Sitting of 8 July 2003

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

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Tuesday 15 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    EU Member-Designate Countries
    Keith Vaz: What steps the Government are taking to support the EU member-designate countries which will join on 1 May 2004. [123865]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): The Government remain committed to ensuring that the 10 countries joining the EU on 1 May next year are ready to do so. The UK has provided bilateral assistance to the candidates worth over £350 million since 1989. On the practical side, there are more than 50 UK civil servants working full-time on twinning projects in the candidate countries.
    Keith Vaz: While I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on their excellent work in pushing forward the enlargement process, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will give every possible assistance to the member-designate countries that have received early-warning letters from the EU Commission to ensure that the outstanding obstacles are dealt with? Does he agree that it would be most embarrassing and disappointing if the EU's first act on 1 May 2004 were to take infraction proceedings against one of its new members?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. Equally, however, all candidate countries must conform to EU norms. From May next year, they will be full members of the EU. Just as any existing EU member state can receive such infraction letters, other states must stand ready for them. As I said, we are working as one of the
    880
    lead countries in ensuring that the incoming member states are ready to be full and active members of the EU as of May next year.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: In warmly welcoming the incoming member states, will the Minister confirm that he has deprecated the bellicose remarks of the French President at the time of the Iraq war, and of the French Defence Minister when she visited Warsaw? Will he stress to the member-designate states that we believe in a deeper rather than a wider—I am sorry, I mean a wider rather than a deeper Europe?
    Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to draw attention to remarks that were certainly unfortunate. I hope, therefore, that he will join me in not deprecating but condemning the fact that the Conservative MEPs Roger Helmer and Daniel Hannan have been in Estonia campaigning for a no vote, and that Lady Thatcher has sent a letter to the Estonians calling on them to vote no to Europe. I hope that the Conservative party will now dissociate itself from Lady Thatcher and withdraw the Whip from those MEPs. Conservative Front-Bench Members cannot say that they are in favour of enlargement when they send their agents and propaganda to campaign for a no vote to isolate Britain further from Europe and get countries that want to join the EU to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Knight.
    Jim Knight: Given the presumption among some hon. Members that public opinion is against Europe and the euro, will my hon. Friend comment on public opinion in member-designate countries, as expressed in the referendums that have taken place so far?
    Mr. MacShane: There have been open referendums and solid votes in favour of joining the EU. It is quite remarkable that the countries that have freed themselves from the Soviet yoke should be voting yes to the EU, when the Opposition are actively planning to renegotiate in advance of a withdrawal from the EU. I call on the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, to condemn Lady Thatcher and to withdraw the Whip from the Tory MEPs campaigning for a no vote in Estonia.
    Bob Russell: Are the Government satisfied with the protection of the human rights of the Roma minorities, especially in Slovakia and the Czech Republic? Given that those countries are due to become members of the EU within the year, will he have words with his colleagues in the Home Office to stop them deporting citizens of those countries—and of others, such as Poland—who are residing in this country at the moment?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman has raised this very serious issue in other debates and we respect his concern. Our embassies and Departments such as the Department for International Development, as well as the Foreign Office, have been raising the issue. It is a serious matter. We believe that laws are in place to protect all minorities in Europe adequately, but the

    881
    Roma are a special case. We will have to have special regard to ensuring that they have the same rights and enjoy the same human freedoms as all other EU citizens.

    Afghanistan
    Tony Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the results of his recent visit to Afghanistan. [123866]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I visited Afghanistan from 30 June to 1 July. In Kabul, I met President Karzai, Foreign Minister Dr. Abdullah and Interior Minister Jalali, and saw a British Army team training NCOs of the Afghan national army. On a visit to Kandahar with Interior Minister Jalali, I spoke to a 200-strong meeting of tribal leaders and women's representatives, visited a pioneering women's health centre, and had meetings with the governor and at the police academy.
    Significant progress has been made in implementing the Bonn agreement. Security remains a key issue, as do the related issues of drugs and terrorism. Eight provincial reconstruction teams are being established, including a British-led one in Mazar-e-Sharif. For all the challenges ahead, Afghanistan is an infinitely better and safer place than when the Taliban and al-Qaeda were in control.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. As chair of the all-party group on Afghanistan, I have met a great many Afghans—[Interruption]. I hope that Opposition Members will listen. All the Afghans I have met are appreciative of Britain's role in Afghanistan and are quite optimistic for the future, but my right hon. Friend is right: the key element, which they always stress to me, is security. What more can be done to deal seriously with the threat of warlords and militias?
    Mr. Straw: Two related things have to be done. First, the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban have, bluntly, to be eliminated; they continue to pose a serious threat, especially in the south of the country, as I discussed in Kandahar with all the tribal leaders, the Afghan Administration and the US generals and the colonel in command of the forces fighting al-Qaeda.
    Alongside that, we have to build up the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police. The British Government, along with our international partners, are investing a huge amount of money and, even more important, human resources to achieve that.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Following the conflict in Afghanistan, the United States Administration and the Government promised certain amounts of money towards the rebuilding of the infrastructure of that country. What was the global figure and how much has been paid?
    Mr. Straw: At the Tokyo conference in January last year, the United Kingdom pledged £200 million over five years, plus 19 per cent. of the European Union pledge of US $1 billion. We have spent £170 million since September 2001 and we shall continue to spend
    882
    hundreds of millions of pounds in the future. Most of the money that was pledged at the January 2002 conference has been paid, although some has not. The financing requirements spelt out by the Transitional Administration are substantial. They have called for a further US $15 billion of assistance over the next 10 years and that is currently being discussed with international partners.
    David Cairns: Given that 90 per cent. of the heroin on Britain's streets and three-quarters of the world's opium originate in Afghanistan, what practical and financial help and assistance can the UK Government give to the Afghan Administration to destroy this year's crop, which is currently being harvested and is predicted to be a bumper one, to ensure that that evil trade is ended once and for all?
    Mr. Straw: On the size of this year's crop, we shall await the results of the UN-US study. For the first time, the US and the UN agencies are using a combined methodology so that we do not end up with the huge variations in crop production that have occurred in previous years. We think that the data will be at a higher and better level.
    The Afghan Administration is devoting substantial resources to help to eliminate the crop where they can, but that is tied directly to the issue of security and terrorism. It will be a long haul, involving not only security and interdiction but the building up of alternative livelihoods for poor farmers in Afghanistan, before the too many communities in the country that depend on opium production can be moved away from that reliance.
    What are we doing? Alongside the more general training that we are providing for the Afghan national army and the Afghan police, one of the things that I saw when I was in Kandahar was a training programme, with our assistance, for a core group of good, expert police officers in the Afghan national police, so that they could deal better with drugs and drug-related crime.
    Patrick Mercer: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that, in the last week of the Iraq war, there were more combat deaths in Afghanistan than in Iraq, as a result of which there has already been a considerable British reinforcement of regular troops and armoured vehicles. As a result of his visit, can the Foreign Secretary say whether he will recommend that further reinforcements go to Afghanistan?
    Mr. Straw: We have 300 troops in the international stabilisation and assistance force and a number of excellent troops, whom I saw, involved in other aspects of security. We are moving 60 to 70 troops, plus some Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development officials, into the provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif. I have made no recommendation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to increase those numbers, but he and our ambassador on the ground, in consultation with

    883
    the commanders of the international security assistance force and our US colleagues, keep the number of troops, including our contribution, under very careful review.
    Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the UK role in Afghanistan, but does he not think that it is time that the United States stopped its collaboration with the warlords and made it very clear that it supports the Karzai Government? Given that a third of Afghanistan is out of bounds to UN personnel without protection and that the draft constitution has not yet been published, is it possible that the constitutional Loya Jirga can go ahead in October?
    Mr. Straw: I reject entirely the suggestion that the US approach is any different from ours and that it is collaborating with the warlords. It is not, and I am very clear, not least from discussions with the US commanders on the ground, that they are providing more assistance overall than any other single nation in eliminating the grip of the warlords and strengthening the power and authority of the Afghan Administration and President Karzai. Among other things, they directly provide the bodyguards for President Karzai.
    As for the Loya Jirga, I attended what amounted to a mini Loya Jirga in Kandahar, and I was impressed by the fact that a representative from the Constitutional Commission was also in attendance. An iterative, consultative process is taking place with representatives around the country. I stressed to all the Afghan representatives whom I met that it is extremely important for them that they make progress on the time lines set out by the Bonn agreement.

    Burma
    3. Mr. Mark Simmonds: If he will make a statement on relations with and possible sanctions against Burma. [123867]
    The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I met UN Special Envoy Razali yesterday to discuss the grave situation in Burma. The UK has repeatedly called on the Burmese military regime to release Aung San Suu Kyi immediately, as well as other National League for Democracy members who have been detained since 30 May. The Burmese military regime's response to events so far has been utterly unacceptable. The EU strengthened sanctions against the Burmese leadership on 16 June. We will ensure that pressure is put on the Burmese military regime to move towards democracy and respect for human rights.
    Mr. Simmonds: I thank the Minister for that answer. In the context of the Prime Minister's comments that trade with Burma is not appropriate, and Colin Powell's remarks that the time has come to turn up the pressure, exactly what further pressure are the UK Government applying, both to the EU and to the UN, to place economic strain and targeted sanctions on the military
    884
    junta, not the population of Burma, to ensure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and to provide at the very least an impetus for democratic change?
    Mr. O'Brien: There is considerable discussion, not only with the EU but with the United States and other international partners, including the Chinese, to find out whether we can put more pressure on the regime. In particular, we need to focus on the Association of South East Asian Nations—Burma's neighbours—as it obviously has very close relationships with Burma. We need to ensure that it sends clear messages—I am pleased to say that it has done so recently—to the Burmese regime that it must change its behaviour.
    The EU has a role to play, and it has clearly taken action itself, with bans on all defence links, high-level bilateral visits, non-humanitarian aid, supplying equipment that might be used for internal repression, an asset freeze, and a visa ban on the 153 members of the regime, their families and business associates. All that is being done, but the EU also has contacts with the various neighbours, and we need to ensure that those contacts are also used to put pressure on the Burmese regime. It is an unacceptable regime, and its unacceptability must be ended. We must move towards a process of reform as quickly as possible.
    Jane Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the firm stance taken by Japan at the ASEAN meeting vis-à-vis Burma? What encouragement and support can be given to the Government of Japan, who have not always, it must be said, taken such a firm and principled stance in respect of the Burmese regime?
    Mr. O'Brien: We have made clear our welcome for the stance taken by Japan and also by a number of other countries in that part of the world. It is traditional in south-east Asia that countries do not criticise each other. Often, therefore, human rights issues do not get raised in the way that we would hope. However, Japan and all the other countries in south-east Asia are making it increasingly clear to the Burmese regime that Aung San Suu Kyi, who is a Nobel peace prize winner, needs to be negotiated with in a serious way, and that progress towards democracy is essential. Currently, the Burmese regime says that it is detaining Aung San Suu Kyi for her own protection—it is detaining Aung San Suu Kyi for its protection and to protect its corrupt regime, and we must ensure that that is exposed.
    Mr. Richard Spring: If I may, I shall read an extract from a letter that I received this morning:
    "Really for the first time we are very worried about the safety of our sister-in-law, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. While we obviously welcome the strong messages of condemnation from around the world, we are concerned that the only action taken has been by Japan … We therefore strongly endorse your argument for UN and EU sanctions, but as a first and immediate step would urge HMG to implement a British investment and travel ban."
    In that spirit, will the Government press for agreed action to be taken at the Asia-Europe meeting to be held in Bali later this month?
    Mr. O'Brien: I will be going to Bali later this month, and I shall certainly press the issue of Burma and the urgent need to release Aung San Suu Kyi. We are seeking to end all British investment in Burma. In particular, I have had a meeting with the chairman of British American Tobacco and have made it clear that our view is that BAT now needs to withdraw its investment in Burma. He has said that he will consider that request, and I hope to have his response in the near future.

    Middle East
    4. Helen Jackson: If he will make a statement on the middle east road map. [123868]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Implementation of phase 1 of the road map is now taking place. That includes the ceasefire by Palestinian factions and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and Bethlehem, continuing Palestinian reforms and Israeli action to dismantle settlement posts. All of those are positive first steps. Plainly, however, much more will have to be done.
    Helen Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming today's reports that the Palestinian Authority in Gaza are cleaning anti-Israeli graffiti and murals off the walls in that area? Does not that contrast with the continuing construction of a security wall, much of it on Palestinian land, by the Israelis? On walls in general, what is the Quartet's view as to a permanent wall playing any part in the long-term solution? What is his view on walls in that area?
    Mr. Straw: I have raised, as Her Majesty's ambassador in Tel Aviv has raised, with my interlocutor Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, our widespread concerns in the House and in the country about the building of this security fence, particularly as it unlawfully takes in Palestinian land and cuts the Palestinians off from access to facilities that are theirs. We shall continue to press that issue. The Quartet, as far as I know, has not reached a formal position in respect of the security fence. What the Quartet is actively doing is monitoring, adjudicating and pushing the parties towards a continuous implementation of the road map. All that I would say is that given where we were even two months ago, and the terrible killings on both sides and among both communities, the progress that has been made, and the relationship built up, particularly between Abu Mazen and Prime Minister Sharon, is remarkable. We must do everything that we can to support the process.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Given that we can all take pleasure in the fact that there is at least some progress and cautious optimism that America is at last fully engaged and genuinely determined to push forward the process, does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bedrock of any solution must be security? To that end, will he determine what further efforts the British Government may make to assist the Palestinians, whose security arrangements—in many respects through no fault of their own—are not nearly good enough? Will he
    886
    consider whether there are places to which assistance could be given by the police staff college and other police and military bodies to train the Palestinian police and security forces to help Abu Mazen's positive progress?
    Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent suggestions. We are already doing a lot, but I shall take those suggestions forward and write to him.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Is not the truth of the matter that the structure is not a fence or a wall but an obstacle to peace, especially because it cuts so deeply into Palestinian areas? If the fence were to be built, would it not be better if it were built on the 1967 border, in which case the Israeli Labour party, all Palestinians and the whole of Europe would probably help to build the thing?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The issue is not so much the fence itself—the Israeli Labour party has also proposed that—but the site of the fence and the obstacle that it puts in the way of the ordinary lives of ordinary Palestinians.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Having last week visited Israel and the west bank with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), may I confirm the positive, if necessarily cautious, change of attitude to the road map on both sides? The realisation that the United States means business has opened the window to progress but, nevertheless, the road map requires difficult actions from both sides. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore join me in congratulating both Ariel Sharon and Abu Mazen on their inspiring joint press conference in Jerusalem last week and on restoring the eight ministerial joint commissions to promote agreement on local issues? Will he persuade his European colleagues to be even-handed in giving support to both sides and wholehearted in backing President Bush's bold effort to achieve a secure Israel and a viable Palestine?
    Mr. Straw: Of course, and as I have already done, I congratulate both leaders on really impressive statesmanship, especially when one takes account of the severe opposition that each has faced from within their own territories. The establishment of the eight ministerial commissions is important because there must be daily intercourse among Palestinians and Israelis if they are ever to live side by side in peace and security. I also tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the European Union has repeatedly and consistently welcomed and backed the position of the United States. It is working closely with the United States, in addition to the United Nations and the Russian Federation in the Quartet.
    Mr. Ancram: It was clear from my meeting with Abu Mazen a week ago that his biggest problem when controlling terrorism stems from Iranian-sponsored and directly funded support for terrorist activity in both the west bank and Israel itself. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Iran, with its stated aim of trying to destroy Israel, poses a very real threat to the peace process, and

    887
    did he raise the matter when he was in Iran last week? What steps can he take to help to halt the dangerous undermining of Abu Mazen and the road map?
    Mr. Straw: I did indeed raise the matter with my interlocutors when I was in Iran last week, and I pointed out that the situation is unacceptable not only because of disruption to progress toward the implementation of the road map, but because it is counterproductive for Iran. For example, progress on the trade and co-operation agreement that Iran wants with the European Union will partly be judged on whether it continues to support unacceptable rejectionist terrorist groups in Israel and the occupied territories. We continue to press, and to apply pressure on. the Iranians.

    Piracy
    5. Mr. George Foulkes: What measures the Government will take to combat piracy. [123869]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): The United Kingdom is working hard for a concerted and effective approach to combat piracy. We are making progress through the UN, with political and international legal initiatives. Together with our EU partners, we have taken a lead in promoting practical co-operation against piracy.
    Mr. Foulkes: The matter is serious, as the Minister rightly implies. It is not the romantic piracy that we see on films. The problem is especially serious in African and Asian waters, where bulk carriers, containers, cargo ships, oil tankers and other vessels have been hijacked and their crews seized and terrorised. Will the Minister consider taking further action through the International Maritime Organisation and other international bodies?
    Mr. Mullin: My right hon. Friend is right—it is a serious issue. We work closely with international maritime organisations. The key is to ensure that countries with nationals who engage in piracy take the problem seriously. We have worked with them to ensure that they protect shipping in and adjacent to their waters. I am glad to say that recently there have been some successful prosecutions. India prosecuted 14 Indonesian pirates, who received long prison sentences. Long prison sentences were also handed out in China. Indonesia handed out prison sentences, too, although they were rather shorter than we would like. Those are examples of countries that are beginning to take the problem seriously.

    Weapons of Mass Destruction
    6. Harry Cohen: Whether the claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes originated within his Department. [123871]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): No. The claim in the September dossier that the Iraqi military could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of
    888
    being given an order to do so was based on intelligence material, assessed as reliable by the Joint Intelligence Committee.
    Harry Cohen: Is the Select Committee right in saying that the 45-minute claim came from a single uncorroborated source, which was even wrongly quoted in the September dossier? Why was it given such prominence and by whom? Did the Foreign Secretary show a lack of discernment about that very dodgy claim, or is his responsibility for foreign security services purely nominal? Should there not be scarlet faces in Whitehall over the poor quality intelligence, poorly used?
    Mr. Straw: The intelligence relating to the 45 minutes was subjected to the same rigorous assessment by the Joint Intelligence Committee as all other intelligence is. There was no interference by anyone else, as the Foreign Affairs Committee acknowledged in its report yesterday.
    The 45-minute claim was given neither undue prominence in the dossier nor undue prominence in any debates or arguments that followed. If hon. Members on both sides of the House look at what they said in the House on the subject between September and March, they will find that it was scarcely mentioned. Moreover, on the best analysis of the comprehensive records available in the Foreign Office, we can find no occasion whatsoever when, in the scores and scores of interviews that I gave on Iraq over that eight-month period, I was asked one question about the 45-minute claim by any representative of the British press, TV or radio.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: But as of today, does the Foreign Secretary still believe that Iraq was capable of launching chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes? If so, on what evidence is that based?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, I do. The evidence was before the House very clearly indeed on 18 March. It was overwhelmingly open-source evidence and it was clearly set out. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the House that we need to recall that between September and November, there was the most intensive discussion internationally about whether Iraq posed a threat. Every single member country of the United Nations, including Russia, France and China, as well as the US and UK, concluded and asserted in resolution 1441 that Iraq posed a threat to international peace and security on account of its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, its unlawful missile systems and its defiance of the will of the United Nations. It was because of Iraq's failure actively and immediately to co-operate with the inspectors that the House rightly made the decision to take military action on 18 March. It was right then and it would be right again to do so.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Alastair Campbell's criticism of the BBC for reporting on the basis of a single, anonymous, uncorroborated source, and if so, should undue prominence have been given to the 45-minute deployment claim—four times in the document,

    889
    including in the Prime Minister's introduction, as well as in his speech—without any indication that it was based on a single, anonymous, uncorroborated source?
    Mr. Straw: There was a world of difference between the source of the 45-minute claim in that JIC assessment and the source, if such it be, of Mr. Gilligan's claim. Yes, I do agree with Mr. Campbell. The BBC did get it wrong, and it should acknowledge that.
    Richard Ottaway: Given the report in today's edition of the Washington Post that states:
    "The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa",
    does the Foreign Secretary agree that that assertion should not have been included in the September dossier?
    Mr. Straw: I have not read the Washington Post this morning. I will catch up with it later. The hon. Gentleman was a member of rile Foreign Affairs Committee and heard the evidence that I gave not only in public, but in private. As he well knows, the information that was included in the dossier and assessed as reliable relating to the purchase of uranium—not that Iraq had purchased it, but the fact that it had sought to purchase it—was based on sources quite separate from those based on the forged documents, about whose provenance we knew nothing until earlier this year.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I voted against the Iraqi war five times, I did not vote because of 45 minutes, the right-wing BBC or any of that stuff? I voted against the war on principle, because I thought it was wrong to follow that cowboy Bush into invading another country. If that carries on, we do not know where it will stop. I have been staggered by the number of times I have read about the 45 minutes since I came out of hospital. It was not the central issue. All I would say to my right hon. Friend. and to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, is "Next time you see that cowboy Bush walking towards you, avert your eyes and walk the other way."
    Hon. Members: Welcome back!
    Mr. Straw: I have already, in private, welcomed my hon. Friend back, and I am delighted to do so publicly. Unlike some Members of the House and many sections of the media, my hon. Friend is not seeking to rewrite history. The idea that the argument between September and March was about the 45-minute claim is utter nonsense. My hon. Friend is entirely correct about that. I invite every Member of the House, on whichever side of the argument they were, to examine what they said, and if they can point to more than two occasions when they mentioned 45 minutes, I will ensure that they are personally given two tickets to the opening game of Burnley football club.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Is not the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the sponsoring Department of MI6 and therefore of the intelligence information provided for the relevant dossiers? When, therefore, did
    890
    the Foreign Secretary first realise that the dodgy dossier was not an intelligence document, but, to coin a phrase, a horlicks? Was it before he allowed United States Secretary Colin Powell to commend it to the United Nations Security Council as "exquisite"? Was it before he allowed the Prime Minister to mislead the country by misrepresenting its status as further intelligence? If he knew that it was not an intelligence document, did he tell them so, and if, as head of the sponsoring Department, he had not been told that this was not an intelligence document, should not some heads roll?
    Mr. Straw: Let me make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman and the House. I have already acknowledged in round terms—[Interruption.] I am answering the questions; hon. Members should pay attention. I have already acknowledged, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done, that mistakes were made about the process relating to the document. They were wrong and we have apologised for that, but the contents of the document were accurate. The Foreign Affairs Committee at no stage challenged the accuracy of that document. Much of the document was drawn from intelligence and the Committee said that its contents were "important". As to the dates when I knew, I will write to him, but—
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: And put it in the Library.
    Mr. Straw: I shall make it available in Hansard.
    As far as I recall, it was after the dates of the statements by Secretary Powell and, I think, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

