitions on media licence ownership by those with a religious background. I hope that that can be achieved before Third Reading.
948
I had hoped that the acceptance in principle by the Government of the plurality public interest test would mean a preparedness by the Minister to accept the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. If that had been the case, any potential applicants with a faith background would, in addition to the plurality public interest test, also have to abide by an additional religious regulation as to what form of religious broadcasting would or would not be acceptable. In other words a double hurdle would already be in place, and rightly so for those who wish to avoid the more extreme kinds of religious broadcasting sometimes found, for example, in the United States. But unless the Government accept the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, those with a faith background applying for a licence would indeed face a triple jeopardy: public interest plurality test; specific religious requirements; and the prohibitions to licence ownership remaining in the Bill.
Surely that would mean there would be an even greater risk of human rights infringement than might have existed previously— notably those indicated by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the religious advisory committee of the UNA.
I had very much hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, would speak this evening. We have received a note expressing his sadness that he cannot be here. One of the points he wanted to stress that he still believed was that this continued disqualification is a breach of human rights.
In 1999 or 2000, I think, the then DCMS broadcasting Minister, Janet Anderson, was pleased to claim credit for the White Paper's commitment to allow religious broadcasters to apply for national analogue radio licences. One can well understand the frustration—indeed, the resentment—that those still prohibited must feel when that promise never materialised. They were never even invited to the consultations on the subject. If you add that to the fact that, as we have heard, considerable doubt has now been cast on the Government's fall-back argument—using the scarcity of spectrum availability as an excuse for not removing these restrictions—it must be clear that those still prohibited and the considerable potential audience who want to hear their programmes are being denied a right to practise their profession. As we know, they can apply for licences in other EC countries and, if granted, their programmes can often be heard in the UK. The only difference is that neither the licences nor those programmes are subject to the same rigorous public service broadcasting regulation that would be applied had they been allowed to practise their profession over here.
I very much hope that the Government will either change their mind or announce that they have always been of the same mind. I hope that they will remove these quite unnecessary restrictions on those with a religious faith background.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I am very sympathetic to what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, but I am rather puzzled by it. It seems to me that the

949
religious voices in this country are very important indeed. They are massively important for many young people I know in terms of their own spirituality, whether or not they are churchgoers—and most of them are not. They are massively important for an enormous number of people who have faith, and that cannot be judged just by people who go to church on Sundays. People of very different religious faiths adhere to them extremely strongly.
It seems to me that in many areas of this country at the moment discussions are taking place through religion. It is unfortunate sometimes to use anecdotal evidence, but I heard a perfectly sensible BBC local radio programme the other morning. It lasted for about an hour. It was a phone-in about attitudes towards Muslims in this country, with a sensible young man taking the calls. It was all expressed in terms of religion. I was crying out for religious people on the programme or a religious channel where the matter could be expressed more fully and more richly and challenged in a way that would satisfy the people who were phoning in, most of whom were seeking information and enlightenment and not the argy-bargy which, sadly, occurred.
Religion is still one of the principal ways for many people to manage their lives. For many people in groups, communities and the country as a whole, it is a way to manage how they think that the community should go. Simply because we see some appalling examples in the United States of America, it does not mean that we should go that way. We do not go that way in many other areas of our broadcasting. The spectrum will be available soon, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, pointed out. Will the Minister give us some assurance that he will think again about the issue? As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, the opening of the door would be extremely welcome.
We are dealing with something about which we are rather diffident in this country. We deal with it in subterraneous ways, but it is very important to us. We are dealing with a democracy of ideas, and are in danger of excluding a huge area and body of ideas that informs many people, some very consciously, some very effortfully, some unconsciously but it is still around. It would be dangerous, and a denial of their freedom to express their ideas, were we to shut the door firmly at this time. I hope that we can have some assurance that the matter will be looked at again.
7 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I also support the amendment. There are no local Christian radio licences granted outside London, and I would certainly like to tune into Christian radio in Liverpool and elsewhere on Merseyside. That is very important. The current disqualification on religious broadcasting, particularly Christian radio companies, means that there is a definite disadvantage to those of us who want to listen to Christian radio.
950
More than 70 per cent of people in the 2001 national census declared that they were Christian. Another 5.5 per cent declared that they were followers of other faiths. That is the majority of the country, so the matter is particularly important. I, too, am very puzzled as to why the disqualification has continued in regard to Christian radio stations applying for licences.
A large number of people—I understand that the number is 276,000—have sent petitions to the department asking for Christian broadcasting. Over many years, many constituency petitions have been laid before Parliament in another place, including those from the constituencies of the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers. That shows at least some unmet public demand from people such as me throughout the country. If regulators or market conditions frustrate our quite legitimate demands for such services, this is the opportunity to put an end to that in Parliament. The Government could lift the ban.
In other countries in Europe, such as the Netherlands, religious radio stations have no difficulty at all applying for licences and receiving licences. Further afield, in New Zealand, a country with a much smaller population, there are several radio stations broadcasting with a Christian background. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, back in the 1980s, I was for a time the Minister with responsibility at the Home Office for radio regulatory affairs. I am entirely persuaded that the argument on spectrum is short term and will rapidly fail. For the purposes of this debate, it should therefore be disregarded. However, a much bigger and more important issue is the way in which our society and the media that serve it developed over the previous century and into the current century. We have become an increasingly materialist and secularised society. That has been very much helped by the media.
Our children have lived through a whole series of revolutions, none of which were even on the horizon when I was a child. They lived through the credit card revolution. Noble Lords will remember that very damaging slogan:
"Take the waiting out of wanting".
something that is a lesson and strikes a very valuable chord. Then we had the drugs revolution, which introduced a whole spectrum of new temptations against which children need to be armed not by humanist considerations, but by spiritual considerations. As the pressures have grown, so the availability of a spiritual dimension in our media has diminished.
The Bill is relegating, for the first time, any religious applicants for licence to a second class. There are the first-class secular applicants and the second-class spiritual applicants, which must be unacceptable not only from the spiritual point of view, but from the equality point of view of which I had hitherto thought that the Government were so very well seized.

951
It is a question of democratic choice, not only of Christian wishes. I speak as a Christian, and I am very open to that argument, but the question is about the whole range of spiritual belief. Other religions should not be locked out of this forum, thus making them in another respect minorities in our society. The proposal in the Bill is wholly bad, therefore.
An extraordinary product of the regime that we have already is that there is only one local religious Christian broadcasting company, and that is in the metropolis. Why should the South East be particular in that way? Why should a third hurdle be put up, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, eloquently put it, on the course over which any applicant has to go to get a licence?
The provision is targeted against an interest that it would benefit this country to encourage. I ask the noble Lord to think again about it. If not, I shall gladly go into the Lobby with my noble friend in support of her amendment.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I shall briefly break my purdah to support the arguments that I have been hearing, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Successive governments have hidden behind spectrum scarcity as a way of not getting their heads around a difficult but very important issue.
I was on the "Today" programme this morning. I happened to be speaking immediately after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I heard myself say on air, and I certainly believe it, that I had very little to add to what Tom Butler had just said because it made total sense. There are many mornings when, as I am in shower, I wish that the whole of the "Today" programme were "Thought for the Day", because it makes a lot more sense than anything that precedes or follows it.
We are talking about a marketplace of ideas. It would he extremely nice to think that the marketplace of ideas built around faith had as important a role to play as any other marketplace in the media spectrum.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I apologise for not having been able to take part in earlier stages of the Bill. Of course, I am well aware that religious broadcasting in the United States has quite often earned itself a bad name. I do not think that the same phenomena are likely to repeat themselves in this country, given the very different nature of our religious culture and of the various faiths and religious groups here. I would have thought that there was a very strong case for further experiments in religious local radio broadcasts. The human rights case for them has been mentioned, and it seems to me to rest on freedom of expression as well as freedom of belief and religion. There should of course be ample opportunities for humanists to put their point of view, just as for religious believers. In today's world situation, many conflicts are raging or are liable to break out and inter-faith dialogue is particularly needed. I should have thought that religious broadcasting would provide a good opportunity for inter-faith dialogue to take place on the radio in a reasonably public manner. The right
952
reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester made excellent points about content regulation and public interest tests. On all those grounds, I ask the Government to think again, perhaps to convene a working party on the subject and to explore the way forward.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have heard some passionate speeches about religion and religious broadcasting and the need for religion in our society. It so happens that, as an unbeliever, I do not agree with them but that is really not the point. The amendments and this part of the Bill are not about religious broadcasting; they are about a very limited restriction on the ownership of channels.
The fundamental point is that the Bill has—in direct contrast to what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said—enormously increased the ability of religious organisations to operate radio and television channels. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will confirm that, from our debates yesterday and with universal agreement, we refined and expanded the requirement on public service broadcasters to cover religious matters in their programming.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am indeed happy to confirm that I warmly welcomed that aspect of the religious remit within public service broadcasting and I recognise also that there has been a relaxation of the regulations in the area that we are debating. Other issues of course remain and the amendments seek to raise them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Indeed, my Lords, and I am trying to address those issues. I make it clear that the debate is not about religion or religious broadcasting; it is about a residual restriction on the ownership of certain—a very limited number of—channels, where there is still spectrum scarcity in relation to religious organisations.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting because I should probably know the answer but, when new channels become available, am I right in believing that they will not be subject to those restrictions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am coming to the end of my speech rather than at its beginning but, yes, where there is no spectrum scarcity, licences are already available to religious organisations. When new spectrum becomes available, we can remove the ban by order. I believe that I could sit down on that point, couldn't I?
Baroness Buscombe: That is fine, my Lords, because it foreshortens my response. This is a matter of principle. It is rather like the ITN debate, which involved saying, "It is okay in future but not quite right now". As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, this matter is about freedom of expression, freedom of belief and democratic choice. If that were the case, why is there not discrimination in relation to other bodies on the grounds of spectrum scarcity?