    Cyprus
    7. Mr. Andrew Dismore: When he next plans to visit Cyprus to discuss the Annan plan. [123872]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I hope to visit Cyprus in due course. The Government call on both sides to signal their intentions to negotiate on the basis of Kofi Annan's plan and to commit to putting it to referendums on both sides of the island.
    Mr. Dismore: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the biggest obstacle to settlement in Cyprus is the dinosaur attitude of Mr. Denktash. Does he also agree that the opening of the green line has cut away one of Mr. Denktash's prime arguments—the suggestion that Greek and Turkish Cypriots cannot get along together? We are seeing wonderful examples of people who are reconciled in facing their problems. Will he do all that he can to ensure that the people of northern Cyprus have the opportunity to express their views through the ballot box later this year in elections to the so-called Parliament in the north free of intimidation? Will he also encourage the opposition in the north to unite, so that the real feelings of the Turkish Cypriots can be expressed, in opposition to Mr. Denktash?
    Mr. MacShane: In addition to this oral question, my hon. Friend has tabled some 31 written questions on Cyprus that are answered today. That is a tribute to his

    891
    diligent work on behalf of the interests of many of his constituents, which the House should acknowledge. He is right: it was wonderful to see the people of Cyprus voting with their feet, as it were, and brushing aside the old political thinking. I believe that they voted with their feet for a reunited Cyprus to join the European Union. We are making these points and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I discussed them with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Gul, last week. We will continue to do so. We hope that the elections will take place in a free and fair way in northern Cyprus. Our ambition remains that a united Cyprus, on the basis of the Annan plan, will join the European Union next May.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: With Cyprus joining the European Union on 1 May next year, is it not timely for the British Government to remind the illegal regime in northern Cyprus that people there will not be able to share the benefits of joining the European Union? Would it not also be timely for the British Government to remind the Turkish Government that, if they are serious about wanting to join the European Union, they must play a much more constructive part in reunifying the island and getting rid of the green line?
    Mr. MacShane: Those points were made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary virtually word for word in his meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Gul, last week, but there is an additional point. If a reunited Cyprus joins the European Union next May, it will make Turkish an official language of the European Union, as one of the two top figures of state in that reunited Cyprus will have to be a Turkish-speaking Cypriot. I think that that is of great advantage to Turkey as it looks forward to its candidature. That is why we hope that that can happen and think that the way forward must be to support Cyprus's EU ambitions and to put to one side the anti-European hostility that features in so much of our press in this country.
    Mr. Edward O'Hara: Would my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that for the next academic year the English School in Nicosia is, once again, inviting Turkish students to study with their Greek compatriots? It so happens that Rauf Denktash is an alumnus of that school. Would my hon. Friend remind the Turkish Government that the 35,000 troops who are on the island are supposed to be there to protect the interests and human rights of those very people whose voice is not being heard—the Turkish Cypriots— and that they should cleanse the electoral rolls before December to ensure that the elections are valid and give full and authentic voice to the Turkish Cypriot community?
    Mr. MacShane: One would have to be deaf and blind not to sense from northern Cyprus the desire to see their island reunited. I was not aware of the initiative by the school in Nicosia to offer places to Turkish students; I hope that Turkish will become used like Greek all over the island. There is still a window of opportunity. We as a Government and, I think, all hon. Members urge all the Governments in the region—we must address the Turkish Government, the Turkish Parliament and the Turkish military—to recognise the fact that this is a
    892
    golden moment to seize. It will be good for Turkey, good for Cyprus and good for the eastern Mediterranean if a united Cyprus can enter the EU next May.

    Iraq
    8. Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When he last met representatives of the US Administration to discuss Iraq. [123873]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): On 27 June, I met National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in London, and on 2 July I met ambassador Paul Bremer, who heads up the coalition provisional authority in Baghdad. On Sunday, I discussed Iraq with Secretary Powell on the telephone. The House will wish to know that the first meeting of the new Baghdad city council took place yesterday. The 37 members of that council were chosen from among the members of the 88 neighbourhood advisory councils of Baghdad. With the launch last week of the Basra city council, every major Iraqi city now has its own local government.
    Mrs. Gillan: It is a shame that the Foreign Secretary did not have a chance to meet Senator Richard Lugar, who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, and who, after visiting Iraq last week, said:
    "This idea that we will be in"—
    Iraq—
    "for just as long as we need to and not a day more … is rubbish … We must reorganise our military to be there a long time."
    Is not that latest American assessment rather closer to the truth than what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary say on the subject; and do we not face a similar situation to that in Bosnia, where British troops are still deployed after 11 long years?
    Mr. Straw: Frankly, I do not see a huge distinction between the comments of Senator Richard Lugar, whom I know and greatly respect, and what the Prime Minister and I have said. We all recognise that we have a long-term commitment to security in Iraq, but we also have to recognise the importance of reducing our presence, then leaving Iraq altogether as soon as the security situation allows and the Iraqi people wish it.
    Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for many of us the decision to go into Iraq was a question of a choice between the failed policy of containment and the historic opportunity to liberate the Iraqi people from fascist tyranny; and that we in this country who made that choice will know over the next decades that it was right? Does he agree that just as the countries of central and eastern Europe that are now coming into the European Union were liberated by various means, and Germany and Poland were liberated from Nazi tyranny many years ago, we can be proud today that in the long historic sweep ahead of us we will have made a contribution to democracy and freedom for Muslims and Arabs in Iraq and throughout the region?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, I do accept that. The key question for everybody, not least those who, for reasons that I

    893
    understand, opposed the war, is to ask what condition that region and international peace and security would now be in if, in the face of that defiance of the will of the United Nations, we and the US had walked away. I shall tell hon. Members what the position would be. Saddam Hussein would have been re-empowered and re-emboldened. He would have increased the terror in his country and acted with even greater thoroughness to increase his chemical and biological capabilities and develop his nuclear capabilities. He would have continued to disrupt any chance of an effective peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and increased the threat that he posed to international peace and security. That is the truth and I look forward to newspapers debating that rather than their extraordinary obsession with 45 minutes.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: At the St. Petersburg summit, the Prime Minister made much of his exclusive interview with Sky's Adam Boulton to announce, doubtless ever so sincerely, that evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would be assembled and given to people.
    He said,
    "just wait and have a little patience".
    Now that the Foreign Secretary has been promoted and is, since yesterday, Alastair Campbell's official spokesman, will he tell us what evidence has been accumulated, how much longer we must wait and how much more patience we shall need?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why did you vote for the war then?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asks a pertinent question. [Interruption.] I shall answer the question of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), but, after languishing for 18 years in opposition, I shall also offer the Opposition gratis advice: it would be unwise for them and their reputation if they started to rewrite history, as they are trying to do.
    The Iraq survey group has been established and is carrying out its work. Neither my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister nor I can say how long it will take. It will take as long as it takes. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any doubts about whether he made the correct decision on 18 March, I commend to him all 173 pages of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission's last report on unanswered disarmament questions. It sets out in horrifying detail Iraq's failure to answer questions about the whereabouts and capabilities of chemical and biological weapons. That was the truth, and the document, from an entirely independent source, was one of the main considerations in the minds of hon. Members when they carried the vote with a large majority on 18 March.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Although the Foreign Secretary is correct in saying that we need more time to look for weapons of mass destruction, the Government could usefully make some interim statements. For example, how long does it take to find whether a nuclear programme and undiscovered nuclear reactors exist? How long does it take to find a chemical
    894
    factory? The Government could usefully make some initial decisions and determinations now so that we were at least in a better position to know what weapons of mass destruction Iraq did not have even if we do not know what weapons it had.
    Mr. Straw: First, parts of the September document that we published have already been proved true. They include the parts that relate to the shorter-range missile systems and the import of far larger quantities of missile engines than Iraq ever conceded. Indeed, it failed to admit to them when it was forced to make its second set of disclosures on 9 December. I can recall no claim that Iraq had built a nuclear reactor, so my hon. Friend should not invent claims to knock them down.
    It is in our interests as much as those of anyone else to continue the search. However, given the reign of terror, the destruction and looting that unfortunately took place during and immediately after the war, and our knowledge of Iraq's continued efforts at concealment, which the dossier pointed out, the task will be difficult and painstaking. I remind those who would make glib assumptions that, 30 years on, we still do not know the whereabouts of IRA arms dumps, despite the fact that we know the country far better and that our intelligence penetrated it far more successfully than we have ever been able to penetrate Iraq.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I agree with what the Foreign Secretary has just said. Does he accept that many who voted as they did on 18 March, and have no regrets, believe that we should not spend more than another 45 minutes on the nauseating nitpicking that has been going on recently?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am in no doubt about that, I know that he is in no doubt about it, and I see from the nods all around him that a large number of Conservative Back Benchers, at least, take the same view. I hope that their advice is passed to the Front Bench, because the Conservative party, which has an honourable history, will simply be a part of history if it tries to rewrite it.

    European Constitution
    9. Mr. Graham Allen: If he will consult people in Nottingham, North on amendment of the draft European Constitution. [123874]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I intend to visit Nottingham later this year as part of a programme of UK visits to raise awareness of EU enlargement. This will include discussion of the draft constitution, which proposes reform and modernisation of the EU to ensure that it can continue to function effectively following enlargement.
    Mr. Allen: Does my hon. Friend realise that the people of Nottingham, North—indeed, the constituents of all Members—can be involved in the consultation, as can all Members themselves, if he allows pre-legislative scrutiny of the European constitution before it goes to

    895
    the intergovernmental conference? It is vital for Members to be involved before and not after decisions are made. I welcomed the letter I received from the Foreign Secretary saying that he would consider the matter, and hope that in tomorrow's debate he will be able to reassure us that we and our constituents can have a serious input in the IGC before everything is cut and dried.
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. I am grateful to him for his practical suggestions, as is my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The Foreign Office has set up an interactive website, futureofeurope@fco.gov.uk, to allow communication via e-mail.
    We have had seven debates on the convention and the future constitutional treaty, and there will be another tomorrow in Government time. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will publish command papers on the subject, and I am visiting more than 100 UK towns and cities where these issues are, of course, discussed.
    Conservative Front Benchers laugh. I suggest that if they occasionally listened to the voters of this country, they might learn where their disappearing support has gone.
    Angus Robertson: I am sure that, as part of the consultation process, the Minister will pay close attention to the reports of the European Scrutiny Committee. May I recommend its recent report entitled "The Convention on the Future of Europe and the Role of National Parliaments"? Paragraph 55 states:
    "We are concerned about the prospect of exclusive EU competence in the 'Conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy' and how this might affect the management of marine resources at all levels."
    May I strongly urge the Minister and the Government to consider that concern and act on it during the intergovernmental conference?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is a doughty defender of the fishing interests of his constituents, but he is right to draw attention to the fact that under the constitutional treaty there is a strengthened role for national Parliaments. It is important that they should play a central part.
    896
    Let me quote from Hansard:
    "It is indispensable to our system of government that Parliament should play its full part in all the important acts of state"—[Official Report, 8 December 1941; Vol. 376, c. 1358.]
    That was said by Winston Churchill. In those days, the Conservative party was led by someone who believed in defending the rights of this House, not in surrendering them to the Rothermere press so that it could dictate policy.

    Illegal Arms Trade
    10. Mr. Jim Cunningham: What consultations he has had with ministerial colleagues regarding Europe-wide efforts to prevent the illegal arms trade. [123875]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently discussed this issue with his counterparts in the General Affairs and External Relations Council of the European Union—a discussion that led to the adoption of the basic principles for an EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on 16 June 2003.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given that he has just outlined an EU strategy, what role would Interpol play in catching arms smugglers?
    Mr. Rammell: The EU will work through this process in co-operation with Interpol. We have one of the toughest, most open and accountable export licensing regimes in the world, but it is critical that we transplant that on a multilateral basis, which is why we should engage through the EU.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out to the House that we only reached Question 10 today, and it is unfair to those who have taken the trouble to table questions that they are not being called. It would assist me in future if both questions and answers were far briefer, so that we can get further down the Order Paper.

Points of Order
12.30 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that you are always anxious to ensure that Ministers make their announcements first to the House. Yet on making inquiries about tomorrow's launch of the Government's national skills strategy, I discovered from the Department for Education and Skills that although the Secretary of State will indeed seek to make a statement to the House at 12.30 pm tomorrow, he intends meanwhile to visit Westminster further education college, in the company of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, for a launch breakfast.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I yield to no one in my support for FE colleges as a whole—and, indeed, for that college in particular—and I have absolutely no objection to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills having breakfast. But with great respect, an FE college is not the House of Commons, and I wonder whether you would care to request that the Secretary of State make his initial statement here—perhaps, for example, by seeking to intervene in today's debate at 7 pm.
Mr. Speaker: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have no objection to the Secretary of State having breakfast, but I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be well aware of the contents of early-day motion 1548, concerning the Minister for Children. It has been made public that the Minister intends to address a conference this afternoon on the subject of the Green Paper on children at risk. Have you had any indication that she intends to do us the courtesy of coming to this House—as you have so often told Ministers they ought to—to present the Government's plans on this urgent matter, before presenting them elsewhere?
Mr. Speaker: I have seen the terms of the early-day motion and the hon. Lady's point of order really has nothing to do with me: the early-day motion is in perfectly good order. The hon. Lady put an urgent question to me that was rejected, and I give no reason as to why it was rejected. I have looked into the question of whether the Minister for Children will speak at the conference about the Green Paper on children's rights, and I understand that she will not; rather, she will speak in her capacity as a Minister, which she is entitled to do.

House of Lords (Exclusion of Hereditary Peers)
12.33 pm
David Winnick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1999.
As we know, the Prime Minister and the then Conservative leader in the House of Lords reached a compromise whereby most of the hereditary peers would go and 92 would remain. That agreement cost the then Tory leader in the House of Lords his job; nevertheless, it formed the core of the House of Lords Act 1999, which contains the exemption that I am hoping to change.
On 11 November 1999, I went along to the House of Lords with several hon. Friends to watch an historic occasion in which more than 640 hereditary peers were to leave the House of Lords. I am glad that I went to watch those proceedings on the final part of what became the law of the land.
The purpose of the modest measure to which I am speaking today is that the remaining 92 hereditary peers should also go. It is now nearly four years since the rest went. I should point out that, had there been no change of Government in 1997, no change whatever would have taken place. The only reason for the departure of most hereditary peers is that Labour carried out its election manifesto. When I examined the Conservative manifesto for 1997, I found that, far from proposing any change to the regime of hereditary peers, it strongly opposed what it described as
"Labour's extremely damaging proposals on Lords reform".
Clearly, without the Labour Government, all hereditary peers would have stayed for a long time to come. Those who recall the debates on the House of Lords Bill 1999 in the House of Commons will also remember the strong opposition that came from the Conservative Benches. There was certainly no enthusiasm, to say the least, and at the end of the day the Conservatives tabled what could be described as a wrecking amendment.
I realise that the remaining 92 hereditary peers were to be kept in place until further reform of the Lords took place, but my point today is that, regardless of the various conflicting views about the composition of the House of Lords—whether it should be elected, appointed or, as I personally prefer, a combination of the two—the time has come for no hereditary peers whatever to sit in the House of Lords. I want to make it clear that I have no personal antagonism towards the remaining peers; there is no reason why I should. On some occasions, on measures such as hunting with dogs, we know that hereditary peers will vote in a certain way, but my concern today is the basic principle that, in a democracy—and certainly in the 21st century—no one should have a seat in Parliament simply because their ancestors were, for whatever reason, given a title.
I found out when some of the titles were created. Some were conferred about 60 or 70 years ago. Several were conferred in the 19th century: some peers sit in the House of Lords because their ancestors were given a title in 1801, 1815, 1821, 1869, 1828 and 1841. Yet they can be considered relatively recent. If we continue to examine the list, we find that some who sit in the House

899
of Lords have titles going back to 1605, 1609, 1620, 1633 and 1660. Other titles date from the 18th century—1707, 1711, 1728. That goes back some distance, but the list goes back even further. I found that one peer sits in the House of Lords on the basis of a title created in the 16th century; six on the basis of titles created in the 15th century; and two on the basis of titles created in the 14th century. It does not even end there, because one peer's title was created in 1283—28 June 1283, to give the exact date.
Sir Patrick Cormack: He's Labour!
David Winnick: Whether a hereditary peer is Labour, Conservative or Liberal—I remind the hon. Gentleman who has just shouted across the Floor of the House that I have already said that it is nothing personal—their remaining in Parliament because of titles created as long ago as 1283, or in the 14th and 15th century, makes no sense whatever.
We rid Parliament of more than 640 hereditary peers four years ago, and I do not notice any enthusiasm among the Tories for the restoration of the hereditary principle. They refused to support what was done four years ago, and described Labour's proposals as "damaging", but they now—as far as I know—accept the status quo. When the remaining hereditary peers go, there will be no desire to bring them back.
As I argued earlier, this is a modest measure. The work has been left undone, and it is now time to rid Parliament of those who sit here simply because their ancestors were given a title.
12.41 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to oppose the Bill, but before I do so I should declare a couple of interests. The first is that my wife is a member of the other place and the second is that, but for legislation that the House has passed, I would have been entitled to sit in the other place. I must add that I would not have done so, because I much preferred to stay in this House.
All my political life I have campaigned for substantial reform of the House of Lords. I believe in a House of Lords that is elected or largely elected. I am opposed to its appointed form and to the hereditaries. My reason for seeking an elected Chamber is that I want to increase the powers of the second Chamber substantially. I recognise that the only basis on which one can give the second Chamber real power is if it is given legitimacy. In the modern world, election is the only basis for political legitimacy. One of my great regrets is that the Conservative Government of which I was a member for many years did not tackle the problem of House of Lords reform.
My objection to the Bill is twofold. First, most of us would agree that the hereditaries in the other place are independent-minded and unpredictable. Both of those are good characteristics. The hereditaries are also wholly unwhippable. I welcome unwhippable members of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords. I want to see thoroughly unwhippable and unwhipped Members of Parliament. [Interruption.] Well, I am thoroughly unwhipped, as my hon. Friends know full well, but that is not my main point.
900
I actually agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that the presence of the hereditaries is an anomaly and cannot be justified. However, as long as the anomaly exists, so will the pressure for reform. The converse is true: if the hereditaries were taken away, the Prime Minister would have what he wants, which is a wholly appointed House that lacks legitimacy. The Bill would create a wholly appointed second Chamber, and the pressure for reform would die away. I regard that as undesirable.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Hogg: I am pleased to give way to my hon. Friend.
Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no interventions in a ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend told me that he had a very good intervention to make, and I am sure that he does.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has finished.
Mr. Hogg: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that, between us, my hon. Friend and I cannot encourage you to allow his intervention.
In summary, I believe in a thoroughgoing reform of the House of Lords, and that the hereditaries are an anomaly. So long as they are there, there will be constant pressure for change, and if we take them away as the Bill proposes, the pressure for change will die away. We would then have a wholly appointed Chamber, which would lack political legitimacy. That is what the Prime Minister wants, but it is not what we should want. On that basis, I invite the House to oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
The House having divided: Ayes 171, Noes 73.

Division No. 278]

[12:46 pm

AYES

Adams. Irene (Paisley N)

Barron, rh Kevin

Allan, Richard

Beard, Nigel

Allen, Graham

Bennett, Andrew

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Austin, John

Berry, Roger

Bailey, Adrian

Best, Harold

Baker, Norman

Betts, Clive

Barnes, Harry

Blizzard, Bob

901

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Wallsend)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Bryant, Chris

King, MS Oona (Bethnal Green &

Burden, Richard

Bow)

Burgon, Colin

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Campbell. Alan (Tynemouth)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Lepper, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Carmichael, Alistair

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Caton, Martin

Love, Andrew

Challen, Colin

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

McCabe, Stephen

Clapham, Michael

McDonnell, John

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

MacDougall, John

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

McFall,,John

Chryston)

McKechin, Ann

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

McKenna, Rosemary

Clelland, David

Mallaber, Judy

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Cohen, Harry

Maples, John

Colman, Tony

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

Corston, Jean

Atcham)

Cotter, Brian

Marshall. David (Glasgow

Cranston, Ross

Shettleston)

Crausby, David

Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)

Cruddas, Jon

Martlew, Eric

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Cummings, John

Mole, Chris

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Mountfcrd, Kali

David, Wayne

Mudie, George

Dawson, Hilton

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Dismore, Andrew

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Donohoe, Brian H.