953
I support all noble Lords who took part in this debate; all of them made such powerful speeches. I refer in particular to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lords, Lord Bragg, Lord Chan, Lord Hylton and Lord Puttnam, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and my noble friend Lord Elton. Each of them supported the amendment, for which I am very grateful. We must agree to disagree with the Government. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 198A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kimball, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Kingsland, L.

Astor, V.

Laird, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Attlee, E.

Lucas, L.

Barker, B.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bowness, L.

McNally, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Maddock, B.

Buscombe, B.

Manchester, Bp.

Byford, B.

Mancroft, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mar, C.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Chan, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chorley, L.

Monson, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Noakes, B.

Cox, B.

Northbrook, L.

Crathorne, L.

Northover, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Onslow, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Palmer, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Patten, L.

Elton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ezra, L.

Peel, E.

Fookes, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Freeman, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Freyberg, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Geddes, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Greenway, L.

Rawlings, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rees, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Rennard, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Renton, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Russell, E.

Higgins, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Saatchi, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hooper, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Hooson, L.

Selborne, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Sharples, B.

Hylton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

954

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Tordoff, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Stewartby, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinfen, L.

Waddington, L.

Wakeham, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Walmsley, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Haskins, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hayman, B.

Alli, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Andrews, B.

Hollick, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Borrie, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bragg, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brett, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brookman, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Craigavon, V.

Parekh, L.

Crawley, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

David, B.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Puttnam, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dixon, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Dubs, L.

Richard. L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Falkender, B.

Sawyer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sewel, L.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Stallard, L.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Thornton, B.

Golding, B.

Truro, Bp.

Goldsmith, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Warner, L.

Goudie, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Whitty, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Harris of Haringey, L.

Harrison, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Haskel, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.25 p.m.
[Amendment No. 199 not moved.]
Clause 342 [Relaxation of licence-holding restrictions]:
[Amendment No. 199 A not moved.]
Schedule 14 [Media ownership rules]:
Lord McNallyhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 200:
Page 430, line 23, at end insert—

PART 1A CHANNEL 5 LICENCES
Ban on newspaper proprietors holding a Channel 5 licence
6A (1) A person is not to hold a Channel 5 licence if—

(a) he runs a national newspaper which for the time being has a national market share of 20 per cent. or more; or

(b) he runs national newspapers which for the time being together have a national market share of 20 per cent. or more.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, each of the following shall be treated as holding a Channel 5 licence—

(a) the actual licence holder; and

(b) every person connected with the actual licence holder.

(3) The provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Schedule shall apply for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule insofar as they relate to national newspapers as if a Channel 5 licence were a licence to provide a Channel 3 service."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the light of the very important statement made by the Minister today about plurality and its effect on the Bill, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Lord Eatwellmoved Amendment No. 201:
Page 430, line 30, at beginning insert "Subject to subparagraph (1A),"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I remind noble Lords of the declaration of interest that I made some time ago. I retabled the amendments that I first tabled in Committee because, sadly, there has been no response from the Government to the arguments made at that time.
Perhaps I may place the amendments in context. They concern the ownership of local digital multiplexes—the transmission platforms for the new local digital radio stations. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government regard digital radio as the medium of the future and have encouraged the commercial sector to invest heavily in transmission facilities, new stations and new programming. The commercial radio industry has responded by investing more than £100 million in those facilities, covering 85 per cent of the country. In contrast, the BBC's digital radio system covers only 65 per cent of the country.
Now that the industry has fulfilled the Government's policy goals, the Government have decided to kick it in the teeth by imposing a tighter regulatory regime than was the case when those investments were made. At present, there are no numerical limits on the number of multiplex licences that any one person may hold. The Government have produced no evidence whatever to suggest that that has been in any way against the public interest, yet they propose that a person may own only one local multiplex in a local coverage area.
As was pointed out in Committee, that fails to take account of an existing overlap between the multiplex serving Kent and the multiplex in London, which
956
could prevent Capital Radio owning the multiplex in Kent, where it owns the heritage local radio service. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, dismissed that case as "an anomaly" and, indeed, rested most of his argument on that. He declared that it was a,
"unique situation [that only affects London] … and is unlikely to be repeated".—[Official Report, 5/6/03; col. 1527.]
I regret to say that the noble Lord was wrong. Exactly the same situation holds in Scotland. The multiplexes in Ayr and Glasgow—both owned by the same company, which is also the heritage local radio company—also overlap. What does the noble Lord intend to do about this Scottish anomaly and any further anomalies that will occur once one looks far more carefully at the structure of the industry and, indeed, as more local multiplexes are licensed?
However, it is not the noble Lord's mistake in Committee on which this case rests. The questions relating to anomalies are not really the issue; it is the logic of the noble Lord's argument that is faulty. He argued that the Government sought to sustain plurality by restricting the ownership of transmission systems, in particular, in London. Referring to London, with our three local multiplexes, he declared:
"From the point of view of plurality, London is such a large and important market that it is entirely reasonable to ensure that no one multiplex licence holder should be able to determine two-thirds of London's digital radio stations".—[Official Report, 5/6/03; col. 1527.]
That was the noble Lord's argument. But he seems to have forgotten that the Government have already agreed that the restriction on local radio station ownership will obey the formula of 2 plus 1—that is, a minimum of two commercial owners in any one area, the "plus 1" being the BBC. Thus, the Government have accepted that there could be two providers of local programming and that that would ensure plurality. Yet the noble Lord wants three owners of transmission mechanisms; I repeat: two stations producing the programmes and three owners of transmission mechanisms. Why? That is a nonsense. It is the programming that matters and not the transmission systems, but the noble Lord wants more transmission systems than local owners.
My amendments would allow any one owner to own up to two multiplexes in one area. In other words, I entirely accept a restriction in the currently unrestricted environment, but it is one that applies to two owners in one area. Remarkably, this simple amendment solves at one stroke both the anomaly in Kent and London and that north of the Tweed, and it makes the regulation of transmission ownership consistent with the regulation of station ownership. Acceptance of my amendments would also suggest that the Government are not reneging on their previous commitment to invest in digital services.
I hope that the noble Lord will now see the logic of accepting my amendments or, at the very least, that he will agree to meet me before Third Reading to discuss these matters. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it goes without saying that if I fail to persuade my noble friend to agree with the argument I am about to present—and I start in a non-too-optimistic vein—I shall be delighted to meet him after the completion of this stage of the Bill in order to see if we can make further progress. However, I hope that I can explain to him and to the House better than I appear to have done in Committee why the Government take the position they do.
I readily acknowledge the strength of my noble friend's case in stating that there has been a significant investment in the industry; £100 million to date. I paid due tribute on the previous occasion and I agree that with that investment the UK leads the world in this area. That is a real achievement and we would not want in any way, shape or form to put that investment in jeopardy or to deter further investment.
We support further investment in digital radio in the UK. With his great knowledge of the industry, my noble friend will have recognised that we have amended the Bill so as to extend by four years the period during which a multiplex licence can be automatically renewed. That is a recognition of the investment that has been made. But the main support has been through the significant changes we are introducing to the analogue radio market. The industry has frequently, and rightly, pointed out that it can only support the development of digital radio through its profits from its analogue services. As everyone is aware, we have taken enormous steps to liberalise the ownership rules for local and national radio. This should enable consolidation, better services, greater efficiencies and greater profits. This, in turn, enables the industry to increase the necessary digital investment.
However, the support for further development must also be balanced with the need to ensure that there are adequate ownership rules, so as to encourage plurality. This is as important for multiplexes as it is for the radio services themselves.
A local radio multiplex is the means by which terrestrial digital radio services are broadcast to an area and can carry up to 10 programme services. The multiplex owner is the gatekeeper. He plays a crucial role, as he is entirely responsible for selecting which services the multiplex carries, subject to the requirement not to discriminate between service providers. It is a position of considerable influence.
In addition to this, we propose to bring forward an order made under Schedule 14 to the Bill under which the multiplex operator would be able to own up to 55 per cent of the services broadcast on a multiplex—five services on a multiplex of 10—regardless of whether he owned the multiplex in question.
The media ownership rules are concerned with plurality, and a need to avoid too much influence falling into too few hands. We clearly need some plurality rules in this area. The question—and it is the issue between us—is what is an appropriate level of intervention. We have aimed to make the rules as light as possible consistent with the need to maintain a
958
minimum level of plurality. We have therefore decided that there should be no limits to the total number of local radio multiplexes in the United Kingdom that any one person can hold. There is only one restriction on local multiplex ownership—that no one can hold two overlapping multiplexes, although I recognise the point which my noble friend made in respect of the Kent and London overlap.
The licences in Scotland have already been awarded under the existing rules and we are introducing those rules for the future and can amend them by order in the future. The situation will not arise again under the current rollout of digital. I acknowledge that on the previous occasion I quoted the single English exception to the position. My noble friend has rightly drawn to my attention that, in all honesty, I ought to have mentioned the fact that it was an exception in Scotland.
As regards intervention, we are making the rules as light as possible. We therefore maintain that if circumstances change the Bill allows us to change the ownership rules. My noble friend will recognise that we are in the early phase of the digital rollout. I can assure him that in no other case will three multiplexes be licensed to one owner. If more spectrum is made available for digital radio, it is unlikely to be earlier than 2007. I believe that the introduction of new spectrum would be the appropriate time to consider relaxing the multiplex ownership rules, hut not now.
My noble friend, with his usual eloquence, has made a powerful case. I realise that he still has points of difference with the Government over this matter. I am merely saying that, within the framework of the Bill, we will have flexibility to adjust the situation in future, but we are striking a balance between the need for the necessary investment and the needs of the wider community for proper plurality.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he answer the point that in London the Government have already agreed that there can be a minimum of two owners of radio stations, ensuring plurality, yet he wants there to be three multiplex owners? How does the fact that there are three transmission systems add to the plurality when you can have two owners of programmes?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it looks as though my noble friend is no more enthusiastic about the argument I have presented on this occasion than he was in Committee. I therefore unreservedly acknowledge the fact that we have some issues to discuss and I should be pleased to hold that meeting with him before Third Reading.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. It is not quite what I hoped for. I hoped that the irrefutable logic of my arguments would penetrate the Government's carapace of defence. However, we will have a meeting about the issue when I hope that his attempt to defend the