O'Hara, Edward

Doughty, Sue

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Edwards, Huw

Pickthall, Colin

Efford, Clive

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Plaskitt, James

Ewing, Annabelle

Pollard, Kerry

Farrelly, Paul

Pound, Stephen

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Follett, Barbara

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

Dinefwr)

& Rye)

Prosser, Gwyn

Foulkes, rh George

Purchase, Ken

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Gerrard, Neil

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Gilroy, Linda

NW)

Godsiff, Roger

Rooney, Terry

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Salter, Martin

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Sanders, Adrian

Abingdon)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Sawford, Phil

Rhymney)

Sheridan. Jim

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Singh, Marsha

Hermon, Lady

Skinner, Dennis

Hinchliffe, David

Smith, Geraldine (Morecarnbe &

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Lunesdale)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Stevenson, George

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Stringer, graham

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Highgate)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Trickett, Jon

Jenkins, Brian

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Kemptown)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

902

Tyrie, Andrew

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Walley, Ms Joan

Wishart, Pete

Ward Claire

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Wareing, Robert N.

Yarmouth)

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Wright David (Telford)

Watts, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Weir, Michael

Kevin Brennan and

White, Brian

Ian Lucas

NOES

Amess, David

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Lilley, rh Peter

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Loughton, Tim

Barker, Gregory

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Maclean, rh David

Blunt, Crispin

McLoughlin, Patrick

Browning, Mrs Angela

Malins, Humfrey

Burns, Simon

Mercer, Patrick

Butterfill, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Cameron, David

Coldfield)

Chope, Christopher

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Clappison, James

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

Ottaway, Richard

Howden)

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Paterson, Owen

Evans, Nigel

Randall, John

Fabricant, Michael

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Fallon, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Ruffley, David

Westminster)

Selous, Andrew

Flight, Howard

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Forth, rh Eric

Simmonds, Mark

Francois, Mark

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Soames, Nicholas

Gillan Mrs Cheryl

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Greenway, John

Syms, Robert

Grieve. Dominic

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Hague, rh William

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hendry, Charles

Thurso, John

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Tredinnick, David

Hogg, rh Douglas

Watkinson, Angela

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

(Macclesfield)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Tellers for the Noes:

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Mr. Eric Joyce and

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

John Robertson

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Winnick, Angela Eagle, John Cryer, Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Marsha Singh, Mr. Khalid Mahmood, Mr. John Battle, Ms Candy Atherton, Rob Marris. Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ian Lucas and Mr. John Smith.

HOUSE OF LORDS (EXCLUSION OF HEREDITARY PEERS) BILL
Mr. David Winnickaccordingly presented a Bill to repeal section 2 of the House of Lords Act 1992: 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 144].

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That—
(a) the matter of the Draft Public Audit (Wales) Bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
(b) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 15th July at five minutes to Nine o'clock to consider the matter of the Draft Public Audit (Wales) Bill under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).—[Mr. Coaker.]

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
1.4 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I beg to move,
That,
(1) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Programme Order of 7th May 2003 relating to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the following table, and each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Amendments relating to Clauses in Part 1; New Clauses relating to Part 1; new Schedules relating to Part 1; amendments relating to Schedules 1 to 4.

3¼ hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.

New Clauses relating to Part 2; amendments relating to Clauses in Part 2; new Schedules relating to Part 2; amendments relating to Schedules 5 to 8.

4¾ hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

New Clauses relating to Part 4; amendments relating to Clauses in Part 4; new Schedules relating to Part 4; amendments relating to Schedule 10.

6½ hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

New Clauses relating to Part 3; amendments relating to Clauses in Part 3; new Schedules relating to Part 3; amendments relating to Schedule 9; New Clauses relating to Part 5; amendments relating to Clauses in Part 5; new Schedules relating to Part 5; amendments relating to Schedules II and 12; New Clauses relating to Part 6; amendments relating to Clauses in Part 6; new Schedules relating to Part 6; amendments relating to Schedule 13; remaining New Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration.

7 hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion 8 hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order.
Hon. Members: Hooray!
Mr. Hutton: I think that those are probably the only cheers that I will get this afternoon.
We have drafted the programme motion in an attempt to be fair to all sides of the House. The amendments selected for debate today concentrate largely on part 1 of the Bill. That is why the motion devotes the lion's share of the House's time this afternoon to consideration of those amendments.
Clearly, the rest of the Bill is no less important. I hope that the House will find the divisions that we propose acceptable. We have allowed one and three quarter hours for debate of the new GP contract clauses. Many hon. Members will know that the contract is the result of two years of negotiations between the NHS

905
Confederation and the British Medical Association. The clauses make the changes to the primary legislation that will allow us to make the new contract a reality. It may help the House if I explain that both the NHS Confederation and the chairman of the BMA's general practitioners committee, Dr. John Chisholm, have indicated to me their support for the Government's amendments.
Aside from the GP contract clauses, the Government's amendments are intended—
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, but does he think that those eminent doctors will be satisfied with what they took two years to decide being disposed of by the House in less than two hours?
Mr. Hutton: Given the very high quality of the debate that we will have on that part of the Bill, I have no doubt that they will be perfectly satisfied with an hour and three quarters. I hold the hon. Gentleman in high regard, and I do not want to minimise the point that he makes, as the provisions are very important. I refer to the agreement on these clauses that we have reached with the confederation and the BMA simply to try and reassure hon. Members that the Government's proposals command widespread support in the NHS. I hope that the House will find that helpful.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Bill provides that much of the detail in it may be prescribed in regulations. The Minister will understand that that has relevance for the amount of time being allocated for debate. To what extent will those regulations be subject to debate in the House, under the affirmative resolution procedure? That such debates will be required is obvious not from the structure of the new clauses themselves, but from reference to previous legislation.
Mr. Hutton: The regulations will be passed under the negative resolution procedure. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to raise that point in the debate, and that the matter will arise in another place. However, the proposed format is the one used in the existing legislation for the regulations concerning the general medical service contracts, and we are not suggesting that the new proposals receive any less parliamentary scrutiny in this place. Last week, we circulated a set of explanatory notes and information about how the regulation-making powers are intended to be exercised. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have found that helpful.
This part of the Bill deals with primary care services and, as usual, looks fiendishly complicated. However, the Government are proposing a simplified and more streamlined system for implementing the GMS contract. A smaller volume of secondary legislation will be needed to underpin it. That is one of the principles that we have adopted in framing the provisions.
The programme motion also provides an hour for the Third Reading debate. I believe that it is a fair and balanced attempt to ensure that the House has appropriate opportunity to consider the amended Bill properly. I hope that the House will support the motion.
1.8 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: The Minister's opening statement that the programme motion has been drafted in an attempt to be fair to all sides of the House gives us a good indication of what the Government's definition of "fairness" is. Before today's debate, 60 clauses had not even been considered in Committee. A total of seven hours for debate today is an insult to the House, in terms of the sheer volume of amendments that we might have to consider. There are 250 amendments and new clauses in the first group selected for debate, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you can recall a Bill with that sheer volume of amendments and new clauses, but I doubt that there has been one that has been guillotined to this degree.
Thus, in an extremely short time, we have to consider the whole issue of foundation hospitals, their complexity, their borrowing rights, the role of the regulator, cross-border matters, terms and conditions of service, asset disposal. governance, the role of centrally determined targets, the effects of creating a two-tier system, the interface with the private sector, the cost of maintaining a foundation hospital board and the complexity of the electoral process—and that is just the first group. We then get to the complaints procedure, standards for health and social care—another hugely important issue—provision in cross-border areas and the regulation of social care services, including those for children.
We shall then have one and three quarter hours to debate the whole of the contract that will shape the future of primary care—the whole of it. Until now, we have had no chance, during the whole passage of the Bill, to debate that matter. That shows the importance that the Government accord the whole issue of the forward path for primary care—one and three quarter hours.
We then have to deal with NHS charges and welfare food schemes. To try to squeeze all that and a Third Reading into the time on offer is hugely offensive to many Members; they may hold differing opinions on the issues, but they believe none the less that the House should he given appropriate time so that every voice can be heard.
To add insult to injury, leading the debate for the Government is a Secretary of State who represents a Scottish constituency. He will be trying to push forward measures in England that he will not be forcing through for his constituents in Scotland, using up debating time in this place. Furthermore, the Bill will be backed and voted for by Members representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies who have no say on health in their own constituencies but will he trying to apply these measures to voters in England.
Mr. Roy Beggs: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that Northern Ireland is also represented in the House and that we try to play our part in United Kingdom business. Will he accept that although we would like to play a full part, that is being denied us today, because the Northern Ireland Grand Committee is sitting while this important measure is being debated in the Chamber?
Dr. Fox: That is an important point and I am sure that you will have taken note of it, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the smaller parties that would like to have their say.

907
The whole debate is an insult to patients in England; it is an insult to the House itself. The contempt it reveals in the Prime Minister's regard for the House shows that the House of Commons has become little more than Downing street in Parliament.
1.12 pm
Mr. Michael Weir: I shall be relatively brief, as I do not want to eat into the time.
We in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru also oppose the programme motion, but for different reasons. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that the measure does not impact on Scotland and Wales; indeed, this morning, I heard an hon. Member say on the radio that the Scots should keep their noses out of English business. In fact, however, significant parts of the Bill will directly affect Scotland and significant parts will have secondary effects in Scotland, including the provisions on foundation hospitals.
We believe that much more time is needed to debate the full implications of the establishment of foundation hospitals in England for health service provision in both Scotland and Wales. For example, the programme motion could give as little as two and a half hours fully to debate the implications of foundation hospitals, and although clause 1 states that foundation hospitals will be only in England, there is increasing concern in both Scotland and Wales that there could be severe knock-on effects on health service provision owing to the operation of the Barnett formula.
Scottish and Welsh health care is funded from the block grant, which is driven by Barnett consequentials, based on English funding for services devolved to Scotland and Wales. Although the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Government decide what proportion of the block is spent on health care, the extent to which the size of the overall block is affected may affect the choices open to them.
We do not believe that the timetable motion gives enough time for a full debate on that issue. Wider debate, involving the Treasury as well as the Department of Health, is required on the whole funding issue.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Ours is a national health service and the whole kingdom has been proud of it over the years. Because there is movement across borders, it is important that we look at the measure in greater depth than is proposed today.
Mr. Weir: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The proposals for foundation hospitals give rise to serious issues that affect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For those reasons, we need more time to debate the measure both on Report and on Third Reading than has been provided under the programme motion, so we oppose it.
1.15 pm
Dr. Richard Taylor: As one of the unwhippable Members to whom the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred, I speak on behalf of many ordinary people who are amazed and concerned that we are given
908
only eight hours to discuss this extremely important Bill. Other right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out the limited number of hours for each item.
What makes it worse is that we have been presented with so much new in formation in the last 24 hours. The paper on the GP contract has 53 pages. The response to the Select Committee on Health report on foundation trusts, which amazingly came out only yesterday, two months after the report was published, contains a further 30 pages. The Bill is so vast that only a small proportion of it will be covered today.
May I remind the House of an old proverb? My book claims that it is an English proverb, but it would be close to the hearts of Scottish people, too. It is:
"Wilful waste makes woeful want."
Wilful waste of parliamentary time on less important issues has led to a woeful want of time to debate all the vital issues raised by the Bill.
1.16 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I have some sympathy for the remarks of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about the consequences of devolution, but I have complete sympathy with, and subscribe wholeheartedly to, the rest of his views on the programme motion.
Part of the reason for our despair at the short time for the debate is that it is difficult to hold a proper and wide debate in Committee of issues such as foundation trusts when none of the Committee's members share the strongly held views of the Labour Members who have tabled so many of the amendments. All their concerns have to be expressed and all their points made on Report, where time is always limited, rather than in Committee. Even so, it seems astonishing that such a Bill should be allocated only one day on Report. Indeed, when I heard that the new proposals on the GP contract would be dealt with only on Report I thought that we should need three days rather than two, so to find that only one day had been provided was a bitter disappointment, not only to those of us, on both sides of the House, who want to scrutinise the Government's proposals, but also to our electors who expect us to do that job.
The part of the Bill that deals with the future and independence of the quality inspectorate is even more important than the provisions on foundation hospitals. Despite representations from the Liberal Democrats in the Standing Committee and in the Programming Sub-Committee, we did not reach many of those clauses in Committee, even though, compared with other Committees on which I have served, we made brisk progress. Indeed, a whole section on the social services inspectorate was not covered at all. Under the timetable, it is extremely unlikely that we shall reach the clauses on the inspection of children's services and social care.
Mr. John Bercow: Given that there is no desperate urgency about the passage of the Bill, and that the programme motion provides for less than one minute to be devoted to debate on each new clause and amendment relating to foundation hospitals, can the hon. Gentleman think of any reason for the programme

909
motion other than a desire on the part of the Government to limit to an absolute minimum the opportunity for their Back Benchers to excoriate them?
Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is the favourite runner. There may be other reasons, but I have heard none more persuasive.
The new clauses on the GP contract are also of concern. Presumably, they were prepared on the assumption that GPs would support a contract that they had negotiated, before the realisation that someone had got their sums wrong so the contracts would have to be renegotiated and the ballot postponed. One has to ask why we were presented with the new clauses on the Order Paper only yesterday and why, uniquely, a letter dated 3 July and sent to hon. Members by internal post arrived only yesterday. That is a technique that many students use with the essays; they date them long before they post them.
I should have thought that we would be given more time to consider such serious issues and to suggest amendments. Indeed, the only amendment that has been selected to those new clauses is, of necessity, starred. I suppose that I am grateful that it has been selected at all, but hon. Members have not been given time to consider those new clauses. In effect, we will have no real scrutiny of those new clauses.
The Government have to understand that the impact of our failure to give proper scrutiny to those new clauses in this House makes it much more likely not only that the other House will despair of the ability of this House to hold the Executive to account, but that the Lords will feel it incumbent on them to do so, and I would support them if they considered that factor.
If we could debate and divide on some of those measures, the Government's objection to being held up in the House of Lords might have more merit, but their failure to provide the House with the ability to scrutinise gives more power to the arm of those in the House of Lords who desire to ensure that adequate scrutiny takes place. So I join the hon. Member for Woodspring in being appalled at the short time that we have been given to debate these serious matters.
1.21 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), but I agree with everything that he said in his brief speech. I am appalled that we have such a short time to debate the Bill, and I would have hoped that the Secretary of State for Health would be appalled too. He was beginning to show the House that he was a robust defender of the House's privileges, when he was Leader of the House, all too briefly. He was beginning to show the House that he understood the importance of holding the Government to account. He was beginning to show the House that he really believed that legislation should be properly scrutinised and thoroughly debated before passing on to the statute books. He was beginning to show the House that he thought that this House, as well as the House of Lords—the other place—should debate things thoroughly, with care and diligence.
910
After 10 short weeks, the right hon. Gentleman was translated into a new job, and he seems to have forgotten all the principles that he was beginning so impressively to embrace. I find that deeply distressing because he is now party to an exercise that is an insult to each of our constituents—frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is an insult to you too—because the House is not being given an adequate opportunity to debate a measure that directly or indirectly affects the lives of each of our constituents. That is monstrous. The Government's distortion of priorities is shown by the fact that, just over a week ago, we spent a whole day on fox hunting, time which could have been devoted far more properly and profitably to this measure, which touches the lives of our constituents far more than fox hunting does.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that today's hypocrisy may be considerable? The scent of the blood of a ban on fox hunting may be still in Labour Members' nostrils to such an extent that they think that they can reduce opposition to foundation hospitals and squeeze the proposal through. In fact, the link that he makes between fox hunting and today's proceedings could be considerable and very cynical indeed.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Oh yes, of course, we all know that almost everyone has his or her price, but I do not have one, and I am most anxious to ensure that, once again, the House is regarded throughout the country as the place where the nation's affairs and the legislation that touches the lives of its people are thoroughly and properly debated. We are now in an era of the compulsory guillotine. Every measure brought before us—there are far too many of them—is put in the straitjacket of a timetable, and hon. Members are not given an opportunity for debate.
This happens to be an issue where many Labour Members have honourable differences with their Government. Frankly, I am rather inclined to agree with the Government, rather than those Labour Members, but the fact is that the issues that they would raise are important and far reaching and they deserve very thorough debate; but hon. Members will not have the opportunity to take part in those debates. That is a monstrous affront to the parliamentary integrity of this country, and the Secretary of State should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
1.24 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I want briefly to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), but I want to express a slight note of disagreement with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who expressed surprise that the Government had introduced the timetable motion. Over the past few years, the one thing that we have not needed to be surprised about is the Government's willingness to guillotine and closely schedule debates either on the Floor of the House or in Committee. Although I agree with the general thrust of his argument, surprise is not an emotion that washes over me this afternoon.
I wholeheartedly agree, however, with my hon. Friends the Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for South Staffordshire and with the hon. Gentleman, and

911
I worry at times that the Government have completely lost sight of what they are for and what Parliament is for. We all agree that, by and large, a Government who are elected with a large majority are entitled to get their business through the House. We also accept that, on free vote issues—I understand that this is not a free vote issue—the will of the House of Commons is entitled to have its way, but if we are to admire democracy to that extent, we fool ourselves if we suborn the process.
I fear that the Government are guilty of suborning the democratic process, and a democratic process that is only that in name is no democracy at all. Hardly a day goes by now without some sort of timetable motion being put to the House by the Government, as though it were a matter of real choice. It is not a matter of real choice; it is thought up in No. 12 Downing street by the Chief Whip and the other business managers. It is imposed on the relevant Secretary of State or junior Minister who has to carry that business, and it is then imposed on the House by a compliant and suborned majority. The longer the Government go on like that, the more they will resemble the Government of the current president of Zimbabwe. [Interruption.] Those groans speak volumes, and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and I have our differences with the Government over their handling of pensions issues, debate on which they have crushed by using timetabling. Our political views differ on a whole host of things, but both of us, as democrats, share an understanding that the need to respect the process of democracy is every bit as important as the right of a Government with a majority to get their business through the House.
We can bleat about the Government's role in this timetable motion—I will continue to bleat as often as I possibly can, even though I am entirely powerless—but eventually hubris will overtake the Government, and eventually the public will have their say and the guillotine will be of a rather different nature.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 164.

Division No. 279]

[1.28 pm

AYES

Adams, Irena (Paisley N)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Bradshaw, Ben

Alexander,Douglas

Brennan, Kevin

Allen, Graham

Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

E)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Alkins, Charlotte

Wallsend)

Austin, John

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Bailey, Adrian

Browne, Desmond

Baird, Vera

Bryant, Chris

Barnes, Harry

Buck, Ms Karen

Beard, Nigel

Burden, Richard

Beckett, rh Margaret

Burgon, Colin

Begg, Miss Anne

Burnham, Andy

Benn, Hilary

Byers, rh Stephen

Bennett, Andrew

Cairns, David

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Berry, Roger

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Best, Harold

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Betts, Clive

Caplin, Ivor

Blackman, Liz

Casale, Roger

Blears, Ms Hazel

Caton, Martin

Blizzard, Bob

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Boateng, rh Paul

Challen, Colin

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

912

Chaytor, David

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Clapham, Michael

Rhymney)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Healey, John

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Henderson. Doug (Newcastle N)

Pentlands)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hendrick, Mark

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clarke, rh Toni (Coatbridge &

Heppell, John

Chryston)

Hesford, Stephen

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Heyes, David

Clelland, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hinchliffe, David

Coaker, Vernon

Hodge, Margaret

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Cohen, Harry

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Coleman, Iain

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Colman, Tony

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Connarty, Michael

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Sefton E)

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Cooper, Yvette

Hoyle, Lindsay

Corston, Jean

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

Cousins, Jim

Urmston)

Cranston, Ross

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Crausby, David

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cruddas, Jon

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Cummings, John

Hutton, rh John

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Ingram, rh Adam

Darling, rh Alistair

Irranca-Davies, Huw

David, Wayne

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

Davidson, Ian

Highgate)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jenkins, Brian

Dawson, Hilton

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Denham, rh John

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Dhanda, Parmjit

Hatfield)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Donohoe, Brian H.