959
indefensible will be effectively exposed and the Government will realise that they have made a bit of a mess of this issue.
In the meantime, looking forward to that meeting, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Clause 343 [Restrictions relating to nominated news providers]:
[Amendments Nos. 203 and 204 not moved.]
Clause 348 [Variation of local licence following change of control]:
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No 205A:
Page 305, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) The matters to which OFCOM must have regard in determining for the purposes of this section the character of a local sound broadcasting service, include, in particular, the selection of spoken material and music in programmes included in the service."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 not moved.]
Clause 350 [Meaning of "control"]:
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 207A:
Page 306, line 37, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 207A I refer also to the other amendments in this group. We had a substantive debate on these issues in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, having moved an amendment in Committee, I very much welcome the fact that the Government have withdrawn these two subsections which were, for me at least, the ones which were causing a problem. Therefore, I am grateful to the Government.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I repeat the declaration of interest I gave earlier. Noble Lords have no idea what pleasure it gives me to say how pleased I am to support this government amendment. I am grateful that the Government have removed the burdensome subsections which previously existed in Clause 350.
Perhaps I may raise one issue with the Minister. All the weight now falls on subsection (4), which states that Ofcom is required to,
"publish guidance setting out their intentions concerning the inclusion of particular matters in the matters that they will take into account when determining whether a person has control of a body".
Given that we do not know what Ofcom may settle on as matters that it will take into account, can the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention that the onerous conditions previously contained in
960
subsections (2) and (3), which the Government rightly want to delete, could not be reinstated by Ofcom in the form of its guidance in future?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Ofcom will have due regard to our deliberations at various stages during the passage of the Bill. It is also the case that it will recognise that statements and concessions made in the Chamber are there to govern the nature of the code which they must develop. Earlier today I desperately sought, unsuccessfully, to avoid an amendment to the Bill on the very grounds that Ofcom would have regard to the nature of the code which it would draw up, and that also applies in this case.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friends and for the re-establishment of old relationships in the passage of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (The Countess of Mar): My Lords, I must apologise to the House. I should have informed the House that if Amendment No. 207A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 208 and 209.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Clause 351 [Annual factual and statistical report]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 209A:
Page 307, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) the extent to which any guidance given by OFCOM under section 307 has been followed during that period;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 352 [Grants to access radio providers]:
Viscount Falklandmoved Amendment No. 210:
Leave out Clause 352 and insert the following new Clause—
"GRANTS TO COMMUNITY MEDIA
(1) OFCOM shall make such payments as they consider appropriate to a fund established under this section, to be known as the Community Media Fund.
(2) The Fund shall be under the management of a body established for the purposes of this section, which shall be called the Community Media Foundation.
(3) The Community Media Foundation shall consist of—

(a) a chairman appointed by OFCOM, and

(b) such number of other members appointed by OFCOM, not being less than four nor more than eight, as they may from time to time determine.

(4) The Fund may be applied by the Foundation in the making of grants for—

(a) the establishment and development of community media,

(b) the making of programmes to be carried by community media,

(c) the training of persons connected with community media,

(d) the provision of support services to community media,

(e) other related purposes.

(5) When making any grant out of the Fund in pursuance of subsection (4) the Foundation may impose such conditions as they think fit, including conditions requiring the grant to be repaid in certain circumstances.
(6) The Foundation shall perform their functions under this section with respect to the making of grants out of the Fund in such manner as they consider will secure a range and diversity of community media throughout the United Kingdom, taking account of the greater needs of areas and localities which are economically disadvantaged.
(7) OFCOM shall so exercise their power under subsection (3) to appoint the members of the Foundation as to secure that a majority of the members are persons who appear to them to represent a broad range of knowledge and experience of community media.
(8) In this section—
"community media" means communications services provided primarily for the benefit of members of the public in a defined geographical locality or in a particular community and not operated by the BBC or for commercial purposes.
(9) In subsection (8)—
"communications services" includes—

(a) radio and television broadcasting;

(b) electronic communications networks and services; and

(c) content services carried by services falling within paragraphs (a) or (b)."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendment No. 210 deals with community media services and the funding thereof and sets out a new clause to put the community media fund into the Bill as a primary legislative provision. That would give the fund a similar status to that of the Gaelic media service.
As noble Lords will realise, an important principle of any funding of community media should be at arm's length from Government and from the regulator in order to maintain editorial independence. That is necessary to avoid any funding mechanism becoming an additional tool of regulatory intervention. The arrangements in the amendment are the same as for the Gaelic media service. It proposes five purposes to which the fund should or could be applied:

"(a) the establishment and development of community media,

(b) the making of programmes to be carried by community media,

(c) the training of persons connected with community media,

(d) the provision of support services to community media,

(e) for other related purposes.