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Doran, Frank

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Jowell, rh Tessa

Edwards, Huw

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Efford, Clive

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Farrelly, Paul

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Kemp, Fraser

Fisher, Mark

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Kidney, David

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

King, Andy (Rugby)

Flint, Caroline

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Bow)

Follett, Barbara

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

& Rye)

Lammy, David

Foulkes, rh George

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Gardiner, Barry

Lepper, David

Gerrard, Neil

Leslie, Christopher

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Gilroy, Linda

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Godsiff, Roger

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Goggins, Paul

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Linton, Martin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Grogan, John

Love, Andrew

Hain, rh Peter

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Hain, rh Peter

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McAvoy, Thomas

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McCabe, Stephen

Hanson, David

McCafferty, Chris

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

McDonagh, Siobhain

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

MacDougall, John

913

McFall, John

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Salter, Martin

McIsaac, Shona

Sarwar, Mohammad

McKechin, Ann

Savidge, Malcolm

McKenna, Rosemary

Sawford, Phil

McNulty, Tony

Shaw, Jonathan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Sheridan, Jim

McWalter, Tony

Short, rh Clare

McWilliam, John

Singh, Marsha

Mallaber, Judy

Skinner. Dennis

Mandelson, rh Peter

Smith, ih Andrew (Oxford E)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Finstury)

Marshall, David (Glasgow

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Shettleston)

Lunesdale)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Martlew, Eric

Smith,.John (Glamorgan)

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Soley, Clive

Michael, rh Alun

Southworth, Helen

Milburn, rh Alan

Spellar, rh John

Miliband, David

Steinberg, Gerry

Miller, Andrew

Stevenson, George

Moffatt, Laura

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mole, Chris

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Morris, rh Estelle

Stringer, Graham

Mountford, Kali

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mudie, George

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Munn, Ms Meg

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Timms, Stephen

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

O'Hara, Edward

Trickett Jon

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Truswell, Paul

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pearson, Ian

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton,

Picking, Anne

Kemptown)

Pickthall, Colin

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Plaskitt, James

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pollard, Kerry

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Pound, Stephen

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Walley, Ms Joan

E)

Ward, Claire

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Watsor, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Watts, David

Prosser, Gwyn

White, Brian

Purnell, James

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Quinn, Lawrie

Wicks, Malcolm

Rammell, Bill

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Winnick, David

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Bellshill)

C)

Robertson, John (Glasgow

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Anniesland)

Woodward, Shaun

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Woolat, Phil

NW)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Yarmouth)

Rooney, Terry

Wright, David (Telford)

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Wright Tony (Cannock)

Ruane, Chris

Wyatt, Derek

Ruddock, Joan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Russell, Ms Christine (City of

Gillian Merron and

Chester)

Mr. Nick Ainger

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Bacon, Richard

Allan, Richard

Baker, Norman

Amess, David

Baldry, Tony

Ancram, rh Michael

Barker, Gregory

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Baron, John (Billericay)

914

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Bellingham, Henry

Inverness)

Bercow, John

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Blunt, Crispin

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Brady, Graham

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Brazier, Julian

Lamb, Norman

Breed, Colin

Lansley, Andrew

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Leigh, Edward

Bruce, Malcolm

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Burns, Simon

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Burstow, Paul

Lilley, rh Peter

Butterfill, John

Llwyd, Elfyn

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Loughton, Tim

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Cameron, David

Maclean, rh David

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Carmichael, Alistair

Malins, Humfrey

Cash. William

Maples, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

Barnet)

Atcham)

Chope, Christopher

May, Mrs Theresa

Clappison, James

Mercer, Patrick

Collins, Tim

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Coldfield)

Cotter, Brian

Moore, Michael

Cran, James (Beverley)

Moss, Malcolm

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Howden)

Opik, Lembit

Doughty, Sue

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Ottaway, Richard

Evans, Nigel

Page, Richard

Ewing, Annabelle

Paice, James

Fabricant, Michael

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Fallon, Michael

Paterson, Owen

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Westminster)

Dinefwr)

Flight, Howard

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Forth, rh Eric

Pugh, Dr. John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Randall, John

Fox, Dr. Liam

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Robathan, Andrew

Garnier, Edward

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gibb. Nick (Bognor Regis)

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Gidley, Sandra

Roe, Mrs Marion

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Ruffley, David

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Grayling, Chris

Sanders, Adrian

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Selous, Andrew

Greenway, John

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Grieve, Dominic

Shepherd, Richard

Gummer, rh John

Simmonds, Mark

Hague, rh William

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Hammond, Philip

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

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Kincardine)

Abingdon)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Harvey, Nick

Soames, Nicholas

Hawkins, Nick

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Heald, Oliver

Spicer, Sir Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Hendry, Charles

Spring, Richard

Hermon, Lady

Streeter, Gary

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Stunell, Andrew

Hogg, rh Douglas

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Howard, rh Michael

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Hunter, Andrew

Thurso, John

Jack rh Michael

Tredinnick, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Keetch, Paul

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

915

Tyrie, Andrew

Wishart, Pete

Waterson, Nigel

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Watkinson, Angela

Young, rh Sir George

Weir, Michael

Willetts, David

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Tellers for the Noes:

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Mr. Robert Syms and

(Macclesfield)

Mr. Mark Francois

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
    Clause 1

      NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTS
      1.42 pm
      Mr. David Hinchliffe: I beg to move amendment No. 164, in page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 60, in page 1, line 7, at end insert 'and Wales'.
      Amendment No. 166, in page 1, line 10, leave out clause 2.
      Amendment No. 96, in clause 2, page 1, line 12, after 'Foundation', insert 'and Community'.
      Amendment No. 168, in page 2, line 3, leave out clause 3.
      Amendment No. 169, in page 2, line 9, leave out clause 4.
      Amendment No. 154, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, after 'trust', insert
      'or combination of NHS trusts'.
      Amendment No. 321, in page 2, line 10, after 'trust', insert
      'or a Primary Care Trust'.
      Amendment No. 65, in page 2, leave out line 12 and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 322, in clause 4, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Secretary of State may not support more than six applications make by NHS trusts and more than six applications made by Primary Care Trusts during the pilot test period.'.
      Amendment No. 155, in page 2, line 14, after 'trust', insert 'or trusts'.
      Amendment No. 323, in page 2, line 14, after 'trust', insert 'or Primary Care Trust'.
      Amendment No. 156, in page 2, line 18, after 'trust', insert 'or trusts'.
      Amendment No. 324, in page 2, line 18, after 'trust', insert 'or Primary Care Trust'.
      Amendment No. 157, in page 2, line 19, after 'applicant', insert 'or applicants'.
      Amendment No. 158, in page 2, line 21, after 'has', insert 'or NHS trusts have'.
      Amendment No. 325, in page 2, line 21, after 'trust', insert
      'or a Primary Care Trust'.
      Amendment No. 159, in page 2, line 26, after 'trust', insert 'or trusts'.
      Amendment No. 326, in page 2, line 26, after 'trust', insert 'or Primary Care Trust'.

      917
      Amendment No. 160, in page 2, line 28, at end insert 'or them'.
      Amendment No. 161, in page 2, line 29, after 'it', insert 'or them'.
      Amendment No. 170, in page 2, line 31, leave out clause 5.
      Amendment No. 328, in clause 5, page 2, line 32, after 'trust', insert
      'or a Primary Care Trust'.
      Amendment No. 66, in page 2, leave out line 35 and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Government amendment No. 245.
      Amendment No. 171, in page 3, line 20, leave out clause 6.
      Amendment No. 329, in clause 6, page 3, line 22, after 'trust', insert
      'or a Primary Care Trust'.
      Amendment No. 233, in page 3, line 27, at end insert—
      '() taken as a whole the actual membership of the applicant's public constituency will be representative of those eligible for such membership,'.
      Amendment No. 402, in page 3, line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) In deciding whether or not to give an authorisation in response to an application under section 4 or 5, the regulator shall have regard to the outcome of a public consultation under section [public consultation relating to applications for foundation status].'.
      Amendment No. 403, in page 3, line 39, at end insert—
      '(4A) The regulator shall not give an authorisation under section 7(1)(a) or (b) unless and until the Secretary of State confirms support for the application to which such authorisation may relate after responding to—

      any recommendations made to him by virtue of section 21(2)(f) of the Local Government Act 2000 (Overview and Scrutiny Committees) in relation to the application, or

      any referrals or representations made to him by any Patients Forum by virtue of section 15(6) of the NHS Reform and Healthcare Professions Act 2002 in relation to the application.'.

      Amendment No. 172, in page 4, line 1, leave out clause 7.
      Amendment No. 330, in clause 7, page 4, line 2, after 'trust', insert
      'or a Primary Care Trust'.
      Amendment No. 331, in page 4, line 3 after 'trust', insert
      'or a Primary Care Trust as the case may be'.
      Amendment No. 100, in page 4, line 4, at end insert—
      '(1A) On an authorisation being given to a Primary Care Trust—

      it ceases to be a Primary Care Trust and becomes an NHS community trust,

      the proposed constitution has effect.'.

      Amendment No. 101, in page 4, line 10, at end insert
      'or community trust as the case may be'.
      918
      Amendment No. 102, in page 4, line 13, after 'trust, insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 173, in page 4, line 17, leave out clause 8.
      Amendment No. 103, in clause 8, page 4, line 18, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 104, in page 4, line 20, after 'trust, insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 174, in page 4, line 22, leave out clause 9.
      Amendment No. 175, in page 4, line 35, leave out clause 10.
      Amendment No. 105, in clause 10, page 4, line 37, at end insert 'and community trusts'.
      Amendment No. 106, in page 4, line 38, at end insert 'and community trust'.
      Amendment No. 107, in page 5, line 6, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Government amendment No. 355.
      Amendment No. 67, in page 5, line 14, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 176, in page 5, line 17, leave out Clause 11.
      Amendment No. 68, in clause 11, page 5, line 18, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 108, in page 5, line 19, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Government amendment No. 356.
      Amendment No. 177, in page 5, line 22, leave out clause 12.
      Amendment No. 109, in clause 12, page 5, line 24, at end insert 'or community trust'.
      Government amendment No. 246.
      Amendment No. 69, in page 5, line 29, at end insert—
      '(aa) the Assembly,'.
      Amendment No. 332, in page 5, line 30, after 'trust', insert 'and Primary Care Trust'.
      Amendment No. 110, in page 5, line 31, at end insert—
      '(bb) every Primary Care Trust intending to make an application to become an NHS community trust,'.
      Amendment No. 70, in page 5, line 33, at end insert
      'and send a copy to the Assembly'.
      Amendment No. 111, in page 5, line 36, at end insert 'and community trust'.
      Amendment No. 178, in page 5, line 37, leave out clause 13.
      Amendment No. 333, in clause 13, page 5, line 38, after first 'trust', insert
      'or a Primary Care Trust'.
      Amendment No. 112, in page 5, line 38, after second 'trust', insert
      'or a Primary Care Trust becomes an NHS community trust'.
      Amendment No. 113, in page 5, line 40, at end insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 114, in page 6, line 3, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.

      919
      Amendment No. 71, in page 6, line 6, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 72, in page 6, line 10, after 'England', insert
      'or (as the case may be) in Wales'.
      Amendment No. 73, in page 6, line 12, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 74, in page 6, line 14, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 115, in page 6, line 14, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 179, in page 6, line 18, leave out clause 14.
      Amendment No. 75, in clause 14, page 6, line 23, at end insert 'and Wales'.
      Amendment No. 76, in page 6, line 28, after 'England', insert 'and Wales'.
      Amendment No. 77, in page 6, line 37, after 'England', insert 'and Wales'.
      Amendment No. 180, in page 7, line 13, leave out clause 15.
      Amendment No. 397, in clause 15, page 7, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
      Amendment No. 78, in page 7, line 15, after 'England', insert 'and Wales'.
      Government amendment No. 247.
      Amendment No. 398, in page 7, line 17, leave out 'power' and insert 'duty'.
      Government amendment No. 248.
      Amendment No. 400, in page 7, line 23, at end insert—
      '(3A)An authorisation must state that no services be provided to a patient, other than an NHS patient, by an NHS foundation trust, other than in circumstances prescribed by subsection (3B).
      (3B) These circumstances are that a certificate issued by the lead clinician in that specialty states that the services so provided are not needed by an NHS patient with equal or greater clinical need.'.
      Amendment No. 181, in page 7, line 28, leave out clause 16.
      Amendment No. 116, in clause 16, page 7, line 29, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 79, in page 7, line 38, at end insert 'and Wales'.
      Amendment No. 117, in page 7, line 41, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 182, in page 8, line 1, leave out clause 17.
      Amendment No. 118, in clause 17, page 8, line 2, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 119, in page 8, line 7, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 120, in page 8, line 12, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 183, in page 8, line 15, leave out clause 18.
      Amendment No. 121, in clause 18, page 8, line 16, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 122, in page 8, line 22, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      920
      Amendment No. 184, in page 8, line 29, leave out clause 19.
      Amendment No. 123, in clause 19, page 8, line 31, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 80, in page 8, line 32, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 124, in page 8, line 33, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 185, in page 8, line 37, leave out clause 20.
      Amendment No. 125, in clause 20, page 8, line 38, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 186, in page 9, line 1, leave out clause 21.
      Amendment No. 126, in clause 21, page 9, line 2, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 187, in page 9, line 4, leave out clause 22.
      Amendment No. 81, in clause 22, page 9, line 5, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 127, in page 9, line 6, after first 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 128, in page 9, line 7, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 82, in page 9, line 13, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 83, in page 9, line 17, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 129, in page 9, line 21, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 84, in page 9, line 22, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 130, in page 9, line 23, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 188, in page 9, line 28, leave out clause 23.
      Amendment No. 131, in clause 23, page 9, line 30, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 132, in page 9, line 34, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 189, in page 10, line 7, leave out clause 24.
      Amendment No. 133, in clause 24, page 10, line 9, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 134, in page 10, line 14, after 'trusts', insert 'or community trusts'.
      Amendment No. 190, in page 10, line 17, leave out clause 25.
      Amendment No. 135, in clause 25, page 10, line 19, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 136, in page 10, line 32, at end insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 85, in page 10, line 33, at end insert—
      '(bb) a Local Health Board,'.
      Amendment No. 86, in page 10, line 35, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.

      921
      Amendment No. 137, in page 10. line 42, at end insert 'or organisation'.
      Amendment No. 138, in page 11, line 1, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 139, in page 11, line 2, at end insert 'or organisation'.
      Amendment No. 192, in page 11, line 3, leave out clause 26.
      Amendment No. 87, in clause 26, page 11, line 5, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 193, in page 11, line 18, leave out clause 27.
      Amendment No. 140, in clause 27, page 11, line 20, leave out 'and NHS foundation trusts' and insert
      'NHS foundation trusts and NHS community trusts'.
      Amendment No. 194, in page 11, line 23, leave out clause 28.
      Amendment No. 141, in clause 28, page 11, line 26, at end insert—
      '(e) NHS community trusts'.
      Amendment No. 195, in page 11, line 27, leave out clause 29.
      Amendment No. 142, in clause 29, page 11, line 36, at end insert—
      '(fb) NHS community trusts;'.
      Amendment No. 143, in page 12, line 3, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 196, in page 12, line 5, leave out clause 30.
      Amendment No. 145, in clause 30, page 12, line 9, leave out 'and NHS foundation trusts' and insert
      ', NHS foundation trusts and NHS community trusts'.
      Amendment No. 197, in page 12, line 11, leave out clause 31.
      Amendment No. 146, in clause 31, page 12, line 15, at end insert—
      '(bc) an NHS community trust;'.
      Amendment No. 198, in page 12, line 21, leave out clause 32.
      Amendment No. 200, in page 12, line 24, leave out clause 33.
      Amendment No. 147, in clause 33, page 12, line 26, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Government amendments Nos. 249 to 251.
      Amendment No. 201, in page 13, line 3, leave out clause 34.
      Amendment No. 148, in clause 34, page 13, line 4, after 'trust', insert 'or community trust'.
      Amendment No. 202, in page 13, line 7, leave out clause 35.
      Amendment No. 91, in clause 35, page 13, line 10, at end insert—
      "'the appropriate Minister" means—

      in relation to England, the Secretary of State; and

      in relation to Wales, the Assembly,

      "the Assembly" means the National Assembly for Wales,'.
      922
      Government amendment No. 357.
      Amendment No. 92, in page 13, line 13, leave out
      'or a Primary Care Trust'
      and insert
      ', a Primary Care Trust or a Local Health Board'.
      Amendment No. 320, in page 13, line 14, at end insert—
      '"parliamentary constituency" has the meaning given in section 1 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (c.56) (parliamentary constituencies);
      "the pilot test period" means the period that—

      begins with the day on which the first order is made under section 184 which brings into force a provision of this Part, and

      ends three years after the day referred to in paragraph (a);'.

      Government new clause 25—Audit.
      Government new clause 36—Mergers.
      Government new clause 37—Section (Mergers): supplementary.
      New clause 1—Review of democratically accountable governance—

      It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish an independent review body to carry out the functions specified in subsections (4) to (6).

      The Secretary of State shall appoint at least nine members to the independent review body.

      The independent review body shall elect a Chairman from amongst its members.

      The independent review body shall prepare reports containing proposals relating to the establishment of a local, democratically accountable system of governance for NHS foundation trusts and Primary Care Trusts.

      The independent review body may in particular make proposals in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) relating to—

      methods of securing wider public participation in the governance of NHS foundation trusts and Primary Care Trusts;

      methods of increasing public awareness and access to information about the governance of NHS foundation trusts and Primary Care Trusts; and

      the membership of public benefit corporations.

      The independent review body must—

      lay a copy of any report prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section before Parliament, and

      once they have done so, send a copy of it to—

      the Secretary of State, and

      the regulator.'.

      New clause 9—Foundation patients' fora—
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body to be known as a Foundation Patients' Forum—

      (a) for each NHS Trust which has made an application under section 4(2);

      (b) for each person who has been incorporated as a public benefit corporation under section 5(5).

      (2) The members of the Foundation Patients' Forum are to be appointed by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health.
      Once the Foundation Patients' Forum has been established. it may do anything (including the things mentioned in subsection (4) below) which appears to it to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of preparing for effective patient and public involvement in the NHS Trust or public benefit corporation once it becomes a Foundation Trust.

      923
      (4) A Foundation Patients' Forum must—

      (a) monitor and review the range and operation of services provided by, or under arrangements made by, the trust for which it is established,

      (b) obtain the views of patients' and their carers about those matters and report on those views to the trust,

      (c) provide advice, and make reports and recommendations, about matters relating to the range and operation of those services to the trust,

      (d) make available to patients and their carers advice and information about those services,

      (e) in prescribed circumstances, perform any prescribed function of the trust with respect to the provision of a service affording assistance to patients and their families and carers,

      (f) carry out such other functions as may be prescribed.

      (5) In providing advice or making recommendations under subsection (4)(c), a Foundation Patients' Forum must have regard to the views of patients and their carers.
      (6) If, in the course of exercising its functions, a Foundation Patients' Forum becomes aware of any matter which in its view—

      (a) should be considered by a relevant overview and scrutiny committee, the Forum may refer that matter to the committee,

      (b) should be brought to the attention of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, it may refer that matter to the Commission.

      (7) Subsection (6) does not prejudice the power of a Foundation Patients' Forum to make such other representations or referrals as it thinks fit, to such persons or bodies as it thinks fit about matters arising in the course of its exercising its functions.
      (8) An NHS Trust or public benefit corporation exercising its powers under sections 4(4)(b) or 5(7)(b) as the case may be shall be obliged to have regard to and take account of the reports and recommendations of the Foundation Patients' Forum.
      (9) The governors and non-executive directors of the Foundation Trust shall be obliged to respond in writing to the reports and recommendations of the Foundation Patients' Forum.
      (10) All the members, governors and directors of a Foundation Trust shall be obliged to have regard to and take account of the reports and recommendations of the Foundation Patients' Forum in exercising their functions within the Foundation Trust.
      (11) The terms in this section shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of section 15(8) and (9) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 (c.17).'.
      New clause 18—Community Health Councils and NHS foundation trusts in Wales—
      '(1) Schedule 7A of the 1977 Act is amended as follows.
      In paragraph 2 (general provisions)—

      in subparagraph (f), for "and NHS trusts" there is substituted ", NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts";

      in subparagraph (g), for "and NHS trusts" there is substituted ", NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts";

      in subparagraph (j), for "and NHS trusts" there is substituted ", NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts";

      in subparagraph (k), for "or NHS trusts" there is substituted ", NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts".

      In paragraph 3 (entry and inspection of premises), in subparagraph (1), after sub-subparagraph (f) there is inserted—"
      "(fa) NHS foundation trusts;".
      New clause 19—NHS community trusts—
      '(1) An NHS community trust is a public benefit organisation which is authorised to commission goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England.
      924
      (2) A public benefit organisation is a body corporate which, in pursuance of an application, is constituted in accordance with Schedule [constitution of public benefit organisations].'.
      New clause 20—Applications by Primary Care Trusts—
      '(1) A Primary Care Trust may make an application to the regulator for authorisation to become an NHS community trust if the application is supported by the Secretary of State.
      (2) The application must—

      describe the goods and services which the applicants propose should be commissioned by the NHS community trust,

      describe the goods and services which the applicants propose should be provided by the NHS community trust, and

      be accompanied by a copy of the proposed constitution of the trust;

      and must give any further information which the regulator requires the Primary Care Trust to give.
      (3) The applicant may modify the application with the agreement of the regulator at any time before authorisation is given under section [authorisation of NHS community trusts].
      (4) Once a Primary Care Trust has made the application—

      the provisions of the proposed constitution which give effect to paragraphs 3 to 16 of Schedule [constitution of public benefit organisations] have effect, but only for the purpose of electing a shadow board of governors and appointing a shadow board of directors,

      the Primary Care Trust may do anything (including the things mentioned in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19) (general powers)) which appears to it to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of preparing it for NHS community trust status.'.

      New clause 21—Authorisation of NHS community trusts—
      '(1) The regulator may give an authorisation under this section to a Primary Care Trust which has applied under section [applications by Primary Care Trusts] if he is satisfied as to the matters specified in subsection (2).>
      (2) The matters are that—

      the applicant's constitution will be in accordance with Schedule [constitution of public benefit organisations] and will otherwise be appropriate,

      there will be a board of governors, and a board of directors, constituted in accordance with the constitution,

      the steps necessary to prepare for NHS community trust status have been taken,

      the applicant will be able to commission or the goods and services or to provide the goods and services which the authorisation is to require it to commission or to provide, and

      any other requirements which he considers appropriate are met.

      (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4), the authorisation may be given on any terms the regulator considers appropriate.
      (4) An authorisation must authorise the NHS community trust to commission goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England.
      (5) If regulations require the applicant to consult prescribed persons about the application, the regulator may not give an authorisation unless he is satisfied that the applicant has complied with the regulations.'.