There is considerable experience now in various countries of funds of this kind, which play a vital role in sustaining and developing community media services without being the sole source of finance. Community media in those cases benefit from funding from a variety of sources which include local business, groups of listeners and public sources. These approaches have been shown to be successful in many of the regulatory environments in the world, which include Canada, the United States, Australia and so forth.
The advice that we are given is that the fund would contribute to up to 40 per cent of the cost, depending upon the need and size of the operation. The fund will be available for development costs, which include capital costs, and perhaps operating costs at a later stage as we see the emergence of various media services. When they begin to settle down one will see a shift from development costs to operating costs.
One of the challenges of a cross-media community fund is to strike the right balance of support between the different kinds of media service. Conventional wisdom at present is that television costs for community purposes are about three or four times higher than for radio. However, this whole area of communication involving electronics moves very quickly, as many noble Lords who may have invested in such areas will know, either to their benefit or their cost.
Evidence is now before us that developments recently in community television have brought the costs down to a level comparable to that of community radio. Indeed, I received a letter from a director of a community radio organisation who stated that 2.4 GHz technology is being used in universities and various small communities because the range is limited in that particular part of the spectrum. They have provided work experience for many people, in particular graduates, who as a result have moved on to employment in the broader industry. They have devised the means to communicate effectively in television as cheaply as radio.
This is an important amendment which deals not just with the situation as it exists now but takes account of the changes which are taking place and are likely to take place. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the amendment would replace the existing clause concerning grants for access radio with a new clause that would establish a community media fund to be administered by a foundation appointed by Ofcom. The foundation would make grants to support community media projects, giving particular priority to economically disadvantaged areas.
We have already discussed similar amendments. We cannot support the extension of the access fund to all community media projects. We all know that running a television channel is much more expensive than running a radio station. If we fund radio, television and Internet with the same pot of money it is unlikely that we would be able to secure sufficient grants for each project. The result of spreading our resources so thinly could well be that we fail to gain any benefit from the scheme.
In addition, I hardly think that the sums of money likely to be available will justify the degree of bureaucracy that the amendment would entail. In order to maximise the proportion of the available funds that reach the stations and avoid frittering them away on excessive administration, it is better for Ofcom to administer any funds directly.
As we have made clear throughout our debate on the subject, the Government view the growth of local media operations as a positive and important development, but it is one that must be managed carefully. Let us try to secure sufficient funds to make

963
a success of access radio before we consider what should be the next step. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thorough reply and understand what he said. That will he disappointing to many who are working hard to develop community television, in particular. They will feel that the ability to fund those developments is not running apace with their technology. I understand the Minister's view, and will return to those who briefed us on the amendments, who will clearly have something to say. They will read carefully what the Minister said. I reserve the right to return to the matter at the next stage, if necessary. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 15 [Amendments of Broadcasting Acts]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 210A and 210B:
Page 437, line 12, leave out from "fees)," to end of line 16 and insert "the words from "and the amount" onwards shall be omitted."
Page 447, line 10, leave out from "fees)," to end of line 14 and insert "the words from "and the amount" onwards shall be omitted."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 212A:
Page 458, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) In paragraph 1(6) of Part 1 (meaning of "more than a 20 per cent. interest"), for "20 per cent.", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "5 per cent."."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 213 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 213ZA, 213A and 213B:
Page 461, line 12, leave out from "fees)," to end of line 16 and insert "the words from "and the amount" onwards shall be omitted."
Page 463, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) for "a multiplex licence", in each place, there shall be substituted "a television multiplex service or a general multiplex service";
( ) for "the multiplex service to which the licence relates", in each place, there shall be substituted "that multiplex service";"
Page 464, line 40, at end insert "; and

(b) for "a multiplex licence" there shall be substituted "a television multiplex service or a general multiplex service"."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 214 to 216 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments No. 216ZA, 216A, 216B, 216C and 216D:
Page 471, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
"( ) In subsection (2), sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it shall he omitted.
964
( ) In subsection (3) (fixing of fees), the words from "and the amount" onwards shall be omitted."
Page 474, line 28, leave out paragraph 116 and insert—
"116 (1) Section 56 of the 1996 Act (multiplex revenue) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "section 55(1)" there shall be substituted "this Part";

(b) for "the holder of a national radio multiplex licence" there shall be substituted "the person who is the multiplex provider in relation to a national radio multiplex service";

(c) in paragraph (a)(i), "to which the licence relates" shall be omitted;

(d) in paragraphs (c) and (d), for "the holder of the radio multiplex licence" there shall be substituted "the multiplex provider".

(3) In subsections (2) to (8)—

(a) for "the holder of the radio multiplex licence", "the licence holder" and "the holder of the multiplex licence", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted, in each case, "the multiplex provider"; and

(b) for "the Authority", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "OFCOM".

(4) In subsection (9)—

(a) for "a national radio multiplex licence", in each place, there shall be substituted "a national radio multiplex service";

(b) for "the radio multiplex service to which the licence relates", in each place, there shall be substituted "that radio multiplex service";

(c) after the definition of "additional services provider" there shall be inserted—

"'multiplex provider'—

(a) in relation to a national radio multiplex service for which a person holds a licence under this Part, means the licence holder; and

(b) in relation to a national radio multiplex service which is not licensed under this Part, means the person who provides that service.""

Page 474, line 32, leave out paragraph 117 and insert—
"117 (1) Section 57 of the 1996 Act (attribution of radio multiplex revenue) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "the holder of a national radio multiplex licence" there shall be substituted "the person who is the multiplex provider in relation to a national radio multiplex service"; and

(b) for "the holder of the national radio multiplex licence" there shall be substituted "the multiplex provider".

(3) In subsection (2), for "the holder of the radio multiplex licence", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted "the multiplex provider".
(4) In subsection (3)—

(a) for "the Authority" there shall be substituted "OFCOM"; and

(b) for "the holder of the national radio multiplex licence" there shall be substituted "the multiplex provider".

(5) In subsection (4)—

(a) after "'additional services provider'" there shall be inserted ", 'multiplex provider"'; and

965

(b) for "a national radio multiplex licence" there shall be substituted "a national radio multiplex service"."

Page 476, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (4), for the words from "national radio multiplex service" onwards there shall be substituted "relevant multiplex service, means the last accounting period of the multiplex provider".
( ) In subsection (5)—

(a) for "national radio multiplex service" there shall be substituted "relevant multiplex service";

(b) for "holder of the national radio multiplex licence" there shall be substituted "multiplex provider"; and

(c) for "the radio multiplex service" and "that radio multiplex service" there shall be substituted "that relevant multiplex service".

( ) After subsection (5A) (inserted by Schedule 13) there shall be inserted—
"(5B) For the purposes of this section, a service is a relevant multiplex service if it is—

(a) a national radio multiplex service;

(b) a television multiplex service; or

(c) a general multiplex service.

(5C) In this section, "multiplex provider"—

(a) in relation to a national radio multiplex service, means the multiplex provider within the meaning of section 56; and

(b) in relation to a television multiplex service or a general multiplex service, means the multiplex provider within the meaning of section 14.""

Page 476, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (4), for "national radio multiplex service" there shall be substituted "relevant multiplex service".
( ) In subsection (5), for the words from "national radio multiplex service" onwards there shall be substituted "relevant multiplex service, means the last accounting period of the multiplex provider".
( ) In subsection (6)—

(a) for "national radio multiplex service" there shall be substituted "relevant multiplex service";

(b) for "holder of the national radio multiplex licence" there shall be substituted "multiplex provider"; and

(c) for "the radio multiplex service" and "that radio multiplex service" there shall be substituted "that relevant multiplex service".

( ) After subsection (6A) (inserted by Schedule 13) there shall be inserted—
"(6B) For the purposes of this section, a service is a relevant multiplex service if it is—

(a) a national radio multiplex service; or

(b) a general multiplex service.

(6C) In this section, "multiplex provider"—

(a) in relation to a national radio multiplex service, means the multiplex provider within the meaning of section 56; and

(b) in relation to a general multiplex service, means the multiplex provider within the meaning of section 14.""

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 354 [Meaning of "available for reception by members of the public"]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 217:
After Clause 354, insert the following new clause—
"REVIEW OF OFCOM'S DECISIONS UNDER PART 3
(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish a procedure for the review of its decisions made—

(a) under sections 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 229, 224, 225, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 247, 249, 250, 251, 322 and 325;

(b) pursuant to the procedures set out in section 318 for the handling of complaints about the observance of standards set out under section 312;

(c) under Part 5 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (c. 55).

(2) Before establishing a procedure under subsection (1) OFCOM must publish, in such manner as they think fit, a draft of the proposed procedure.
(3) After publishing the draft procedure, and before establishing it as the review procedure for those decisions mentioned in subsection (1), OFCOM must consult every person who holds a relevant licence and such of the following as they think fit—

(a) persons appearing to OFCOM to represent the interests of those who watch television programmes;

(b) persons appearing to OFCOM to represent the interests of those who make use of teletext service; and

(c) persons appearing to OFCOM to represent the interests of those who listen to sound programmes.