      925
      New clause 24—Representative membership—
      'An authorisation may require an NHS foundation trust to take steps to secure that (taken as a whole) the actual membership of its public constituency is representative of those eligible for such membership.'.
      New clause 34—Extension of provisions of Part 1 following pilot tests—
      '(1) Within three months of the conclusion of the pilot test period—

      the Secretary of State,

      the regulator,

      the CHAI, and

      the Comptroller and Auditor General

      shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on the operation of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act during the pilot test period.
      (2) After all of the reports under subsection (1) have been laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State may by order—

      amend the provisions of Part 1 so as to extend the application to other NHS trusts and Primary Care Trusts, and

      make such other amendments of Part 1 as arise from the reports.

      (3) No order may be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      New clause 39—Public consultation relating to applications for foundation status—
      '(1) The Secretary of State shall—

      (a) by regulations require that an NHS Trust proposing to make an application under section 4(1) or any person proposing to apply under section 5(1) shall first consult prescribed persons, and

      (b) by regulations prescribe persons to be consulted which shall include the Patients Forums for the NHS Trusts and Primary Care Trusts in the area in which are resident all or any of the persons to whom the applicant NHS Trust has provided goods or services for the purposes of healthcare or to whom the applicant or person (as the case may be) intends to provide such services if its application is successful.

      (2) In section 7(3) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (functions of Overview and Scrutiny Committees)—

      (a) at the beginning of subsection (3) (matters to be covered by regulations) for "may" there is substituted "shall";

      (b) at the end of subsection (3)(b) there is inserted "which shall include all matters prescribed under subsection 7(3)(c) below,";

      (c) at the end of subsection (3)(c) there is inserted "which shall include any application or proposed application under section 4 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003".'.

      Government new schedule 2—Audit of accounts of NHS foundation trusts.
      New schedule 1—Constitution of public benefit organisations—

      Requirement for a constitution
      1 (1) A public benefit organisation is to have a constitution.
      (2) As well as any provision authorised or required to be made by this Schedule, the constitution may make further provision (other than provision as to the powers of the organisation) consistent with this Schedule.
      2 The constitution is to name the organisation and, if the organisation is an NHS community trust, its name must include the words "NHS community trust".

      Members
      3 (1) The members of a public benefit organisation are to be individuals who—

      (a) live in the area specified for the purpose in the constitution ("the public constituency"), or

      (b) are employed by the organisation ("the staff constituency").

      (2) The constitution may also provide for the public constituency to comprise individuals who have received goods or services commissioned or provided by the Primary Care Trust as patients (including individuals attending as the carer of a patient).
      (3) The constitution may also provide for the staff constituency to comprise NHS professionals who provide services to the Primary Care Trust or who a self-employed contractor or in a self-employed contract with the Primary Care Trust.
      (4) Subparagraph (1)(a) does not apply to a person who is eligible for membership of the staff constituency.
      4 The constitution is to require a minimum number of members of each constituency.
      5 (1) A person may not be a member of a public benefit organisation unless he has agreed to pay a sum not exceeding £l to the organisation.
      (2) A person may not be a member of a public benefit organisation if—

      (a) he has been adjudged bankrupt or has made a composition or arrangement with his creditors,

      (b) he has within the preceding five years been convicted in the British Islands of any offence if a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not) for a period of three months or more (without the option of a fine) was imposed on him.

      (3) The constitution may make further provision as to the circumstances in which a person may not be a member.

      Board of Governors
      6 (1) A public benefit organisation is to have a board of governors.
      (2) Only the following may be members of the board—

      (a) members of the organisation, and

      (a) individuals appointed under the following provisions who do not fall within paragraph 5(2)(a) or (b).

      (3) The members of the board other than the appointed members are to be chosen by election.
      (4) Members of the public constituency or the staff constituency may elect any of their number to be a member of the board.
      (5) If contested, the election must be by postal ballot.
      7 (1) More than half of the members of the board of governors are to be elected by the public constituency.
      (2) Not fewer than one third of the members of the board are to be elected by the staff constituency.
      8 (1) A member of the board of governors elected by the public constituency or the staff constituency may hold office for a period of three years.
      (2) Such a member is to be eligible for re-election at the end of that period.
      (3) But a person elected to membership of the board ceases to hold office if he ceases to be a member of the relevant constituency.
      9 The organisation may pay travelling and other expenses to members of the board of governors at rates decided by the organisation.
      10 The constitution is to provide for the chairman of the organisation or (in his absence) another person to preside at meetings of the board of governors.

      927
      11 (1) The constitution is to provide for meetings of the board of governors to be open to members of the public.
      (2) But the constitution may provide for members of the public to be excluded from a meeting for special reasons.
      12 (1) The constitution is to make provision as to—

      (a) the conduct of elections for membership of the board.

      (b) the appointment of persons to membership,

      (c) the practice and procedure of the board,

      (d) the removal of a member from office.

      (2) The constitution may make further provision about the board.

      Directors
      13 (1) A public benefit organisation is to have a board of directors.
      (2) The constitution is to provide for all the powers of the organisation to be exercisable by the board of directors on its behalf.
      (3) But the constitution may provide for any of those powers to be delegated to a committee of directors or to an executive director.
      14 (1) The board is to consist of—

      (a) executive directors, one of whom is to be the chief executive and another the finance director,

      (b) non-executive directors, one of whom is to be the chairman.

      (2) Only a member of the public constituency is eligible for appointment as a non-executive director.
      15 (1) It is for the board of governors at a general meeting to appoint or remove the non-executive directors.
      Removal of a non-executive director under this subparagraph requires the approval of three-quarters of the members of the board.
      (2) It is for the non-executive directors to appoint or remove the chief executive.
      (3) It is for the chief executive to appoint or remove the executive directors.
      (4) An appointment or removal under subparagraph (2) or (3) requires the approval of a majority of the board of governors voting at a general meeting.
      16 (1) It is for the board of governors at a general meeting to decide the remuneration and allowances, and the other terms and conditions of office, of the non-executive directors.
      (2) The organisation is to establish a committee of non-executive directors to decide the remuneration and allowances, and the other terms and conditions of office, of the executive directors.

      Register of members etc.
      17 (1) A public benefit organisation is to have—

      (a) a register of members showing, in respect of each member, the constituency to which he belongs,

      (b) a register of members of the board of governors,

      (c) a register of directors.

      (2) The constitution may make further provision about the registers including, in particular, admission to, and removal from, the registers.
      18 (1) The following documents of a public benefit organisation are to be available for inspection by members of the public free of charge at all reasonable times—

      (a) a copy of the current constitution,

      (b) a copy of the current authorisation,

      (c) the register of members, the register of members of the board of governors and the register of directors,

      (d) a copy of the latest annual accounts and of any report of the auditor on them,

      (e) a copy of the latest annual report,

      928

      (f) a copy of the latest information as to its forward planning.

      (2) Any person who requests it is to be provided with a copy of or extract from any of the above documents.
      (3) If the person requesting the copy or extract is not a member of the organisation, the organisation may impose a reasonable charge for doing so.

      Auditor
      19 (1) A public benefit organisation is to have an auditor.
      (2) It is for the board of governors to appoint or remove the auditor at a general meeting of the board.
      (3) But a person may not be appointed as auditor unless he (or, in the case of a firm, each of its members) is a member of one or more of the following bodies—

      (a) the bodies mentioned in section 3(7)(a) to (e) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c.18),

      (b) any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.

      (4) The organisation is to establish a committee of non-executive directors to monitor the exercise of the auditor's functions.

      Accounts
      20 (1) A public benefit organisation is to keep accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury direct.
      (2) The accounts are to be audited by the organisation's auditor.
      (3) But the Comptroller and Auditor General may examine—

      (a) the accounts,

      (b) any records relating to them, and

      (c) any report of the auditor on them.

      21 (1) A public benefit organisation is to prepare in respect of each financial year annual accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury direct.
      (2) In preparing its annual accounts, the organisation is to comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury as to—

      (a) the methods a nd principles according to which the accounts are to be prepared,

      (b) the information to be given in the accounts.

      (3) In determining the form and content of the annual accounts the Secretary of State is to aim to ensure that the accounts present a true and fair view.
      (4) The organisation must—

      (a) lay a copy of the annual accounts, and any report of the auditor on them, before Parliament, and

      (b) once it has done so, send copies of those documents to the Secretary of State.

      (5) In this paragraph and paragraph 23 "financial year" means—

      (a) the period beginning with the date on which the organisation is authorised under section [authorisation of NHS community trusts] and ending with the next 31st March, and

      (b) each successive period of twelve months beginning with 1st April.

      Annual reports and forward plans
      22 (1) A public benefit organisation is to prepare annual reports and send them to the Secretary of State.
      (2) The reports are to give any information the Secretary of State requires.
      (3) It is for the Secretary of State to decide—

      (a) the form of the reports,

      (b) when the reports are to be sent to him,

      929

      (c) the periods to which the reports are to relate.

      23 (1) A public benefit organisation is to give information as to its forward planning in respect of each financial year to the Secretary of State.
      (2) The information is to be prepared by the directors after consulting the board of governors.

      Meeting of board of governors to consider annual accounts and reports
      24 The following documents are to be presented to the board of governors of a public benefit organisation at a general meeting—

      (a) the annual accounts,

      (b) any report of the auditor on them,

      (c) the annual report.

      Instruments etc.
      25 (1) The constitution is to make provision for the authentication of the fixing of the organisation's seal.
      (2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the organisation's seal or to be signed on its behalf is to be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, taken to be so executed or signed.'.
      Amendment No. 165, in page 99, line 2, leave out schedule 1.
      Government amendment No. 253.
      Amendment No. 228, in schedule 1, page 99, line 18, at end insert
      'other than those attending accident and emergency who have been treated and discharged within one hour of being medically examined'.
      Government amendment No. 254.
      Amendment No. 229, in page 99, line 25, at end insert—
      '(2) The minimum number of members required in the public constituency shall not be less than 15 per cent. of those registered to vote in local government elections in the area specified for the purpose in the constitution.'.
      Amendment No. 334, in page 99, line 26, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
      '5(1) All persons who are entitled to vote in parliamentary elections in parliamentary constituencies which fall (partly or wholly) within the area specified for the purposes of paragraph 3(1) in respect of a public benefit corporation shall be members of that corporation.
      (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, entitlement to vote shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c.2) (parliamentary electors).'.
      Government amendments Nos. 255 to 257.
      Amendment No. 335, in page 100, line 2, at end insert
      'comprising twelve members, eight of whom are to be elected and four of whom are to be co-opted'.
      Amendment No. 404, in page 100, line 2, at end insert
      'members of which are to be appointed from the constituencies set out in paragraph 7'.
      Government amendment No. 258.
      Amendment No. 336, in page 100, line 5, leave out 'appointed' and insert 'co-opted'.
      Amendment No. 337, in page 100, line 5, leave out from 'provisions' to end of line 6.
      Amendment No. 405, in page 100, line 7, leave out subparagraph (3).
      930
      Amendment No. 338, in page 100, line 7, leave out 'appointed' and insert 'co-opted'.
      Amendment No. 339, in page 100, line 8, at end insert—
      '(3A)Members of the public constituency may elect any of their number to be a member of the board.
      (3B) To be eligible to stand for election a member must—

      (a) have been nominated by at least 50 other members of the public constituency in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c.2), and

      (b) have his main residence within the area specified for the purposes of paragraph 3(1) in respect of the public benefit corporation.

      (3C) The provisions of Part 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 shall apply to elections under this paragraph in respect of the public constituency as they apply to parliamentary elections, subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State may by order specify.'.
      Amendment No. 406, in page 100, line 9, leave out subparagraph (4).
      Amendment No. 340, in page 100, line 9, leave out 'public constituency or the'.
      Amendment No. 407, in page 100, line 11, leave out subparagraph (5).
      Amendment No. 341, in page 100, line 11, after 'election', insert
      'in respect of the staff constituency'.
      Government amendment No. 259.
      Amendment No. 230, in page 100, line 11, at end insert—
      '(6) The board of governors shall not be properly constituted unless at least 20 per cent. of members of the relevant constituency have voted in the election.'.
      Government amendment No. 260.
      Amendment No. 408, in page 100, line 12, leave out subparagraph (1) and insert—
      '(1) The trust will propose a scheme for approval by the Secretary of State for the constitution of the board of governors, which must include the following constituencies—

      (a) elected members of the local authority;

      (b) groups representing the local community;

      (c) persons representing the staff of the trust;

      (d) persons representing local Primary Care Trusts;

      (e)a university, if the hospital includes a medical or dental school provided by the university; and

      (f) any other groups the Board identifies as appropriate.

      (1A) The balance of membership will be decided by individual boards.'.
      Amendment No. 342, in page 100, line 12, leave out 'More than half and insert 'Seven'.
      Amendment No. 343, in page 100, line 14, leave out 'At least'.
      Amendment No. 344, in page 100, line 15, leave out 'appointed by' and insert 'co-opted to represent'.
      Amendment No. 61, in page 100, line 15, at end insert
      '(in England) or a Local Health Board (in Wales)'.

      931
      Amendment No. 345, in page 100, line 15, at end insert
      'in the case of a public benefit corporation primarily providing hospital services and an NHS hospital in the case of a public benefit corporation primarily providing primary care services'.
      Amendment No. 354, in page 100, line 16, at end insert—
      '() At least one member of the board is to be appointed by one or more qualifying local authorities.
      A qualifying local authority is a local authority for an area which includes the whole or part of the area specified under paragraph 3(1)(a).'.
      Amendment No. 346, in page 100, line 18, leave out 'appointed by' and insert 'co-opted to represent'.
      Government amendment No. 261.
      Amendment No. 347, in page 100, line 19, at end insert—
      '(5) The co-opted members shall be so co-opted by a decision of the elected members of the board.
      (6) The chairman may (with the agreement of the majority of the board) remove any of the co-opted members.'.
      Amendment No. 348, in page 101, line 6, at end insert—
      '(lA) The chairman shall be one of the members of the board of governors elected in respect of the public constituency.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 262 and 263.
      Amendment No. 242, in page 101, line 28, at end insert—
      '(d) a register of interests of the directors.'.
      Amendment No. 243, in page 101, line 30, at end insert—
      '17A The constitution is to make provision for dealing with conflicts of interest of the directors.'.
      Amendment No. 244, in page 101, line 36, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
      '(c) the registers mentioned in paragraph 17,'.
      Amendment No. 349, in page 102, line 5, leave out subparagraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
      '(2) The auditor is to be the Comptroller and Auditor General.'.
      Amendment No. 350, in page 102, line 20, leave out 'corporation's auditor' and insert 'Comptroller and Auditor General'.
      Amendment No. 351, in page 102, line 21, leave out subparagraphs (3) and (4).
      Amendment No. 352, in page 102, line 39, leave out from 'and' to 'before' in line 40 and insert
      'the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon'.
      Amendment No. 353, in page 103, line 6, at end insert—
      '(1A) The report shall contain a breakdown of the costs incurred by the public benefit corporation running elections and managing the membership.'.
      Amendment No. 234, in page 103, line 7, leave out 'any' and insert—

      (a) information on any steps taken by the corporation to secure that (taken as a whole) the actual membership of its public constituency is representative of those eligible for such membership,

      (b) any other'.

      Amendment No. 167, in page 103, line 28, leave out schedule 2.
      932
      Amendment No. 62, in schedule 2, page 104, line 13, at end insert—

      'Consultation with the Assembly
      2A The Secretary of State must consult the Assembly before exercising any of his functions under paragraphs 1 and 2 at any time after the day on which the Assembly notifies the Secretary of State of the Assembly's intention to make an order under section 184 in relation to Part 1.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 264 and 265.
      Amendment No. 63, in page 105, line 3, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 64, in page 105, line 4, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 97, in page 105, line 24, at end insert 'and Community'.
      Amendment No. 98, in page 105, line 28, after 'Foundation', insert 'and Community'.
      Amendment No. 99, in page 105, line 32, after 'Foundation', insert 'and Community'.
      Amendment No. 191, in page 105, line 33, leave out schedule 3.
      Amendment No. 199, in page 106, line 22, leave out schedule 4.
      Amendment No. 88, in schedule 4, page 110, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Amendment No. 89, in page 110, line 15, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Government amendment No. 266.
      Amendment No. 90, in page 113, line 38, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'appropriate Minister'.
      Government amendments Nos. 358 and 267.
      Amendment No. 203, in clause 48, page 18, line 9, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
      Government amendment No. 371.
      Amendment No. 204, in page 19, line 1, leave out clause 50.
      Amendment No. 205, in clause 54, page 20, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
      Amendment No. 206, in page 21, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
      Government amendment No. 378.
      Amendment No. 207, in clause 116, page 51, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
      Amendment No. 149, in clause 139, page 60, line 20, at end insert—
      '(aa) an NHS community trust;'.
      Amendment No. 208, in page 60, leave out line 24.
      Amendment No. 93, in page 60, line 24, at end insert
      'all or most of whose hospitals, establishments or facilities are situated in England'.
      Amendment No. 209, in page 60, leave out line 47.
      Amendment No. 94, in page 61, line 17, at end insert—
      '(bb) an NHS foundation trust all or most of whose hospitals, establishments or facilities are situated in Wales;'.
      Amendment No. 219, in schedule 10, page 135, line 30, leave out sub-subparagraph (a).

      933
      Amendment No. 220, in page 135, line 35, leave out 'an NHS foundation trust'.
      Amendment No. 221, in page 143, line 29, leave out sub-subparagraph (a).
      Amendment No. 222, in page 143, line 35, leave out 'NHS foundation trust or'.
      Amendment No. 223, in page 144, line 2, leave out 'or NHS foundation trust'.
      Amendment No. 224, in page 144, leave out line 20.
      Amendment No. 210, in clause 141, page 62, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).
      Government amendment No. 252.
      Amendment No. 211, in clause 151, page 73, line 29, leave out subparagraph (ii).
      Amendment No. 212, in clause 153, page 75, line 34, leave out subparagraph (ii).
      Amendment No. 213, in clause 156, page 77, line 29, at end insert 'or'.
      Amendment No. 214, in page 77, line 31, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 32.
      Amendment No. 215, in clause 175, page 94, leave out line 6.
      Amendment No. 216, in page 95 leave out line 31.
      Amendment No. 217, in clause 184, page 96, line 13, leave out '1' and insert '2'.
      Amendment No. 218, in page 96, line 18, leave out paragraph (a).
      Amendment No. 95, in page 96, line 18, leave out from 'Part 1' to end of line 19 and insert—
      '

      (i) for sections 2, 29 and 30, the Secretary of State;

      (ii) for section [Community Health Councils and NHS foundation trusts in Wales], the Assembly; and

      (iii)for the other provisions of the Part, and section 182 and Schedule 13 so far as relating to those provisions—

      (a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State; and

      (b) in relation to Wales, the Assembly;'.

      Amendment No. 225, in schedule 13, page 151, leave out lines 3 to 26.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: The purpose of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and I is to delete the foundation trust proposals from the Bill. I certainly support most of the remainder the Bill. It could be carried forward without part 1, which is the controversial element that many Labour Members oppose.
      There are three key reasons why I am a member of the Labour party: my party has traditionally stood for redistribution of wealth and a fairer society; it has traditionally stood for comprehensive education and equal opportunities; and it introduced a national health service based on sound socialist principles. I emphasise the word "national" in national health service because the concept of the national health service is fundamental to the debate.
      934
      There was no national system before 1948. It was hit and miss as to whether local provision existed. There was a geographical lottery and people sometimes suffered as a direct consequence of that. Such a diversity of provision seems to be the aim now and I am worried that it will hit at the heart of much of what my party has achieved by bringing about the national health service.
      The current Government have a proud record on health. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the Health Ministers who are in the Chamber. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who is not in the Chamber, for his contribution to many of the Government's health achievements.
      There is record investment in the national health service and record staff recruitment and training. We have a record capital programme to address hospitals that have been falling down for years and that suffered from gross under-investment. Pinderfields hospital, which is in my constituency, is such a hospital, and I am proud that we will soon have a new hospital. I am proud of the quality measures that the Government have introduced for our health care system. I am especially proud that we ended the Conservative internal market because my area experienced the two-tier system that was at the heart of our concerns about that. People living in the same street had different access to key health services, as I have said on many occasions in the House. I am proud that we set about getting rid of competition in a service that is essentially based on collectivism and co-operation.
      1.45 pm
      Angela Eagle: I am looking in astonishment at the Conservative Benches, which are completely devoid of any Back Benchers except for one high-quality Member. The Labour Benches are packed with people who will debate passionately the future of our health service. Is that not the most telling thing that we have seen today?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: In defence of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who is sitting on the Conservative Benches, he probably knows more about the health service than the rest of his colleagues put together.
      For the first time in the history of the health service, we have a Government who are committed to the empowerment of primary care. That is probably the most crucial policy development that they have achieved. The history of the health service has been dominated by the concerns of the acute hospital sector and by hospital consultants. We have never before exploited the potential of primary care, but primary care trusts are starting to achieve that. I strongly commend the steps that the Government have taken.
      Dr. Howard Stoate: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ballot of general practitioners in which 80 per cent. voted in favour of the new GP contract shows that primary care physicians are committed to leading the NHS toward the modernisation that we so richly deserve in this century?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I was delighted by the result of the GP ballot. It is also worth placing on record that the Royal

      935
      College of General Practitioners, which represents GPs, including my hon. Friend, has come out strongly against foundation hospitals. No doubt he will take note of that point.
      I shall outline the key concerns that many of us have. One lesson that I learned through my work on the Select Committee on Health is that the last thing that our health care system needs is further restructuring and change, especially ill-considered change that has not had its potential consequences worked through. As I said on Second Reading, there have been 18 significant restructurings of our health care system during the past 20 years. People ask me where all the money has gone—it has gone on many of those restructurings.
      I have examined redundancy costs of staff who have gone down the road and early retirement costs. It is worth considering the possible salaries of the people who will be chief executives of the new foundation trusts. Some are campaigning enthusiastically for foundation status in the full knowledge that they are guaranteed to receive a huge salary hike. When we consider the use of scarce resources, we should be aware of how resources that should be used for patient care are being used—they are being used for ill-thought-out restructurings. I bet that there will be at least three more restructurings before the end of the proposed five-year roll-out of foundation hospitals. We should listen carefully to the many in the health service who say, "Enough is enough." We should let reforms bed down and let investment take effect so that we deliver on patient care.
      I mentioned my pride that the Labour Government have moved away from the internal market that the Tories introduced. One of my central worries about the principles that underpin foundation status is that the policy will mark a return to a market-oriented approach to health care. It will undoubtedly restore a competitive ethos, putting hospital against hospital and doctor against doctor. I know from talking to managers that they are looking over their shoulders at their rivals in their localities and elsewhere in the regions in which they are based.
      The policy is about winners and losers. It is clear from the Government's response to the Health Committee report on foundation trusts that capital spend by foundations will have an impact on the wider NHS. So when I talk to colleagues about their position on the issue and they say to me, "David, I'm going to have a foundation hospital in my constituency", I say, "That's all well and good, but have you thought about the impact on your neighbours?" There will be a foundation hospital near my constituency and I am aware of the serious impact that it will have on the health economy elsewhere in the west Yorkshire area. We have to consider that issue because it is fundamental to concerns about foundation status.
      Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that the new system could lead to fragmentation and competing trading organisations—some in the public sector, some in the private sector—without us fully debating the implications of that concept in the Chamber?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I do. In a sense, my hon. Friend takes me to my next point. A number of organisations that have lobbied against foundation status have said that it is a step towards privatisation. I have never said that. I did not make that claim on Second Reading and I do not think any of my hon. Friends who oppose foundation status made it either. However, a briefing document states:
      "a series of amendments were put down"
      in Committee
      "that open the doors to foundation hospitals actually being able to increase the amount of private work they undertake. Clause 15 of the Bill used to say that the regulator 'must' restrict the private work of the foundation hospitals; it now only says that the regulator 'may' restrict this work."
      Before my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd), who will probably be in the Chamber later, accuses me of reading from a Unison briefing, the document was issued by the Independent Healthcare Association. It is a briefing from the private sector. The association fears that foundation hospitals will lead to more privatisation—more private work in those hospitals—and the impact that that will have on private hospitals. We have to take serious note of that. I have not raised the issue before, but I think that it is relevant in view of the association's comments.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: Does my hon. Friend recall campaigning against trust status, in particular the self-appointed quangos introduced by the Tories? We pledged that, when we got into government, we would do away with those. The Bill does that and installs local democracy. Does he not think that that will act as a check on the problem that he raises? I think that it will.
      Mr. Hinchliffe: If my hon. Friend looks at the Health Committee report, he will see that we calculated that, rather than getting rid of bureaucracy, the new system would increase it. I remember speaking in support of my hon. Friend's candidature when he stood in Doncaster and I argued against the Tory internal market. He was with me on that. He may not be with me at the moment, but the principles are the same. I hope that he understands that we are talking about the internal market, which he opposed before he became a Labour MP.
      Mr. Hughes: Will my hon. Friend give way again?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: No. I want to make progress. My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to respond. I am conscious that other colleagues want to participate and I have some points to make before I conclude.
      A key consideration, which relates to my pride in the way in which the Government moved towards a primary care NHS, is that the policy on foundation hospitals runs directly contrary to that. It is a return to the dominance of certain acute hospitals. It does not make sense to talk about the new GP contract enhancing the role of primary care if we are suddenly to return to the empowerment of a small number of acute hospitals. That will be to the detriment of primary care and community care.
      I have argued many times in the Chamber for local governance of health. I have made all sorts of arguments over the years, including when I was on the Front

      937
      Bench, about how we would achieve local governance, but it has been resisted up to now by the Labour party and its Front-Bench spokesmen. I welcome the commitment to move towards local governance, but I do not think that it has been properly thought through. We should consult on and think about some of the issues that it raises.
      I was interested to read the Health Service Journal this week, which reported the discussions at the NHS Confederation conference last week. It publishes the comments of two chairs of trusts that hope to receive foundation trust status. John Charlton, the chair of University hospital Birmingham, said:
      "We are only a matter of months away from foundation trusts and it doesn't seem to me that anybody has thought the governance through."
      He went on to say:
      "Yes, let's have autonomy, let's have accountability, but for goodness sake don't expect us to have a 5,000-strong membership. That would be an absolute nightmare."
      Frankly, if that is what a chair of an applicant trust is saying, I wonder where we are coming from because I would have thought that 5,000 would be a minimum.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hinchliffe: I want to carry on.
      Peter Dixon, the chair of University college London, another foundation trust applicant, remained concerned that those with an interest in governance might not represent the wider needs of the public. He said:
      "We will be choosing between the Hampstead Heath Conservation Society and the local Trotskyists. The Marsden"—
      the Royal Marsden in London—
      "is worried about animal-rights protesters because of their research …There is a danger of disenfranchising those who don't have sharp elbows."
      That sums up my concerns.
      Several hon. Membersrose—
      Mr. Hinchliffe: With the greatest of respect, I want to conclude. I have given way several times and many hon. Members want to speak.
      I am concerned that the policy is part of a growing trend of policy making on the hoof. I raised that with the Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee this morning. The policy has not been properly thought through and there has been no proper consultation. Where is our manifesto commitment on it? I was not elected on the basis of foundation trusts; I was elected to get rid of the ethos that is behind foundation trusts. Where is the policy formulation in the party? I discussed the matter with my general management committee and it has not come through for discussion in the policy forums or at conference. Where is the Green Paper? Where is the White Paper?
      We are bouncing to policies that are not fully thought through. The number of Government amendments tabled gives the impression of a policy that has been
      938
      made on the back of an envelope. I hope that the Government will remove the part of the Bill on foundation trusts and not force us to go against them. They should go back to the drawing board and leave the rest of the Bill to go through the House unchallenged.
      Dr. Liam Fox: The debate is important. Quite how important depends on which Government view of it we take. The Prime Minister tells us that the reforms are of monumental, historic importance, but the new Secretary of State told Back Benchers this week that the reforms are of little importance so they need not be worried about the amount of change that is being introduced. Both those views cannot be true, unless one is part of the Prime Minister's closest coterie and lives in the Alice in Wonderland world where it is possible to believe two opposites at the same time.
      We have never made a secret of the fact that we favour the principle of foundation hospitals, especially the way in which they have been established in Spain and Sweden. Early in the debate on the Bill, we laid out what we wanted: foundation hospitals that can borrow according to their own plans outwith the limits set by Government; that are free from political interference; that are free from central targets and bureaucracy; and that are free to set the pay and conditions that they think appropriate to attract staff in their locality and with different clinical specialties.
      I realise that that puts me in a diametrically opposed position to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), but I have to admit that there is much truth in what he says. The policy is a move back towards an internal market-type system, which we support and would like extended. Indeed, the Government are not moving as far in that direction as we would like. Some people say that we could build on the Bill—were we to inherit it in its current form, we could use it as a prototype to take our plans much further. Indeed, we could and almost certainly would do that, but we believe that there are a number of practical reasons why the system as it has been set out in the Bill is so flawed that it will lead to a much worse system of health care than we have at present.
      What are our major objections? First, there is freedom, but only for a few. Instead of a gradual roll-out for everybody, there is to be a total roll-out for some and none for others, which seems to maximise the potential for instability in the system. If one tried to design a system to give greater instability, it would be difficult to do.
      There is borrowing, but only within the limitation of the NHS budget, which by definition means that if any foundation hospital gets more investment, there will be less investment in another hospital in the NHS. That is different from the case being advanced. The Government will tell us that at present hospitals must compete for a share of the budget, and the proportionate effect will occur anyway. Under the proposals, however, some will be dealt a stronger hand than others vying for the same budget. The whole point of foundation hospitals in other countries was to allow them the freedom not to have to borrow within the state budget, but to borrow from outside, therefore not affecting the total amount available in the public system. The Government seem to have missed the point of the system in Spain and Sweden.

      939
      2 pm
      Another issue is the independence of the system. Great play was made on Second Reading about the independence of the regulator. The term "independence" was not used in a sense that any of us would recognise. The regulator is appointed by the Secretary of State, he can be dismissed by the Secretary of State, his pay and conditions and pension are determined by the Secretary of State, he has to report to the Secretary of State on anything the Secretary of State deems fit, and he cannot grant foundation status except with the prior agreement of the Secretary of State. The system is to be run by the Secretary of State in all but name.
      I have a number of questions that I would like the Minister to deal with when he speaks. The first is about pay. The previous Secretary of State said that managers should have
      "freedom and flexibility within the new NHS pay systems to reward staff appropriately".
      What does "appropriately" mean, in the context of foundation hospitals? Secondly, what does it mean in terms of the Chancellor's new plan, as laid out in the Budget, to introduce regional pay throughout the public services? How would that impact on the proposals for foundation hospitals, and how does it fit with the Prime Minister's pledge last week that all NHS staff will continue, as long as the Government are in office, to have above-inflation pay settlements? How does that relate to the independence of foundation hospitals?
      Angela Eagle: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's comments with interest. Could he tell the House which way his party will vote on the amendment?
      Dr. Fox: Unless we hear something quite unexpected from the Minister, we will almost certainly vote with the hon. Member for Wakefield in support of the amendment. As I said, there are strong reservations about this part of the Bill.
      We have concerns about governance. Where is the logic in applying any democratic leverage in the system not to the commissioners of health care, but to the providers? If there is a place for local democracy to be involved in the determination of the spending of health funds, it would have been far more logical to bring in election at the level of primary care trusts, where decisions about the commissioning of services, and therefore the spending of funds, will be taken. What is the point of introducing a democratic element into the providers—the hospitals? At that point, they cannot determine what the balance of the provision of services will be, because those decisions will already have been taken by the PCTs in charge of the funding. I find the proposal utterly illogical. It seems to invert the Government's intention.
      John Mann: In my area, local people want a say about the future of accident and emergency services. The one hospital in Bassetlaw is part of a larger trust, Doncaster and Bassetlaw. When the decision was made to downgrade Bassetlaw hospital under the current rules, not only were people not allowed to have a formal say, but they were not even allowed to find out about it until decisions were being made. I called a ballot
      940
      on that and 35,000 people voted—a 60 per cent. turnout. That was not within primary care. What is wrong with that principle?
      Dr. Fox: That makes the point. The provision and maintenance of services is dependent on the funding of the services. It is the primary care trust that is responsible for the funding of accident and emergency services. There seems to be a dislocation between what the Government said they intended to do, and what they are doing through the Bill. There is no logic in the Government's approach.
      I have a huge problem with the way in which the Government propose to take governance forward. Members of the foundation hospital board will be drawn from the public and the staff. The public members may be those who have attended an NHS foundation hospital as a patient or a carer. On the last two occasions on which we have had Health questions, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) asked about the Christie hospital. At a large hospital with regional and national status, where patients may come from all parts of the country, what will be the constituency if such a hospital became a foundation hospital? Twice Ministers failed to come up with an answer to one of the most fundamental questions about the practical application of the Bill.
      Are we to have a foundation hospital which, because it can draw patients from anywhere in the country, can have hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of potential members, and what will the legal requirements be for the hospital trust to ask each of those members whether they want to be elected to the board? The system is supposed to reduce bureaucracy and red tape, according to the Government. It will create a nightmare of bureaucracy and red tape, without even considering the cost.
      Let us consider a simple example—a foundation hospital with a patient catchment of 500,000 patients. Let us assume that one in 10 of the patients in the catchment area might want to be a member of the foundation hospital board at a servicing of between £4 and £5 a year, which is the cost estimated by trusts that have indicated that they might want foundation hospital status. If we add to that the cost of advertising and running the elections, we are speaking of a cost of £240,000 per year per trust simply to maintain and run the electoral arrangements and the foundation hospital board.
      That cannot be what Ministers meant when they said that the public were willing to pay higher taxes to get better quality health care. The public will pay higher taxes, only to see the money diverted on a huge scale into an unnecessary bureaucracy that does not even exist yet. The hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned one of the trust chairmen, who also said that far too much of the time of his management would be taken up preparing and running the consultation process, rather than managing the hospital. All hon. Members must surely have deep reservations about the practical implications, if not the principle, of the proposal.
      Mr. Gary Streeter: My hon. Friend has spent a great deal of time in the past couple of years speaking to people who run hospitals. How many

      941
      NHS trust chief executives, consultants, doctors and nurses have said that the real problem with the health service and with our acute hospitals is some kind of democratic deficit? Are not the Government introducing measures that will not improve the health service, and should they not think again?
      Dr. Fox: Without going into the concept of the democratic deficit, I can say that as a doctor I have never had a patient and as an MP I have never had a constituent coming to complain that they had a real problem with the democratic deficit in the NHS. They usually complain about access to health care. There are arguments to be made about how a system of publicly financed health care is to be made accountable to those who use and pay for the system through their taxes, but the Government's proposals are not a reasonable solution, for the reasons that I have set out.
      I want to mention just one or two other practical implications, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. The hon. Member for Wakefield referred to the problem in respect of private income. We believe that what Ministers are proposing has an enormous unintended consequence, as trusts will effectively be limited to the private income that they currently have and will not be allowed to increase it. I have raised the issue with the Minister before and we have still not received a proper answer. The provision will mean that when the new opportunities fund or a charity provides an MRI scanner for a national health service hospital, the foundation trust is prevented from selling to the private sector any spare time when that equipment is not being used to raise greater income. However, the private sector will be able to sell extra time on an MRI scanner to the NHS. Surely, that cannot be what the Government intended. Only a very badly thought out set of provisions would allow that to happen.
      I have one other major reservation. Foundation hospitals are supposed to be set free from central regulation, yet they will be subjected to one of the forms of regulation that I find most ineffective and which is most resented in the health service—the star-rating system. In my constituency in north Somerset, we have five hospitals around us: the Weston hospital, the Royal United hospital in Bath and the three main Bristol hospitals. All those hospitals are officially no-star hospitals. In itself, that is deeply insulting and demoralising to staff, who would like to think that at least some of the services that they offer are high-class services and who resent hugely being rated across the board as having no stars. If there were one thing that might have attracted hospitals out of the current set-up and into the foundation hospital arrangement, it is that they would be freed from that deeply demoralising way of labelling our hospitals. Yet, that one opportunity is going to be denied. In almost every respect, the opportunities that the Government could have taken have been missed. Instead, they have misunderstood what could have been offered and introduced a new series of complexities, bureaucracies and costs that do not exist in the current system.
      Dr. Evan Harris: I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about
      942
      private income. I think that he has a good point. Does he agree that one approach in tackling the issue is not to set an artificial maximum, but to ensure that the only restriction is that no NHS patient with greater clinical need should wait for a slot that might be given to private, paying patients? Amendment No. 400 deals with that point.
      Dr. Fox: There are a number of ways of dealing with the practical problem; indeed, some were mentioned in Committee and raised in amendments. I was simply pointing out that there is a perverse consequence in what the Government propose. It cannot be what Ministers intended and such provision will be unworkable.
      Finally, the Office for National Statistics has said:
      "NHS Foundation Trusts are a new type of organisation called a 'public benefit corporation'… This set-up has similarities with the model adopted for Network Rail.
      However, the trusts' ability to determine its general corporate policy will be restricted by government's involvement via legislation and regulation. These regulations are many and significant, leaving very little scope for changing the corporate policy of each hospital. The ONS has judged that this involvement is sufficient to determine that the trusts are government controlled."
      It seems that the Government have managed to get the worst of both worlds. What we are going to get is the triumph of Network Rail, augmented by central Whitehall control. And this is progress.
      The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I should like to begin by speaking to the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and to set out one or two observations about other amendments.
      Dr. Fox: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a large number of hon. Members intend to speak, may I ask whether it is normal for the Minister to speak before hon. Members have had a chance to make their voices heard?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister will be speaking in support of amendments to a Government Bill and it is usual for the occupant of the Chair to call the Minister to speak at this stage if he seeks to rise. Under the Standing Orders, that will not preclude his making a short winding-up speech at the end of the debate.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. Hutton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I genuinely want to be helpful to the House, which is why I thought that it would be useful for me to speak now. If it is more helpful to hon. Members on both sides of the House, I shall confine my remarks to amendment No. 164 and the Government amendments. In the short winding-up speech that I might look forward, if that is the right phrase, to making if I catch your eye, I shall confine my comments to the other amendments.
      I respect the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and the strongly held views that he and many other hon. Friends have expressed about NHS foundation trusts, but I believe profoundly that he is wrong in his analysis of the Government's policy and his description of the impact that the reforms will have on our national health service. I shall explain in a moment

      943
      why I believe that he is wrong, but one thing needs to be made clear at the outset: the Government have listened to the concerns that have been expressed about that part of the Bill, and we have acted on those concerns. We tabled amendments in Committee, for example, to strengthen the accountability to this House of the new independent regulator of NHS foundation trusts. We are seeking to amend and improve the Government's arrangements in schedule 1 to make them fairer and more effective. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) referred to his concerns, which I shall deal with in a moment. We have ensured that the new national health service pay arrangements will apply to NHS foundation trusts.
      Judy Mallaber: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that the anxiety about the issue that he raises is that foundation hospitals could poach NHS staff from other hospitals by offering better pay and conditions. To avoid such an outcome, will he ensure that the newly negotiated "Agenda for Change" applies on the same timetable and basis for foundation hospitals as for non-foundation hospitals and consider further ways of locking in an assurance that hospitals will continue to abide by "Agenda for Change" and national pay rates in future?
      Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. I shall make a few more comments about "Agenda for Change" in a moment, but I understand the point that she makes and have every sympathy with it. That is why I believe that it is important that all NHS foundation trust applicants agree to sign up to "Agenda for Change" as part of the approval process. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not approve for submission to the independent regulator any application from an NHS trust that does not contain that clear and express provision.
      We have made it very clear that the timetable that we envisage for implementation of "Agenda for Change" should be broadly coterminous with the arrangements in the other early implementer sites. I have also made that clear to the trade unions. We recently told trade unions that the NHS foundation trusts will start to apply the new "Agenda for Change" arrangements from this April, should they be set up at that time, but it will be done on the basis of a rolling programme between now and October, so that we can learn the lessons from what is happening in the early implementer sites. If any modifications are needed, they can be made in the NHS foundation trusts as well as other early implementer sites. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) will take it from that that my answer to her question is broadly yes, which is what we have said to the trade unions.
      We have also strengthened the audit rules to ensure greater financial transparency. The rules have been the subject of extensive comment both in Standing Committee and elsewhere. We have introduced a cap on the income that NHS foundation trusts can earn from private patients, so that NHS patients will always come first. We have also moved to ensure that the NHS in England will not become a two-tier service, as all trusts will have an opportunity to become NHS foundation trusts in the next few years.
      Dr. Evan Harris: The Minister says that he insisted on a cap, but did he not table in Committee amendments
      944
      that weakened the regulator's role in enforcing the cap by transforming it from a duty into a power? The changes also made it clear that the regulator need not enforce the cap in some cases. As far as any concessions were made in Committee, they were made in reverse on the important issue of pay beds and private income.
      Mr. Hutton: No, that is completely not the case. In case any hon. Member is confused, let me just deal with that point, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and others have expressed concern to me about it. The amendments that we tabled in Committee were purely and simply designed to ensure that the ability of NHS foundation trusts to treat patients from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was not compromised by the Bill. That is the sole extent of the changes. Let me make it clear that under clause 15(2) the regulator must impose such a restriction on the amount of private business that an NHS foundation trust can undertake. There is no question at all about that: he must exercise that provision.
      Mr. George Stevenson: As my right hon. Friend suggests, this is an extremely important matter. Clause 15(1) says that an authorisation "may" restrict. As I understand it, that "may" was inserted in place of "must". How does that strengthen regulation?
      Mr. Hutton: As I have tried to explain, we changed the word from "must" to "may" to deal with the issue of whether the trust is treating patients from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland; it may not be. I give my hon. Friend this absolute assurance—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but it would be helpful if he addressed his remarks to the Chair, not behind him.
      Mr. Hutton: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is always nice to look into the eyes of my hon. Friends when trying to be reassuring and tell them how it is. My only other choice is to look at that lot over there. [Interruption.] Well, one or two of them are not too bad, but some of them really do suck.
      The point that I am trying to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) is that he, like others, has confused the amendments that were made to clause 15(1) with the requirement in clause 15(2) that the regulator shall exercise his powers to impose such a cap. I recognise that it looks on first reading as though there has been a change, but I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that the regulator must impose a cap on the volume of private patient activity that an NHS foundation trust is to undertake.
      Mrs. Patsy Calton: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hutton: With the greatest of respect, I am conscious that many other hon. Members want to speak, and I am trying to get through my points as quickly as I can.
      These are all significant movements. We have tried to reach a sensible set of positions. The Tories say—we have heard it again from the hon. Member for