(4) If it appears to OFCOM that a body exists which represents the interests of a number of the persons who hold relevant licences, they may perform their duty under subsection (3) of consulting such persons, so far as it relates to the persons whose interests are so represented, by consulting that body.
(5) Where OFCOM establishes a procedure under subsection (1) they must publish the procedure in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons who, in their opinion, are likely to be affected by the procedure.".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 217 would insert a new clause after Clause 354 requiring Ofcom to establish an internal review procedure for certain decisions that it makes under Part 3. As the Bill stands, no appeal or review mechanism exists in respect of Part 3 decisions, except where Ofcom exercises any of its Broadcasting Act 1996 powers for a competition purpose—in which case there may be an appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. That is despite the fact that a statement was made in the communications White Paper promising,
"appropriate review procedures within the regulator",
in respect of such decisions.
Broadcasters and consumers are therefore left with judicial review as their only route of appeal or review of Part 3 decisions. That is unsatisfactory, primarily because of the limited grounds on which decisions can be judicially reviewed. Unlike appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal under Part 2, which can revisit the merits of the decision, judicial review considers only the way in which decisions were made.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed reservations in its fourth report of 2002–03 about possible breaches of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the procedures set out for the making of Part 3 decisions. It stated that judicial review was unlikely to provide an effective

967
remedy, because the subjective nature of Ofcom's judgment would make it difficult to assess the quality of the decision unless it was wholly irrational. Furthermore, judicial review proceedings are extremely expensive, and therefore inaccessible to many affected parties, even where judicial review might otherwise be appropriate.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, confirmed the Government's view that the matter should be resolved in the High Court under judicial review and not by an independent appeals tribunal, drawing a distinction between Part 2 and Part 3 decisions. That was a disappointing response. Hence, we have tabled an amendment proposing a statutory commitment on Ofcom to consult on and establish an internal review procedure for dealing with appeals. A review of Ofcom's decisions by an internal Ofcom panel, as envisaged by the White Paper, would obviously also lack the necessary independence and impartiality to satisfy Article 6 requirements, but has the considerable advantage that it would be far cheaper and faster than proceedings in the High Court, and would therefore be a more accessible remedy for broadcasters and consumers alike.
The Government wrongly believe that the general statutory obligations on Ofcom as a regulator to act efficiently and transparently, coupled with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, should be sufficient. Although accepting that Ofcom will need to move towards the establishment of an internal review process of sorts over time, the amendment is intended to ensure that there is a statutory, and therefore orderly and transparent, process for its introduction in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, decisions under Part 5 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 relating to complaints about fairness and privacy require Ofcom to adjudicate on complaints. There is no statutory provision for review or appeal. For the review procedure in the amendment to operate, it would be necessary to make it clear where that fits in to the procedures set out in detail in the 1996 Act. Indeed, an appropriate mechanism would need to be devised in relation to each of the provisions listed in the amendment. Some of those already include procedures to ensure that broadcasters have a full opportunity to make representations.
Clause 236, for example, dealing with action against licence holders who incite crime or disorder, requires Ofcom to serve notice on the broadcaster of its intention to revoke the licence, detailing the reasons. A period of 21 days is then allowed before the licence can be revoked and the licence holder must be informed of his right to make representations. The notice of revocation then requires a further period of at least 28 days before it can take effect. That seems a very fair process. Introducing an element of internal review of the decision would need to be woven into that procedure and could not effectively be achieved using the blanket approach of the amendment.
968
Similarly, in relation to complaints about standards, we expect broadcasters to have in place appropriate arrangements for handling complaints, as required under Clause 318(1)(b). Although Ofcom has yet to establish its own procedures for handling complaints, as required under Clause 312(2), the opportunity of complaining to Ofcom or an Ofcom-appointed body if a viewer or listener is not satisfied with the broadcaster's response, or if the matter is serious, already offers a second tier of consideration. A further tier by way of internal review, as proposed in the amendment, is likely in most cases to be a waste of time and money—that is broadcasters' money.
I shall not examine each of the clauses referred to in the amendment, some of which do not in fact involve executive decisions by Ofcom at all. I do not deny that there may be cases where some form of internal review would be appropriate. That can be established without specific statutory provision—for example, by Ofcom adopting the procedure, in appropriate cases, of indicating that it is minded to reach a certain decision and providing for further representations, perhaps to a separate internal committee. I understand that such a procedure is already under consideration by Ofcom in relation to fairness and privacy complaints. We believe that treating the matter case by case is the best approach.
Very able people have been appointed to Ofcom. They have experience of regulation from both the industry and the regulator's perspective. They are perfectly able to recognise the need to be seen to be acting fairly and be willing, when appropriate, to reconsider matters before reaching a final decision. The need to ensure that Ofcom's decisions are legally robust—when rights are engaged under Article 6 of the ECHR, for example—is also an important consideration for them.
In short, these amendments would not achieve their aim and, fundamentally, the requirements for such a wide-ranging internal review of Ofcom's decisions could turn out to be a disproportionate and unnecessary exercise in many cases. This matter should not be included in primary legislation and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
8 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I found some of his comments comforting. I entirely accept what he said about the competence of Ofcom, and those who have been appointed to the board of Ofcom, to deal with important and serious issues. The Government have offered a helpful example: that they are already minded to set up some form of ad hoc committee to consider certain issues.
Perhaps a case-by-case approach is a good thing but, on the other hand, there is a real concern that unless a statutory safeguard is included in the Bill the concerns of some individuals may too easily be overridden. In that case, the only real resort at the end of the day would be to judicial review, which, as I said when I spoke to the amendment, would frankly be too

969
expensive and too difficult. If I can be so bold, a lot of people would not have the confidence to seek a judicial review. It would deter most individuals from seeking recompense for what they believe to be a real grievance.
I want to consider carefully what the Minister has said today, and also to talk to those with whom we have been in discussion about the matter—including the CBI. I will reserve my thoughts about whether we should return to this matter on Third Reading, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, sits down, perhaps I may be allowed to add to the CBI, which she mentioned. The Churches are also deeply concerned about this matter. I am very sorry that I was not here for the beginning of the debate. I was enjoying a Lancashire hotpot as befits the Bishop of Manchester.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Indeed, I was upstairs on the telephone to my children and almost missed the amendment altogether because time and the business are moving on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 355 [Interpretation of Part 3]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 218 to 221:
Page 310, line 45, leave out "(except in the expression "digital additional sound service")"
Page 311, line 14, at end insert—
""the BBC Charter and Agreement" means the following documents, or any one or more of them, so far as they are for the time being in force—

(a) a Royal Charter for the continuance of the BBC;

(b) supplemental Charters obtained by the BBC under such a Royal Charter;

(c) an agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State entered into (whether before or after the passing of this Act) for purposes that include the regulation of activities carried on by the BBC."

Page 314, line 13, leave out "or"
Page 314, line 14, at end insert—
"(g) a digital additional television service or a digital additional sound service,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McNallymoved Amendment No. 222:
After Clause 365, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN COMPETITION PANEL
(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, to exercise their powers under paragraph 14 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002 (c. 11) (committees of OFCOM) to establish and maintain a committee to be known as "the Competition Panel".
(2) The Competition Panel shall have such functions as OFCOM, in exercise of their powers under the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002, may confer on the Panel.
(3) The functions conferred on the Panel must include, to such extent and subject to such restrictions and approvals as OFCOM may determine—

(a) to advise OFCOM on the exercise of its functions under section 364,

(b) to give an opinion to OFCOM on guidelines and decisions which OFCOM propose to adopt in the exercise of OFCOM's functions under section 364, including as to whether OFCOM or the Office of Fair Trading should investigate.

(4) The Competition Panel shall as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year make to the chairman of OFCOM a report on its activities during that year which shall be published by OFCOM.
(5) The Competition Panel shall consist of—

(a) a chairman appointed by OFCOM; and

(b) such number of other members appointed by OFCOM as OFCOM think fit.

(6) The chairman of the Competition Panel must be a non-executive member of OFCOM but is not to be the chairman of OFCOM.
(7) In appointing a person for the purposes of subsection (2)(b), OFCOM must have regard to their expertise in the area of competition law or economics (or both).
(8) The Competition Panel must include at least one member who is a member of the Board of the Office of Fair Trading.
(9) Before appointing a person to be the chairman or another member of the Competition Panel, OFCOM must satisfy themselves that he will not have any financial or other interest which would be likely prejudicially to affect the carrying out by him of any of his functions as chairman or member of the Competition Panel.
(10) A person is not to be taken to have such an interest by reason only that he is or will be a member or employee of OFCOM.
(11) Every person whom OFCOM propose to appoint to be the chairman or another member of the Competition Panel, shall, whenever requested to do so by OFCOM, furnish OFCOM with any information they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under subsection (9)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Razzall was approached by Freeserve, which is the UK's largest Internet service provider with close to 2.7 million customers. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wanadoo, the Internet services division of France Telecom.
It felt hard done by by Oftel, which it believed had not been particularly robust in applying competition law in the telecoms and related industries. Therefore, Freeserve lobbied my noble friend who, rather than staying to put the amendment to the Minister, has gone off to a delicious dinner.
This is a probing amendment. It would not add another bauble to the Ofcom tree or any more expense to Ofcom's operation. However, there is a serious point here: that large and important company felt that Oftel had failed to apply its powers under the Competition Act and therefore argued strongly that Ofcom should be much more on the ball in such matters. One of the reasons why it felt that Oftel had been slack was that it had failed to generate sufficient

971
knowledge and expertise among its own staff. Freeserve therefore put forward the idea of a competition panel for Ofcom, furnishing it with both the internal expertise and the external advice it needed to act in those areas in a way that it felt that its previous regulator, Oftel, had failed to do. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, there is a real risk that, without due care and attention, the interests of the business community, without whom we would not have televisions, mobile phones or radios, will be overlooked by Ofcom, which will have to juggle and prioritise a large number of voices competing to have their case heard. Many of those voices have institutionalised representation in Ofcom, on the consumer panel or content board, but the same cannot be said of business.
However, I am not convinced that creating a whole new tier of bureaucracy is the answer. Will the Minister assure us that that will not be necessary? What guarantees are there that, when push comes to shove and Ofcom must make a decision that will have an impact on business competitiveness, it will not be swayed by the overwhelming presence of non-business points of view within its own walls? What hope can we give to the business community that Ofcom will do what it can to promote competition for its own sake, and not just when the consumer panel deems it necessary?
We on these Benches have tabled a number of amendments in Committee and on Report that would ensure that business—the providers of our services—will not be overlooked. Measures can be taken to reach a compromise that will be just as effective in ensuring that the voice of business is heard, without having to go to the length of building a new arm of Ofcom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no wish to intervene in any dispute between Oftel and Freeserve, still less one between Oftel and Wannado.
I start by reminding the House that the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, considered in great detail the need for Ofcom to have additional panels or boards to deal with the various issues that have been raised. The committee concluded that there was no rationale for an economic or competition board with executive functions. It also concluded, in the context of the question of an economic advisory panel, that it did not favour a further fettering of Ofcom's internal structures by placing a requirement for such an advisory body in the Bill. We accepted that advice wholeheartedly. It is just as relevant to the question of whether the Bill should require Ofcom to have a competition panel of the kind specified in the amendment or at all.
The aim of the amendment appears to be to ensure that Ofcom gives due priority to competition in its decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, confirmed that that was an important consideration, as it is for us. It aims also to ensure that Ofcom obtains appropriate specialised economic and legal advice on competition matters and that it liaises closely with the
972
OFT over the exercise of concurrent powers under the Competition Act 1998. We agree with all of that; that is what will happen.
Arrangements that we have laid down in the Bill and which Ofcom is already making in its preparatory activities provide fully for that, without adding unnecessary complication to the structure and operation of Ofcom by requiring the creation of additional formal components, as proposed in the amendment. In any case, the main board consists of people such as the noble Lord, Lord Currie, who is an economist, and David Edmonds, the Director General of Telecommunications. For such people, competition issues have been meat and drink for much of their working life. They have a proper, independent and well informed perspective on the issues, as does the executive team that has been appointed.
There is no shortage of external specialist advice. Existing regulators such as Ofcom can and do obtain specialist advice from academic and other authorities, and they carry out research. There is no need for what is proposed in the amendment.
I hope that, with the admirable aim—recognised by the noble Lord—of not adding more baubles to the Christmas tree, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will not press the amendment.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 369 [Adaptation of role of OFT in initial investigations and reports]:
Lord Wakehammoved Amendment No. 222A:
Page 324, line 33, leave out ", Sunday or local (other than daily or Sunday)" and insert "or Sunday"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I raised the question of whether the arrangements under the Bill amounted to deregulation of the bureaucracy imposed on newspapers, the Minister gave me a courteous answer, and I said that I would consider his response. Since that, he has also written me a long and detailed letter, for which I am grateful. The facts are now common ground. The Newspaper Society and I agreed with the facts that the Minister set out, but we do not accept that the totality of the changes produce a deregulatory result for smaller newspapers. I shall explain why.
The Minister pointed out that, to an extent, the new regime removes the need for prior consent, criminal penalties and automatic referral to the Competition Commission. However, that is not a substantial deregulatory outcome. The new regime extends the special newspaper controls and the complex regulatory process to the smaller newspaper transactions that were not caught by the special Fair Trading Act controls. Because of the new criterion, practically any deal made by a regional or local newspaper publisher will be subject to special newspaper plurality scrutiny, not just those that would have controls triggered by a 500,000 circulation threshold. That is not deregulation; it is an extension of government control. The regional newspaper

973
industry and the Newspaper Society are simply asking that weekly local newspapers be removed from the Bill's special extended public interest test, which examines plurality issues only.
Contrary to the Minister's suggestion in his courteous letter to me, it is hard to see that past cases point to a continuing need for Ministers to be able to take action against local weekly newspapers to protect freedom of expression, accurate presentation of news, and plurality of views. The Government's consultation paper stated:
"In no case has the Competition Commission found that the acquisition of purely local newspapers would be against the public interest on freedom of expression grounds".
In only four cases since 1989 have freedom of expression concerns been raised in conjunction with competition grounds. In those cases, daily newspapers, not weekly newspapers, were the real objects of concern. In any event, the Government do not want to just keep their powers of control; they want to extend them.
The Minister's letter refers to the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill. Unfortunately, the letter omits the last five words. It was after hearing evidence from the Newspaper Society that the Committee stated:
"We agree that the issue of newspaper ownership is sufficiently important".
I shall not read it all, because it is in the letter. However, the bit that the Minister missed out about deregulation outcome was,
"especially as regards local newspapers".
Hence, the newspaper industry and I are seeking for this amendment to achieve a deregulatory outcome for local weekly newspapers that would otherwise be liable to greater intervention. This amendment would remove local weekly newspapers from the extended public interest jurisdiction. The regulatory authorities would still be able to examine other regional and local newspaper transactions on both competition and plurality grounds.
Will the Minister look again at this relatively small point about the smallest of our newspapers? If he were able to accept it now or later, it would save the Government or Ofcom money in having to investigate these tiny newspapers. It would save the newspapers a considerable amount of expense, which is not required on all perfectly reasonable competition grounds that the Government seek to insist upon. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I strongly support Amendment No. 222A moved by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. By excluding smaller newspapers from the definition in Clause 369 they would, as my noble friend said, be freed from what could otherwise threaten to become a considerable regulatory burden. It would be unnecessary and may add considerable
974
cost to the local press to be subject to an OFT report. We welcome an amendment that would avoid this situation.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we had a most interesting debate at a previous stage when the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, pressed his amendments in his most articulate fashion. Of course, he has done so again today with regard to this amendment. I am obviously disappointed that my attempt to reply significantly to the issues which he raised in Committee in the form of a letter has not totally reassured him about the Government's case. He has expressed an anxiety that has been current throughout the Bill in its discussions in both this House and another place. It is alleged that the proposed regime places too heavy a burden on such titles, that the proposals extend scrutiny to the smallest of acquisitions that would have escaped scrutiny under the current special newspaper merger regime and that there have never been adverse public interest findings relating to local weekly titles alone.
I do not propose going through all those arguments again as the hour is a little late. We gave some of them a fair airing in our previous discussion. The definition of "newspaper" used in the Bill is the same as that used under the current Fair Trading Act regime. It applies to all daily and Sunday titles (whether national or local) and to local periodical newspapers, most of which are weekly. There is therefore no extension of the regime to titles not previously subject to scrutiny, although I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham was emphasising—that is, the paucity of cases in which small weekly titles have been involved in these issues.
Far from increasing burdens on the industry, in the letter which I sent to the noble Lord, to which he generously referred, I attempted to indicate that we thought that we had established some significant steps in deregulation with regard to the newspaper industry. In particular, the requirement to seek prior written consent of the Secretary of State, on pain of criminal sanctions, for all transfers of newspapers or newspaper assets where the jurisdictional criteria are met—no matter how small the title involved—will be removed. Instead, intervention by the Secretary of State will be discretionary and targeted at those cases raising genuine concerns about the effect of the merger on accurate presentation of news, free expression of opinion or plurality of views in newspapers.
The smallest acquisitions will not be subject to scrutiny on public interest grounds as they will not involve the acquisition of a newspaper enterprise with a turnover in excess of £70 million or involve a newspaper with at least a 25 per cent share of supply in at least a substantial part of the UK.
The nub of the discussion between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is why the regime should include local weekly newspapers at all. I trust that noble Lords do not need to be reminded of the important role played by local newspapers in the communities in which they circulate. Certainly they