      945
      Woodspring—that we have not gone far enough, and some of my hon. Friends say that we have gone too far. That probably means that we have got it about right.
      In putting forward his arguments against part 1 of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield made a number of claims. Let me deal with those. First, the claim that NHS foundation trusts will reintroduce the old internal market is not true. That system was based on two-tier commissioning and price competition. Primary care trusts will do all the commissioning in the NHS and, as my hon. Friend well knows, there will be a new national tariff for all hospital services as part of our reforms to NHS finances. NHS organisations will all be paid the same for the same procedures, whether they are NHS foundation trusts or not. Those reforms to NHS finances are all about ensuring that NHS assets are used to maximum effectiveness for the benefit of NHS patients. They are not designed to, nor will they have the effect of, reintroducing the damaging effects of the old internal market.
      In the old internal market, there were no national standards and no independent inspection and audit arrangements. That has all changed. In the old internal market, there was no statutory duty of co-operation between NHS bodies. That has changed, too. The very same statutory duty of co-operation that is contained in the Health Act 1999, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) rightly said would bring the internal market to an end when he introduced the debate on that legislation on Second Reading, is now being extended to NHS foundation trusts. I profoundly believe that it is a myth that these proposals reintroduce the internal market: they do not.
      Secondly, it is wrong to suggest that NHS foundation trusts can gain only at the expense of everyone else. As I have said, there will not be one set of rules on revenue for NHS foundation trusts and another set of rules for NHS trusts; there will be one set of rules for everyone. On capital, we have made several things repeatedly clear. First, there will be proper limits on how much NHS foundation trusts can borrow, which will be determined according to the terms of a prudential borrowing code and their ability to service debt.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hutton: I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman, but I really do want to make my points. Perhaps I will get round to him, although I suspect that he intends to make his own speech.
      Secondly, the independent regulator must take into account the impact of NHS foundation trust borrowing on the wider NHS when he sets their individual borrowing limits. Thirdly, NHS capital budgets are sufficient over the next few years, until every trust becomes an NHS foundation trust, to provide the necessary capital requirements for both foundation trusts and NHS trusts; in fact, there will be a 144 per cent. increase in capital for the NHS in the next five years. So it is not the case that foundation trusts can borrow whatever they like and thereby ensure that every
      946
      other trust has to go without. NHS foundation trusts will be able to take advantage of a new approach to lending, which means that they can borrow up to their limit without the need to obtain approval from the centre for each investment decision. The new arrangements will be less bureaucratic and less burdensome. It is true that foundation trusts will be able to access capital from public as well as private sources, but these are sensible and reasonable reforms—they are not about robbing Peter to pay Paul.
      Thirdly, foundation trusts are not about a super elite. Over the next four to five years, all NHS trusts will have the opportunity to become foundation trusts. In the meantime, we are investing a further £200 million to improve performance in poorly performing trusts, so no one will be left behind.
      Clive Efford: If NHS hospitals are allowed to borrow up to an overall envelope limit, will any additional spending by a foundation trust, whether it comes from the private sector or not, count against other NHS hospitals and therefore limit their scope? If so, foundation trusts will have an advantage over other NHS trusts.
      Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend must take into account one fundamental issue: namely, that foundation trusts are not at liberty to borrow whatever they would like to borrow irrespective of their ability to service the debt. They must be able to service the debt. That, in turn, must be related to the revenue that they have secured through primary care trust commissioning to provide services to NHS patients. As I said, the independent regulator of NHS foundation trusts must, in approving and setting the borrowing limit, take into account the impact of foundation trusts' borrowing on the wider NHS. As elsewhere, we have tried to balance those important new freedoms with some essential safeguards. That is essentially the point that I am trying to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield.
      Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Hutton: No. I will not.
      Fourthly, my hon. Friend suggested that the proposals will undermine primary care and its emerging role in the NHS. That, too, is simply not true. It is not the case that there is no need for further reforms in the acute secondary care sector of the NHS; and it is possible to implement those changes without compromising on the key role that primary care trusts will have in the NHS in future. The Bill does not change commissioning arrangements: primary care trusts will still lead the development of the NHS.
      Finally, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), we have tried to balance operational and financial freedoms with the right safeguards, so that the NHS continues to operate as an effective, comprehensive and universal service. All trusts wishing to become foundation trusts will operate the new national pay system—we do not want any unfair poaching of staff—and foundation trusts' actions will be subject to the new arrangements on local public consultation.
      NHS foundation trusts embody a new form of social ownership that provides a much stronger means whereby health services can become more responsive to

      947
      local needs because local people will have more say over them, as will local staff. We have developed in this country a form of public ownership in which the public frequently feel that they own nothing at all, and in which public ownership has become synonymous with state control. Those are significant problems for all of us who believe in the public service; the Bill provides a solution to both those deficiencies.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether individuals who want to become a voting member of a foundation trust will have to pay £1, as specified in the Bill, or merely pledge to do so?
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Hutton: They have to agree to pay up to £1. The provisions of individual constitutions of NHS trusts will be determined and agreed locally through consultation.
      Mr. Keith Bradley: I shall ask a question about which my right hon. Friend may have notice, since I have already asked it on several occasions. What will be the electorate for a specialist hospital such as Christie in my constituency? Who will be eligible to vote on the governance of that hospital?
      Mr. Hutton: I am happy to try to answer my right hon. Friend's concerns, because they are perfectly reasonable and many other hon. Members have raised them. The Christie hospital is a unique asset to the NHS. It is a regional—indeed, national—centre of expertise for cancer services. The Bill requires a public constituency for the NHS foundation trusts, and that must include representatives who are elected from the area in which the hospital provides services. However, in the case of NHS foundation trusts such as Christie's—if it became one—we assume that the majority of the public constituency, especially those elected to the board of governors, would be chosen from the patient constituency, for which the hospital predominantly provides services. That group comprises many people, and we want to work with local foundation trusts to develop the proper mechanism for reaching out to members of the patient constituency and inviting them to become members of the foundation trust.
      Conservative Members today expressed their disdain for the democratic process. They do not want a democratic model of governance for NHS foundation trusts.
      Tony Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hutton: No, I shall not.
      The hon. Member for Woodspring tried to pooh-pooh suggestions that there was anything commendable in the proposal for patients to have a say in the governance of their local hospitals. He is wrong. It is a fundamental principle of democracy to extend patient choice and involvement in the NHS.
      Dr. Fox: Before the Minister leaves the subject, what is the answer to the question? What is the patient constituency for a hospital such as Christie? The
      948
      Minister says that the Government would like to consult about that in future. That pinpoints the weakness of the Bill: it is being made up as we go along.
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Hutton: I note that some of my hon. Friends support the Conservative spokesman on that point.
      Dr. Fox: They are entitled to disagree with you.
      Mr. Hutton: Of course they are all entitled to their views. I have made it clear that I respect my hon. Friends' views. However, the hon. Gentleman sits here day after day, berating the Government for being a command-and-control Administration. He claims that we dictate everything from the centre. In the Bill, we are trying to set a broad structure for local governance, which should be determined and agreed locally, but in a structure of basic guarantees.
      In response to the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) about the governance at Christie hospital, I have made it clear that the majority of the board of governors will be elected from the patient constituency.
      Mr. Stevenson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hutton: No, I shall not.
      For example, patients that the hospital treated in the past three years are eligible. The guide for applications to become an NHS foundation trust sets that out clearly.
      Mr. Stevenson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Hutton: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but I have given way to him once and I must make progress.
      Local consultation will take place and agreement will be reached on the governance issues for each applicant for foundation trust status. We have strengthened schedule 1 today as the result of points that my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made in Committee. It provides for an improved framework for local accountability and engagement, and the governance arrangements are clearer and more transparent. The Government have listened and acted on the concerns to which hon. Members rightly drew our attention. The Bill is therefore better and stronger. The Government will accept the relevant amendments that my hon. Friends tabled.
      I believe that the aspects of the Bill that we are considering fully reflect the basic principles of the NHS, and are based on the values of public service. They are not about two tiers, markets, competition or privatisation. Nor are they about change for change's sake or simply another round of NHS reorganisation. The measure is fundamentally about how we can best improve local health services so that the patient benefits.
      Dr. Stoate: The purpose of the Bill is to give patients more say, flexibility and control over local services. Surely foundation hospitals are merely one mechanism

      949
      for doing that. We are making a huge amount of fuss about a relatively small reorganisation to allow more flexibility in the running and provision of services.
      Mr. Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend in many respects. The reforms are important but basic, and I hoped that my hon. Friends could support them, especially since they apply to the democratic governance arrangements. Labour Members have always argued that there is a democratic deficit and the Bill tries to remedy that.
      As my hon. Friend said, the measure gives patients a stronger say about what happens in their local NHS and allows local staff to get on with the job of sustaining improvements in the quality of local services. It will take Whitehall out of the daily management of NHS hospitals and help to deal with health inequalities more effectively than the current "one size fits all" model. Local needs and priorities can be better reflected. Giving foundation trusts greater freedom to do the job must be matched by new forms of local accountability, otherwise we could disfranchise rather than empower local people.
      The measures on NHS foundation trusts are based firmly on Labour's traditional values and applying them to today's new world, where people rightly want more personally tailored health care, where their needs should always come first and where everything that we do is judged by one simple yardstick: how will matters be improved for patients? That is why we are introducing the Bill.
      I simply say to all my hon. Friends: do not vote in the same Lobby as the Tories when the future of the NHS is at stake. The Tories want only one simple thing—they want the NHS to fail so that they can peddle their solutions of spending cuts, subsidised private medical insurance and top-up vouchers for those who can afford to go private. It is a policy for the few, not the many. Labour Members should be in the Government Lobby this afternoon, supporting NHS principles and values.
      Let me briefly consider the Government amendments, especially No. 253. It would require NHS foundation trusts to use electoral wards to define their public constituencies. The amendment would provide further clarity in defining boundaries for public constituencies.
      In Committee, concerns were raised that those whom the trust did not directly employ could not become staff members. Government amendment No. 254 would ensure that those people, who have an interest in the organisation because they work there and contribute to its services, could also be members of the staff constituency. That will include, for example, those who work for cleaning contractors when that work has been passed to a private, independent operator. The amendment would also affect our stated intention to ensure that staff on rolling contracts who are continuously employed by the trust for at least 12 months are eligible to become members of the staff constituency.
      Government amendments Nos. 255, 256, 257, 258, 260 and 262 would remove the bankruptcy and criminal conviction exclusion criteria for members and apply them solely to governors and directors. As I said earlier, we shall accept new clause 24 and amendments Nos. 233
      950
      and 234, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West tabled. I pay tribute to him for his work to strengthen the Bill.
      Clearly, the process for selecting the representatives of the local community who serve on the board of governors must be fair and transparent. The Bill therefore requires governors who represent patients, the public and staff to be chosen by election. Provided that there is a requirement for contested ballots to be secret, foundation trusts could be allowed to use different forms of voting, such as voting electronically or in person, as set out in Government amendment No. 259.
      Government amendment No. 261 clarifies that representatives of local partner organisations can be appointed to the boards of governors of NHS foundation trusts, as set out in a guide to NHS foundation trusts. Government amendment No. 263 deals with the appointment of a chair, to put the matter beyond doubt.
      The Government will also accept amendments Nos. 242 to 244, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North tabled. They deal with conflicts of interest. We shall also accept amendment No. 354 on local authority representation on the board of governors of NHS foundation trusts. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) for tabling it.
      Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends intend to move other amendments later. I shall deal with those shortly. Government amendments Nos. 247 and 248 deal with the private patient cap. Earlier, we discussed private patient provisions. I should like hon. Members to accept amendments Nos. 247 and 248. The regulator has powers to set any terms that he considers appropriate to the terms of authorisation under clause 6(3). However, the amendments would make it explicit that the regulator can restrict the provision of non-NHS health care in all NHS foundation trusts, not only those that were previously NHS trusts.
      New clauses 36 and 37 and amendments Nos. 355, 357 and 358 concern mergers. I shall be happy to deal with that issue in my winding-up speech. In Committee, Members drew attention to a deficiency in the Bill, and these technical amendments seek to close the gap.
      In amendment No. 378, the Government propose a change in respect of Wales. Although the Bill provides for the Welsh Assembly to inspect care provided for Welsh patients by foundation trusts, it includes no requirement for it to report matters of concern to the independent regulator. The amendment will allow the Assembly, like the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, to report failings in trusts to the regulator.
      Part 1 sets out a new direction for the national health service, but it is the right direction. Our proposals are based firmly on traditional NHS values. These reforms are sensible and reasonable. They will help to sustain improvements in the NHS that are now under way. They will give patients and local staff more say over what happens to their local NHS. They will result in a better and more responsive service, so NHS patients will be the winners.
      For all those reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government's proposals.
      Dr. Evan Harris: When the Government first proposed the establishment of foundation trusts, we examined their plans carefully and compared them with our own policies for NHS reform before considering the likely consequences. For reasons that I will give, we believe that the foundation trust policy is deeply flawed, and, having failed to secure key amendments in Committee, my colleagues and I will vote against it. That contrasts with the position of the Conservatives, who will vote against foundation trusts although, as they themselves say, they support the principle. Some may consider that approach opportunistic—[Interruption.] I believe that it is opportunistic to vote against a proposal when one supports the principle behind it. We have always made clear where we stand, and what our principles are.
      Because of the opportunistic nature of the Conservatives' support for the amendment, Labour Members need not be deterred from supporting it by a fear of being identified with their approach. We will certainly resist that.
      I intend to identify the respects in which the Government's proposals fail to deal with our concerns, and the problems inherent in foundation trusts. I shall then say a little about pay beds. The key flaw in the Government's initiative is its failure to address the issue of NHS commissioning. NHS commissioners—largely primary care trusts—are charged with a duty to plan, organise and purchase NHS care for the populations that they serve by making contracts with those who provide services, mainly hospitals and clinics. There is a desperate need for decentralisation, democratisation and empowerment on the commissioning side of the health service, even more than on the providing side. Primary care trusts are run by doctors and other health care professionals, with a sprinkling of local people on the board. They are not democratically accountable, and have very little discretion because of excessive interference from Whitehall and from Ministers. They cannot raise extra resources from their local populations to expand or improve services, even when there is local consent.
      The best way of protecting and promoting the interests of patients is to give more power to those who are responsible for planning and buying services on their behalf, rather than to those who provide care. We would prefer an approach that created reform by tackling restrictions on the power and freedom of health and social care commissioners.
      2.45 pm
      We would have liked the Bill to free local commissioners from central political diktat. While retaining evidence-based clinical outcome national standards and tough quality inspections, we would abandon the politically based targets that distort resource allocation and clinical decision making, replacing them with clinical decisions driven by clinical needs. We would introduce light-touch performance monitoring and the auditing of performance against standards. The Government's proposals include no such provision.
      We wanted the Government to replace strategic health authorities and primary care trust commissioning roles with democratically accountable elected
      952
      commissioners of health and social care at regional and local level, advised by primary care trusts and with a reinvigorated public health function. They would have a legal duty in regard to equity, effectiveness, quality and cost-effectiveness, but would be able to make local decisions. The efficiency involved in electing the same people who are currently elected has already been noted indirectly by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
      The empowerment of commissioners would allow them to raise resources locally through a progressive taxation to meet the demands of the local population for a more responsive, comprehensive and high-capacity NHS.
      Sadly, the Government propose no such changes for commissioners, who will consequently have little control over the services that they can develop, despite the rhetoric of "increased devolution to the front line". Indeed, the Bill actually bars commissioners from ever sharing in any of the reforms.
      As for the possibility of a diversity of providers of NHS care, we are committed to a mixed market in provision including the private and voluntary sectors, NHS hospitals and other providers, as long as the care is free at the point of delivery and access is based on need rather than ability to pay. In the not-for-profit sector, we are keen to see the development of mutuals. Although aspects of foundation hospitals are similar to aspects of mutuals, we would allow them greater financial freedoms, and would not allow the freedoms that are given to be exercised at the direct expense of non-mutual NHS hospitals. We would not impose mutual status on a few hospitals, or "award" it to them; we would allow all hospitals to consider whether they wanted such status. We would consider it to be different from, not better than, the status of other NHS hospitals.
      The way in which the Government propose to award foundation status to three-star hospitals is extremely divisive—especially given that the star rating system does not measure good clinical care, higher quality or meaningful patient outcomes. It measures performance, or statistical massage, against a series of political targets which, if anything, threaten good patient care by distorting resource allocation to areas that are outcome-measured and distorting clinical decision-making.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: In what respect are foundation trusts mutual organisations? Having asked the Minister about that, I was told in a parliamentary answer yesterday that he would write to me as soon as possible.
      Dr. Harris: It is in the context of staff representation on governing boards that we consider the Government's proposals vaguely similar to our proposals for mutuals. I think there is merit in those proposals, regardless of what happens on the commissioning side. If that were all that the Government were proposing, without some of the other problems. we would be minded to support it—and in Committee we did not oppose such measures. When the Government announced amendments to extend the franchise of the staff side to people in ancillary roles, often low-paid, who have worked for a hospital all their lives but whose service has been contracted out, we tabled our own amendment in Committee and the Government accepted it. We have

      953
      worked to make these hospitals more like the mutuals that we want to see, but unfortunately we are still not satisfied.
      Andy King: Surely it is possible to put staff representatives on the hospital hoards without creating a huge two -tier economy.
      Dr. Harris: I agree. That would have been an alternative approach for the Government and for us. We still think that providers should be allowed to seek mutual status, but we do not think that it should be imposed or awarded, or that there should be electoral nonsenses.
      I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister will tell us why, despite our many attempts to establish the facts, the Government have still not provided a shred of proper evidence that the high-level targets or performance indicators—such as the numbers on waiting lists, or the two-week wait—on which they base their award, or reward, of three-star status have any basis in clinical outcomes. I ask the Minister to provide that answer, because he has never done so before. The "Panorama" programme that focused on my local hospital in Oxford identified exactly how patients are put at risk by the imposition on managers of the need to meet these targets. The trauma surgeon Keith Willett, who works at the John Radcliffe hospital, showed how the need to treat the least urgent patients within a maximum time limit often means that treatment of patients whose needs are more urgent is postponed, to their detriment. The Government have not responded to that point; indeed, they refused to address the questions raised in the "Panorama" programme. Until they ditch such politically based performance indicators, their approach will have no support from health care professionals or, even more important, from patients and those who represent them.
      The Government propose a sham democracy for foundation hospital trusts, in which local members will elect a few people to the board of governors. This is clearly a far less effective method of ensuring proper democratic accountability than our proposal properly to democratise, through the electoral roll franchise, the commissioning side of the NHS. Although there is certainly merit in the public's having a stake in major local providers, this should not be seen as an alternative to, or rival to, proper. democratically accountable commissioning. A pseudo-democracy like that proposed in this measure creates the real problem of a parallel franchise, rivalling local, democratically elected councillors. The resulting confusion would actually damage accountability.
      We would prefer—we proposed amendments in Committee to this effect—a stakeholder-type board for mutual hospitals, representing staff and the community. The interests of patients and the public are more powerfully represented by elected commissioners and by patients forums. The Government proposed to set up patients forums as a replacement for community health councils, but they now propose to ditch them in respect
      954
      of foundation hospitals, and, in due course, in respect of all hospitals, because all hospitals will be foundation hospitals.
      Mr. Patrick Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Harris: Yes, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the all-party group on community health councils and may well be keen to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Hall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not agree that not having a patients forum on a foundation hospital trust would remove that element of independence that is crucial to the new system of patient and public involvement in the NHS?
      Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is right, and given his experience of talking to the people involved in patient and public representation, the Government would do well to listen. I invite him and others to look at new clause 9, on page 2,489 of the amendment paper, which is tabled in my name. When this issue was debated in Committee, there was support for the proposal from both sides of the House, and the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is impossible to secure the interests of patients simply through the efforts of those who run hospitals. That creates a conflict of interest, and with the best will in the world, those who try to exercise the dual roles of defending and supporting hospital management and representing the views of patients would find it impossible to juggle them.
      I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to say that they will support new clause 9. After all, when they abolished CHCs—in itself a highly controversial measure—their defence was that patients forums would roam further than CHCs, not only examining the commissioning side but being active on the provider side. Now, the Government propose that there be no patients forums in any hospital. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) strove hard with many of us to secure amendments to initial Government proposals during the previous Parliament, and to secure amendments to an earlier Bill in this Parliament under which the Government proposed to abolish CHCs. He must share my disappointment that the Government intend that if foundation hospital measures are adopted—I accept that he hopes they are not—there will no longer be patients forums in hospitals. That raises questions about the Government's good faith in making the concessions that they claim to make in abolishing CHCs.
      Dr. Fox: Are the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the lack of patients forums diminished or heightened by the fact that the Government, through one of their own amendments, are moving away from the concept of postal votes and potentially towards electronic voting, which might further disfranchise patients?
      Dr. Harris: That may well be a problem. The electoral arrangements are likely to be not only a parallel franchise, as I said, but a dog's breakfast. The Government's saying that they are simply going to leave