975
would not have to have recourse very far afield to be all too well aware of the regard in which local newspapers are held by Members of another place.
It is important that a mechanism is in place to protect the public interest of such communities in the accuracy of news reporting, the free expression of opinion and the plurality of views, where necessary. It is also important for such protection to extend to local weekly titles and not only to daily or Sunday titles, as proposed in the amendment.
Although I am not unsympathetic to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord as regards the desirability of deregulation—indeed, our proposals as set out in the Bill are designed broadly to deliver a deregulatory outcome—discretionary intervention in cases where genuine concerns have been raised represents the best balance between protecting the public interest and ensuring that regulation is not excessive. We believe strongly that such a public interest in the accurate presentation of news, free expression of opinion and plurality of views in newspapers exists in relation to national and local newspapers. The simple fact is that the vast majority of local titles are weekly. To exclude such titles from the protections offered by the proposals would amount to a grave disservice to local communities.
Given that my letter to the noble Lord did not give him the full reassurances that I had hoped to convey, I shall look at it again and, if necessary, write to him further on these matters. In the light of his remarks today, if there are matters that could be cleared up, I shall deal with them. However, I hope that I have been able sufficiently to reassure him that we are seeking to strike a balance between a broadly deregulatory measure and one that offers guarantees for the service that our local weeklies provide. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is more charming when he is wrong than when he is right, but he has certainly given me a very courteous answer. However, before he writes to me again, let me write to him with a detailed commentary on his long letter so that he can see the small but quite important part for our local newspapers. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 222B and 222C not moved.]
Clause 385 [Penalties imposed by OFCOM]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 223 and 224:
Page 334, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) References in this section to penalties imposed by OFCOM under provisions contained in this Act include references to penalties which the BBC is liable to pay to OFCOM by virtue of section 195(3).".
Page 341, line 23, at end insert—
"( ) References in this section to penalties imposed by OFCOM under Part 3 of this Act include references to penalties which the BBC is liable to pay to OFCOM by virtue of section 195(3)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 224A not moved.]
Clause 396 [Regulations and orders made by OFCOM]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 225:
Page 344, line 20, leave out "a time before" and insert "no earlier than"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been tabled to correct an error in Clause 396. The clause sets out the procedure for Ofcom to make orders and regulations under provisions in this Bill and provisions inserted by the Bill into other Acts.
The intention of subsection (6) of this clause was always to provide for a period of at least one month for representations to be made on any proposal by Ofcom to make an order or regulation. This is to ensure that Ofcom provides an appropriate period for consultation on its proposals.
The effect of the current wording of subsection (6), however, is that the consultation period within which representations could be made must be less than one month. The adjustment we have proposed will correct this error and require a period of not less than one month, as we had intended. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 226 and 226A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 226B:
Page 526, line 39, leave out "cover" and insert "enable OFCOM to meet"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Transitional Provisions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 227 to 231:
Page 530, line 7, at end insert—
"Savings for agreements referring to the termination of a 1984 Act licence
2A (1) This paragraph applies where a term or condition of an agreement in force immediately before the abolition of licensing provides—

(a) for the agreement, or a provision of it, to cease to have effect,

(b) for the agreement to become capable of being terminated

(c) for a requirement to pay or repay an amount (whether liquidated or unliquidated) to arise under the agreement, or to arise earlier than it would otherwise have arisen,

(d) for a security to become enforceable, or

(e) for rights or obligations of a person under the agreement to be different or to be modified,

if a party to the agreement ceases to hold a licence under section 7 of the 1984 Act, or ceases to do so in a manner or in circumstances described in the agreement.
(2) Where a person ceases to hold a licence in consequence of the provisions of this Act removing the requirement to hold a licence under section 7 of the 1984 Act—

(a) the term or condition is not to apply; and

977

(b) the rights and obligations of the parties to the agreement are to be the same (subject to the following subparagraphs) as they would have been had the person in question continued to hold such a licence.

(3) In relation to times after the abolition of licensing, that term or condition is to have effect as if the reference in that term or condition—

(a) to a person's ceasing to hold a licence under section 7 of the 1984 Act, or

(b) to his ceasing to do so in a particular manner or particular circumstances,

were a reference to his becoming subject to a direction under this Act by virtue of which he is prohibited from providing the whole or a part of an electronic communications network or electronic communications service.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) the reference to a person's becoming subject to a direction by virtue of which he is prohibited from providing the whole or a part of an electronic communications network—

(a) does not include a reference to his becoming subject to a direction imposing a prohibition for a fixed period of less than eighteen months or to a direction that will have to be revoked if not confirmed; but

(b) except in the case of a direction imposing a prohibition for such a fixed period, does include a reference to the confirmation of a direction that would otherwise have had to be revoked.

(5) This paragraph does not apply in the case of a term or condition of an agreement if, on an application to the court by one or both of the parties to the agreement, the court directs—

(a) that this paragraph is not to apply; or

(b) that it is to apply with such modifications, or subject to the payment of such compensation, as the court may specify in the direction.

(6) In determining whether to give a direction under subparagraph (5) or what modifications or compensation to specify in such a direction the court must have regard to the following—

(a) whether either or both of the parties to the agreement contemplated the abolition of the licensing requirements of the 1984 Act when they entered into the agreement; and

(b) the extent (if any) to which the provisions of this paragraph represent what it would have been reasonable for the parties to have agreed had they both known at that time what provision was to be made by this Act and when it was to come into force.

(7) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) references to ceasing to hold a licence include references to its expiring or being revoked; and

(b) references to a licence under section 7 of the 1984 Act include references to a licence under that section of a particular description.

(8) In this paragraph "the court" means the High Court or the Court of Session.
(9) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 12.
Saving for agreements with special provision for 1984 Act licence holders
2B (1) This paragraph applies in a case to which paragraph 2A does not apply and in which a term or condition of an agreement in force immediately before the abolition of licensing provides for rights or obligations of a person under the agreement to be different or to be modified according to whether or not he—

(a) is or has become the holder of a licence under section 7 of the 1984 Act; or

(b) is or has become the holder of such a licence in a manner or in circumstances described in the agreement.

(2) In relation to times after the abolition of licensing, that term or condition is to have effect as if the rights and obligations to which that person is entitled or subject under the agreement were, except in a case falling within sub-paragraph (3), those for which the agreement provides in the case of a person who—

(a) is or has become the holder of such a licence; or

(b) is or has become the holder of such a licence in that manner or in those circumstances.

(3) The excepted case is where that person is subject to a direction under this Act by virtue of which he is prohibited from providing the whole or a part of an electronic communications network or electronic communications service.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) the reference to a person's being subject to a direction by virtue of which he is prohibited from providing the whole or a part of an electronic communications network—

(a) does not include a reference to his being subject to a direction imposing a prohibition for a fixed period of less than eighteen months or to a direction that will have to be revoked if not confirmed; but

(b) except in the case of a direction imposing a prohibition for such a fixed period, does include a reference to his being subject to a direction which would have had to be revoked if not confirmed but which has been confirmed.

(5) This paragraph does not apply in the case of a term or condition of an agreement if, on an application to the court by one or both of the parties to the agreement, the court directs—

(a) that this paragraph is not to apply; or

(b) that it is to apply with such modifications, or subject to the payment of such compensation, as the court may specify in the direction.

(6) In determining whether to give a direction under subparagraph (5) or what modifications or compensation to specify in such a direction the court must have regard to the following—

(a) whether either or both of the parties to the agreement contemplated the abolition of the licensing requirements of the 1984 Act when they entered into the agreement; and

(b) the extent (if any) to which the provisions of this paragraph represent what it would have been reasonable for the parties to have agreed had they both known at that time what provision was to be made by this Act and when it was to come into force.

(7) For the purposes of this paragraph references to a licence under section 7 of the 1984 Act include references to a licence under that section of a particular description.
(8) In this paragraph "the court" means the High Court or the Court of Session."
Page 530, line 11, after "relevant" insert "Broadcasting Act"
Page 530, line 14, after "relevant" insert "Broadcasting Act"
Page 530, line 16, after "relevant" insert "Broadcasting Act"
Page 530, line 17, leave out paragraph (a).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 232A:
Page 532, line 27, after first "provision")" insert—

"(a) regulates the provision of premium rate services; or

(b) falls within sub-paragraph (3A).

(3A) The continued provision falls within this sub-paragraph in so far as it"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 232A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 232B, 232C and 232D.
The amendments deal with a potential problem arising from the possible impact of the European Community Technical Standards and Regulations Directive on provisions made under the Bill. The very wide ambit of the directive may require us to notify the provisions of the new premium rate services code to the European Commission and observe a standstill period of at least three months before the provisions can come into force. The purpose of the standstill period is to allow the Commission and other member states to consider whether the new provisions create any barriers to trade between member states.
The PRS provisions are different front most of the other provisions in Part 2 of the Bill in that they are not mandated by the four European Community communications directives which underlie most of the remainder of that part of the Bill. To avoid a three-month gap in the PRS regime, the amendments to Schedule 18 to the Bill permit Ofcom—or, in practice, Oftel—to issue continuation notices in respect of the provisions in the current licence conditions.
The amendments broaden the current powers in Schedule 18 to issue continuation notices so as to embrace the premium rate services arrangements of current licences. Such continuation notices would then be able to prolong the life of the existing regime for three months or so until the provisions of the new code can be commenced.
The amendments should have absolutely no effect on interested parties, they simply allow the prolongation of the existing regime until such time as the new arrangements can be fully commenced. They remind me of the city fathers of Limerick who determined to build a new gaol. They decided that the new gaol should be built of the stones of the old gaol and that the old gaol should stay in use until the new gaol was ready. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 232B to 232D:
Page 532. line 29, leave out "they" and insert "OFCOM"
Page 533, line 28, after "provision" insert "falling within subparagraph (3A)"
Page 534, line 9, after first "apparatus"," insert —the provision of premium rate services","
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 234 and 235:
Page 539, line 34, leave out from "to" to "is" in line 35 and insert "his becoming subject to a direction by virtue of which he"
Page 539, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) In sub-paragraph (5) the reference to a person's becoming subject to a direction by virtue of which he is prohibited from providing the whole or a part of an electronic communications network or electronic communications service—

(a) does not include a reference to his becoming subject to a direction imposing a prohibition for a fixed period of less than eighteen months or to a direction that will have to be revoked if not confirmed; but

980

(b) except in the case of a direction imposing a prohibition for such a fixed period, does include a reference to the confirmation of a direction that would otherwise have had to be revoked."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 237:
Page 556, line 41, at end insert—
"58A References in paragraphs 57 and 58 to Chapter 2 of Part 5 do not include references to subsections (2) to (4) of section 382 (powers to make transitional and consequential amendments etc.)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 237, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 238. These are two minor technical amendments that are designed to clarify the effect of certain of the transitional provisions relating to newspaper mergers set out in Schedule 18 so that the legal effect of the provisions is in line with the policy intention underlying them, and to ensure consistency in the operation of ancillary provisions in the Enterprise Act 2002. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 238:
Page 557, line 35, at end insert—
"(9) Section 395 of this Act shall not apply in relation to the power of the Secretary of State to make an order under section 91(6)(a) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) as applied by virtue of sub-paragraph (7)(b) above but supplementary provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 which relate to the making of an order under section 91(6)(a) of that Act shall apply in relation to the making of an order under that provision as applied by virtue of sub-paragraph (7)(b) above."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 19 [Repeals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 238ZA to 238A:
Page 563, line 19, column 2, at end insert—

"In section 4(3), the words from "and the amount" onwards."

Page 564, line 28, column 2, leave out from "section" to end of line 29 and insert—

"87 (a) in sub-section (2)(b), subparagraph (ii) and the word "or" immediately preceding it; (b) in subsection (3), the words from "and the amount" onwards."

Page 566, line 4, column 2, leave out ""advertising agency", of"
Page 566, column 2, leave out lines 12 to 14.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 239 and 240 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 240.4 had been renumbered as Amendment No. 241C.]
Lord McNallymoved Amendment No. 241
Page 566, leave out line 32.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 241A to 241C:
Page 568, line 17, column 2, at end insert

"In section 4(3), the words from "and the amount" onwards."

Page 568, line 40, column 2, at end insert—

"In section 43— (a) in subsection (2)(b), subparagraph (ii) and the word "or" immediately preceding it;

(b) in subsection (3), the words from "and the amount" onwards."

Page 568, line 45, column 2, at end insert—

"In section 56(1)(a)(i), the words "to which the licence relates"."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 403 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 242:
Page 353, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) An order under subsection (2) may include provision making such transitional or transitory provision, in addition to that made by Schedule 18, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with the bringing into force of any provisions of this Act; and the power to make transitional or transitory provision includes power to make—

(a) different provision for different cases (including different provision in respect of different areas);

(b) provision subject to such exemptions and exceptions as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and

(c) such incidental, supplemental and consequential provision as he thinks fit."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would give the Secretary of State power to make transitional and transitory provision when bringing into force provisions of the Bill. We have done our best to make sure that the Bill itself makes all the provision that is needed to ensure that the transition from the existing law to the new regulatory regime is as soon as possible. But I hope that the House will recognise that in a Bill of this size and complexity, there is always a risk that some unforeseen or unforeseeable difficulty will come to light in the course of making the detailed preparations necessary for Ofcom to start its work in earnest.
I trust that noble Lords will agree that in the circumstances it would be prudent to include this modest power to make provisions supplementing that made in Schedule 18. It would be unfortunate for unnecessary problems and legal technicalities to arise because of unforeseen and unforeseeable transitional difficulties. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before nine o'clock.

  Supreme Court
  Supreme Court
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Constitutional Change: Government Announcements
  Constitutional Change: Government Announcements
  Afghanistan: ISAF Personnel and ICC
  Afghanistan: ISAF Personnel and ICC
  Zimbabwe: Sanctions
  Zimbabwe: Sanctions
  Liberia: Sanctions
  Liberia: Sanctions
  North Atlantic Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  North Atlantic Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation
  Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  Immigration Service Removal Centres: Children
  Immigration Service Removal Centres: Children
  ODPM: Property Sector Consultation
  ODPM: Property Sector Consultation
  Iraq: Fatalities and Casualties
  Iraq: Fatalities and Casualties
  RAF Fylingdales
  RAF Fylingdales
  Whitehall Statues
  Whitehall Statues
  Iraq: Withdrawal of British Military Forces
  Iraq: Withdrawal of British Military Forces
  Defence Housing
  Defence Housing
  Defence Housing Executive: Key Targets 2003–04
  Defence Housing Executive: Key Targets 2003–04
  Iraq: Al Majarr Al Kabir, 24 June 2003
  Iraq: Al Majarr Al Kabir, 24 June 2003
  Defence Estates: Key Targets 2003–04
  Defence Estates: Key Targets 2003–04
  Nuclear Industry
  Nuclear Industry
  Food Supplements
  Food Supplements
  Wolfson Molecular Imaging Centre, Manchester
  Wolfson Molecular Imaging Centre, Manchester
  Pulmonary Disease and Rehabilitation
  Pulmonary Disease and Rehabilitation
  Health Inequalities
  Health Inequalities
  Modern Apprenticeships
  Modern Apprenticeships
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Northern Ireland: Convictions for TV Licence Avoidance
  Northern Ireland: Convictions for TV Licence Avoidance
  Gambling
  Gambling
  National Heritage Memorial Fund: Quinquennial Review
  National Heritage Memorial Fund: Quinquennial Review
  Pigs: Castration
  Pigs: Castration
  Animal Products Imports: Review of Controls
  Animal Products Imports: Review of Controls
  Livestock Movement Regime
  Livestock Movement Regime