      955
      the matter to the constitution of foundation trusts gives no comfort to those of us who think that it will be impossible to find a clear way out of this mess.
      In terms of foundation trust status, it seems that the Government's motto is: "To those who have, more shall be given, and from those who have not, it shall be taken." In Committee, the Government effectively admitted that because any borrowing by foundation trusts, using their greater licence to do so from the private sector, would be set against the total amount of capital available to the NHS, any extra ability to borrow—and any extra borrowing achieved from the private sector for foundation trusts—will by definition reduce the pot of money available for non-foundation trusts. If the Minister looks at the record, he will see that the Government simply did not address that point, either in answer to me or to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), who is no longer in his place.
      I invite the Minister to explain this at the Dispatch Box today: if the total amount of NHS capital is limited and any borrowing by foundation trusts through their increased licence to do so will be taken from that total, how will that not by definition reduce the amount of capital available for the second wave of borrowers—those with less power than non-foundation NHS trusts? [Interruption.] The Dispatch Box remains empty, and as happened in Committee, no answer is given, for the reason that there is no answer to that problem. It is the inevitable consequence of the decision to ensure that such borrowing is against the pot available.
      There was an alternative, which was not to go down this path at all, or even to allow such borrowing to be set against expenditure limits. Unfortunately, the Government chose not to do so, and the result is a policy that robs Peter to pay Paul. Our proposals for mutuals would have allowed additional private borrowing without its counting against Treasury limits for borrowing in the health service. In addition, we would not have proposed that the sale of assets by foundation trusts—those that are allowed because they are not necessary for core service—be available only to foundation trusts, rather than to the NHS as a whole. I suspect that other Members will make that point in more detail.
      We are not opposed to foundation trusts because we think that everything has to be the same; there can be a mixed market in provision. In the Liberal Democrats' opinion, the NHS should be free at the point of delivery, as comprehensive and universal as possible, and based on need rather than the ability to pay. In that respect, who owns or runs hospitals is not important, so long as they guarantee equity, quality and other essential factors. We are not opposed to foundation trusts because we think that they amount to quasi-privatisation of the NHS. Such privatisation is far more likely to happen through a version of the patient passport policy proposed by the Conservatives. Although we do not consider foundation trusts to be a direct route to privatisation, private care issues do arise, particularly in relation to pay-beds.
      As has been pointed out, in Committee the Government weakened the provision relating to the cap on private income. The Minister may say that it was not his intention to do that in changing "must" to "may" and "duty" to "power", but on an issue as important as
      956
      this the phrasing should have put the matter beyond doubt. I invite him to do so, and if he is unable to give such reassurance, those of us who are concerned that that cap guarantee is not worth the paper that it is written on will not be reassured by his approach.
      Amendments No 397 and 398 seek to reverse the changes made in Committee, and amendment No. 400 makes it clear that there should not be arbitrary limits on pay-beds. People should not occupy pay-beds in the NHS if there are NHS patients with greater clinical need. We know that NHS waiting lists are far longer than private waiting lists, and that beds and precious capacity in the health service are given over to private patients. I urge hon. Members to consider amendment No. 400, which would ensure that, regardless of any arbitrary limit on private income, NHS patients are not badly treated.
      New clause 39, also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, urges the Government to accept a proposal whereby overview and scrutiny committees and patients forums have to be consulted before approval is given.
      3 pm
      Finally, the Government did not deal with Government amendment No. 356. As far as I know, the Minister did not mention it as he rattled through the list. That amendment proposes that the Government underwrite external loans taken on by foundation trusts. Will that not give even more power to foundation trusts to loan against the limit that is shared by non-foundation trusts? I invite the Minister to tackle that issue now.
      Mr. Hutton: I do not wish to detain the House, but the hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Barking?"] In line 1, page 1, before "up the wrong tree" leave out "barking". The amendment to which the hon. Gentleman refers deals with the private finance initiative. We need to find an appropriate mechanism to support PFI deals in NHS foundation trusts. That is all that the amendment does, and that PFI borrowing does not score against the prudential borrowing limit.
      Dr. Harris: This is the amendment that dare not speak its name—[Interruption.] The Minister conveniently forgot to mention an amendment that approves the ability of foundation trusts to close PFI deals.
      In summary, for the reasons that I have given, we oppose the Government's proposals for foundation trusts. I hope that they fail today and I urge hon. Members to join me and my colleagues in opposing them. I also urge them to consider the need, if foundation trusts are approved, to secure adequate means of patient representation through patients forums. If I have the opportunity to move new clause 9, I hope to preserve patients forums on the provision side of the health service.
      Mr. Frank Dobson: Out of courtesy to anyone who wants to intervene on my speech, may I use a clinical expression that I picked up as Secretary of State for Health? I have done my back in, so if I give way and sit down, I may not be able to stand up again.

      957
      The Government's various concessions do not deal with most people's fundamental objections to the concept of foundation hospitals. Those hospitals will impose an unwelcome and unnecessary reorganisation of the NHS, which will consume much money and a great deal of senior management time. Advantages will be given to one group of hospitals at the expense of another. Foundation hospitals will be allowed to set their own strategy and priority, taking that role away from local primary care trusts. Competition and the spirit of competition will be reintroduced to the NHS. All that is being done, we are told, in the name of less Government interference.
      We do not need to reorganise the NHS or change the law in order to reduce the amount of ministerial interference. All my right hon. Friends need do is stop interfering—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and they should stop interfering in all hospitals, not just a limited number of them. I confess that I did some interfering myself as Secretary of State, but by the time I resigned, I believed that there was too much interference and too much earmarking of funds. I am afraid, however, that that development has continued rather than being reduced, and we need to reverse that.
      It is also said that the proposals will give local people a sense of ownership of their local hospital because they will be able to vote for the governors. We have to recognise, first, that the NHS is the most popular institution in this country. If we ask people about their local hospital, local town hall or local MP, I know which is most popular with my electorate—let alone anyone else's. They have a higher opinion of the hospitals that serve them than they do of my excellent council, or even of me. The fact of election will not necessarily give local people a sense of ownership or increase the popularity of the health care that they receive.
      I know that the Government would never be swayed by anything to do with opinion polls, but they may be aware of the work carried out for the Audit Commission, which asked people whether they would like a bigger say in the running of their local hospital. In that survey, 22 per cent. said yes, and more than 50 per cent. said no, so it is not even popular with the people who are going to be enfranchised.
      We are told that hospitals will receive more money, more beds and more staff. That is right, but all hospitals are getting more money, most will increase the number of beds and most will increase the number of staff. That is the crucial change that the health service needs, because for decades we have expected the service to go on with too few doctors, nurses, midwives, therapists and everyone else. That is the fundamental problem. The Government's 40 per cent. increase in the intake of students to medical schools is a huge step in the right direction, but it will be a long time before it produces great benefits.
      In the absence of sufficient staff, the NHS has been exposed to reorganisation after reorganisation until the people working in it are sick to death of reorganisation. They know that every process of reorganisation distracts the people working in the health service from their proper and chosen job of looking after patients. It takes up money and, above all, it takes up time. It is safe
      958
      to say that as we debate this proposal, the 32 applicant foundation trusts will be having one of their innumerable and endless meetings about how to progress their application for foundation status. We know that every hour they spend on that aspect of reorganisation is one less hour spent on helping clinicians to help patients.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, we have had 18 reorganisations in the last 20 years. Some people are now saying that extra money, extra staff and extra beds are not delivering the improvements that we want. Well, I can tell them this: the 18 reorganisations certainly did not deliver the improvements that were wanted. Given some time and the opportunity to let the changes bed down and to make good use of the additional resources, the NHS will improve, as it is already improving.
      It is suggested that those who are opposed to the structural reorganisation are opposed to change and improvement in the health service. I do not use the word reform. Reform is a word that gets up the nose of virtually everyone who works in the health service and it does not impress the public. People working in the health service want to improve it. They want to improve what is happening in their clinics, their operating theatres and their surgeries—and they are getting on with it. However, if we introduce foundation hospitals, some of them will find it easier to get on with it than others, because those hospitals will be given advantages over the others. That fact cannot be denied.
      I think of my own constituency. University College hospital, a wonderful hospital in my constituency, is going for foundation status. If it gets that status, it will get more money. If it has more money, what is it going to spend its money on except improving the pay and working conditions of its staff? There is nothing else for it to spend the money on. If it improves the pay and working conditions—by working conditions, I include acquiring new equipment that does not go on the blink as the existing equipment does—it is bound to attract staff from the Royal Free, the Whittington, St. Bartholomew's or Great Ormond Street: other hospitals that also serve my constituency. They will be put at a disadvantage, so University College hospital will get better at the expense of the rest.
      Nothing that Ministers have said will prevent that happening. They tell us that "Agenda for Change" will apply to all hospitals, but that needs money, and those with more money will be able to implement the agenda quicker. If they feel like it, they will be able to upgrade a post—they have the money to do it—and then attract someone to fill it. That is made clear—unless the Government were being misleading originally—in the Green Paper, which says that the extra funds would allow hospitals to offer new rewards and incentives to staff. That means more money and better working conditions.
      I am also concerned about the registers of electors to the boards. Some of the big teaching hospitals will have more than 2.5 million people on their register of electors—if they can put one together. Who will qualify? We are told that it will be people living in the locality, and anyone else who has made use of the hospital. However, we know that the hospitals will get it wrong. Compiling a register is a very complex process and it is a safe bet that within a few months the hospitals will

      959
      have 20 old ladies who regularly visit a clinic saying that they have been left off, and someone from Doncaster who went into A and E on a once-in-a-lifetime visit will be entitled to vote. We know that that is bound to happen.
      In addition, compiling the register will be astonishingly expensive. Local authorities annually spend £50 million making the minor incremental changes to their existing registers, even though they employ staff who are familiar with the problem and know how to do it. It costs another £20 million to organise local elections. Do most people think that that is the best use of the next lot of money for the NHS? Or would it be better spent on patients?
      Patient confidentiality is another issue. Most hospitals do not put their name on the envelope when they send people letters, because many people do not want anybody to know that they are going to hospital. They do not like their employer knowing and often do not even like another member of their family knowing. However, if someone is on the register, everyone will know. The British National party will have access to the register and know who has gone to hospital. How will Asian people—for example—fancy the idea of the BNP trying to exploit their hospital attendance in some racist way, such as claiming disproportionate use of hospital services?
      What will happen to the primary care trusts? They were established, with the full agreement of the professions, to involve the GPs, community services, local nurses and social services in laying down the priorities and strategies for health care in their area, based on an analysis of their day-to-day experience. That would assist in placing proper demands on the local hospitals. However, that role will now be taken back by the foundation hospitals. All the documents say that the foundation hospital governors will establish the strategy and priorities for their hospital. So foundation hospitals will be the cuckoo in the nest, and that is why the Royal College of General Practitioners joins the BMA and virtually every other health service organisation—including the main health service unions—to oppose the proposition.
      I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health—and he is my good friend—that this proposal does not reintroduce competition and will not set hospital against hospital. It will. Its whole philosophy is to get hospitals competing with other hospitals down the road. That was a disaster when the Tories introduced it, because co-operation came to an end. I remember going with my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to talk to the chief executives in our area when the internal market was at its height. We pleaded with them to co-operate on something—I cannot remember exactly what—but one of the chief executives said, "Oh, we can't co-operate now, Mr. Dobson. It's dog eat dog in the health service now." We do not want that atmosphere back.
      We know that competition increased bureaucratic costs and that waiting lists went above I million for the first time. The only serious academic study of the impact of competition of the quality of care was done by Bristol university, which looked at figures from all over the
      960
      country for recovery rates for people who had gone into hospital following a heart attack. The summary of their findings stated:
      "Our central finding is that competition is associated with high death rates: in other words competition is associated with lower quality."
      We do not want competition or lower quality.
      3.15 pm
      I have addressed the damage that foundation hospitals are likely to do to the health service. I confess that, as a Labour party member, the damage that the policy will do to the Labour party bothers me just as much. Almost everybody in the labour movement is opposed to this proposition, and their instincts are right. It was suggested to me on the radio the other day that perhaps the leadership of our party did not want us to speak up against foundation hospitals because it looked as though we were the party of the producer. If the producers are the doctors, nurses, midwives and therapists—the people who actually provide the care for the patients—I would rather be on their side than on that of faceless think-tanks and advisers, who seem to think that the world can be transformed with the click of a laptop button. If I must choose between the laptoppers and the producers, I am with the producers.
      Mr. Lansley: I have two groups of amendments in this gargantuan group, and I shall refer to them briefly and to the general proposition, as advanced by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I am grateful to him for his kind comments. If I know anything about the NHS, it is in part due to serving under his chairmanship of the Health Committee, and in part to my father. On the day on which the NHS was created, my father was working for London county council, running a health service laboratory. He worked for the NHS for the next 35 years and became chairman of the Institute of Medical Laboratory Sciences.
      There are Conservatives—including my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—who have worked for the NHS, and who would resent the way in which the Minister referred to our intentions. Our intentions are to try to create an NHS that delivers more and better quality health care for the people of this country. We may have different views on how to achieve that, but I hope that the Minister will not dispute that that is our intention.
      Some of us will also join the hon. Member for Wakefield in resisting the structure of foundation hospital status, as the Government propose it, for different reasons, but with the same intentions. We will not have many opportunities in the next year or so to discuss the structure of the legislative framework for hospitals, so we have to get it right. Behind some of my amendments is the desire to get the structure right this time.
      My first group of amendments runs from No. 154 to No. 161 and relates lo the possibility that a combination of NHS trusts might: wish to apply for NHS foundation status. The Minister mentioned Government amendment No. 357 and new clauses 36 and 37. I am grateful to the Government for tabling those provisions, because they will allow foundation trusts and NHS trusts to apply for authorisation as NHS foundation

      961
      trusts by way of a merger. The previous structure of the legislation implied that one NHS trust equalled one NHS foundation trust. We discussed the issue on Second Reading and again in Committee, and Government amendment No. 357 and new clauses 36 and 37 remedy that deficiency, so I am happy that the Government have tabled them.
      The other group of amendments that I wish to speak to begins with amendment No. 96, but its essence is contained in new clauses 19, 20 and 21, which would introduce the concept of NHS community trusts alongside the foundation trusts.
      Siobhain McDonagh: Will the hon. Gentleman support the application of Addenbrooke's hospital in his constituency for foundation status? If so, why would he vote against them today?
      Mr. Lansley: The hon. Lady anticipates a subject that I was about to discuss. I have already said that I would support the applications by the Addenbrooke's NHS Trust and Papworth Hospital NHS Trust, both of which are in my constituency and both of which are applying for NHS foundation status. Whether there is a foundation trust status in the form proposed available for them to apply for will, of course, depend on the decisions of the House.
      Claire Ward: But the hon. Gentleman is voting against the Bill.
      Mr. Lansley: I am answering the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). If the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) wishes to intervene as well, I will gladly give way.
      I will support Addenbrooke's because it is an excellent hospital at the leading edge of medical research, clinical practice and innovation in the NHS. The view of the trust, with which I agree, is that it wants to be at the leading edge of innovation within the NHS, wherever the NHS is going. If the Government tell Addenbrooke's that NHS foundation trust status is the way forward for the NHS, Addenbrooke's will go along with that, and I will support it. On each occasion that it has acted in a similar manner, resources have tended to flow from that decision. The word that we have not yet heard is "capacity". Addenbrooke's NHS Trust is running at about 95 per cent. bed occupancy now, and if it is to be able to increase capacity to serve my constituents, it will have to be at the leading edge of the NHS.
      Papworth Hospital NHS Trust is a complementary case. It is a heart and lung hospital, and the fastest growing hospital in the country. It, too, needs to increase capacity. It did not succeed with a private finance initiative bid in 1998, shortly after the Government came to power. I want that trust to be able to undertake its necessary capital projects. As things stand, it could do that in one of two ways: through PFI or by borrowing the money from the Department's facility. This has not previously proved an easy bid to finance through PFI, but it might well be able to arrange
      962
      that borrowing through the departmental financing facility as extended in the Bill. It might also be able to do so on better terms, given that it would be doing so at the national loan fund rate.
      I am a practical person. If the legislation is in place, I will support my hospitals in using it to their best advantage. I would like to be able to persuade the Government to introduce legislation that offers genuine freedoms to NHS hospitals, providers and commissioners. My purpose in voting with my Front-Bench colleagues today will be to tell the Government that they need to introduce such legislation. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), who has previously been denied that opportunity by his Front-Bench colleagues.
      Mr. Stevenson: The hon. Gentleman says that if foundation hospitals become a reality, he will support Addenbrooke's because the resources would flow from that decision, but will he have a care for my constituents, who will not benefit from the first wave of foundation hospitals and are likely to lose out as a result?
      Mr. Lansley: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will necessarily lose out in that way. The Minister would not give way to me earlier, but I wanted to make the point to him that he is trying to tell the House that NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts are on all fours. They are not. For example, he has not yet told us what he is going to do about year-end surpluses in relation to NHS trusts. I want Addenbrooke's, which has resolved its deficit problems and which, with the national tariff, will be able to generate a surplus, to be able to carry over that surplus at the year end. As an NHS foundation trust, it would be able to do so. The hon. Gentleman's constituents would not necessarily lose out as a result of that flexibility, however. It is in the Minister's gift to get up now and tell us that he will offer year-end surplus transfers to all NHS trusts. If he does so, fine. We would then be nearer to the point at which every trust would be the same.
      So far as borrowing is concerned, there could be a difference between NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. That will entirely depend on the Minister making an assertion that, during the years that foundation trust status is available only to some hospitals, the Department's ability to finance their borrowing will not constrain the availability of capital for the others.
      I have departed from my main point, and want to return to the amendments. In the event that the House decides to proceed with NHS foundation trust status, and not to reject it at the instigation of the hon. Member for Wakefield, an important second question will arise. Should foundation status—the mutualisation and local ownership of decision making in the NHS—be confined to hospitals, or should it be provided to the commissioning bodies, the primary care trusts? My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) both said that the latter proposal was entirely desirable. The Select Committee report referred to the evidence of many witnesses who suggested that it was not only desirable but arguably the logical place to start with such measures.

      963
      The Government responded to the Select Committee report yesterday, and their attitude seems to be "Make us virtuous, O Lord, but not yet." They say:
      "the Government is open minded about the possibility of a wider democratic option for Primary Care Trusts, but remains of the view that Primary Care Trusts must be given time to mature as organisations before this option is explored further."
      We know what that means. It could be many years before new primary legislation is introduced to give primary care trusts, as commissioners, the opportunity to be locally owned.
      The purpose of new clauses 19 to 21 is to introduce a community trust status that would apply to primary care trusts and enable them to become locally owned. I hope that the proposals are carefully drafted, and they incorporate certain safeguards. As with NHS foundation trusts, PCTs would not be able to apply for community trust status until the Secretary of State had given his approval for them to do so. He would, therefore, still have a block on the speed at which they could apply.
      It is not possible simply to add PCTs into foundation trust status, because the form of the constitution is not precisely right for that. The way in which the community trusts are written into the amendments and new clauses would stress to a greater extent the proper role of the staff constituency and set a minimum of one third of the membership of the board of governors for the staff constituency. In making this transfer, we would be asking general practitioners and other primary care professionals to hand over a significant part of their current control over primary care trusts to the local public. We would therefore put in place a mechanism, which I hope the House will accept, to offer that choice. It is vital that we do so, otherwise it may be many years before PCTs have the chance of local ownership. and during that time the balance will shift dramatically in the NHS. It is important that that balance continues to be geared towards primary care, as we are seeking a primary care-led NHS. I shall use my locality as an example.
      If there is a dominant hospital in Addenbrooke's NHS Trust with a multiplicity of primary care trusts acting as commissioners and if, at the same time, the NHS trust has a large local membership that believes that it owns Addenbrooke's hospital, not only does the PCT have less power in relation to the NHS trust than it used to, but it will be perceived locally as being less locally owned than Addenbrooke's hospital. When questions of priority come to the fore, people will expect the hospital, rather than the PCT, to be their voice which, to me, seems the wrong way round.
      3.30 pm
      If amendment No. 164 is not accepted, I urge Members to support my amendment. I hope that my colleagues will do so, as well as Liberal Democrats, in the light of the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. I believe that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) tabled amendments with a similar aim to mine. I hope that all hon. Members will regard amendment No. 96 and the linked amendments as a way of injecting such proposals into the legislation.
      964
      I answered the question of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden about the two hospitals in my constituency, but I wish to deal in more detail with the principle of NHS foundation trusts. Essentially, my objection to the Government's proposals is not about the principle of such trusts; as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said, we support the principle of foundation trust status. We favour freedom for NHS providers to manage themselves and respond to local priorities, rather than being subject to central control. The problem is that the Bill simply does not offer that. We know that NHS trusts will be tied to the "Agenda for Change" on pay and conditions. Addenbrooke's is happy with that but, in principle, managers should be free to vary them. Trusts will be subject to a national tariff but, if they want to maximise the utilisation of capacity, they ought to be able to discount the cost of capacity so that they can use spare capacity.
      Nobody has mentioned the NHS information technology strategy. Most providers, including hospitals, are clients of IT companies. NHS foundation trusts will be subject to the entire NHS IT strategy, but will not be direct clients of IT companies. Instead, regional bodies will be the clients of IT providers. Trusts will be subject to PFI. The Minister reminded us that Government amendment No. 356 reinforces the fact that PFI will operate in exactly the same way for foundation trusts as for NHS trusts. Foundation trusts will also he subject to the same overall departmental expenditure limit as other NHS trusts. The freedoms that I seek, including the freedom from bureaucracy, are simply not present in the Bill, so I cannot support the introduction of foundation trusts, because the rhetoric is simply not matched by the reality. I shall therefore press amendment No. 96 to a vote.
      Mr. Adrian Bailey: I shall speak in support of new clause 24 and amendments Nos. 233 and 234, which I tabled. First, however, I should like to declare the fact that I am vice-chairman of the Cooperative group in Parliament, and a lifelong supporter of the principles of mutuality and co-operation in the delivery of our public services.
      Before I discuss the substance of the amendments, I should like to pick up a couple of points. First, many Members have spoken about the running costs of any form of democratic involvement in foundation hospitals. Various mutual and co-operative organisations have developed low-cost, effective means of communicating with their members, and I know that the movement would be happy to make its expertise available to any prospective foundation trust. Secondly, there is nothing intrinsically socialist about the present Whitehall-driven NHS. The debate about local control and mutuality in the health service went on for many years before the NHS was founded in the 1940s. The current model was not arrived at because it was intrinsically egalitarian or socialist—it was the result of horse-trading between the Labour Government and health professionals in the 1940s.
      I have tabled these amendments because I recognise that legitimate concerns were expressed on Second Reading and in Standing Committee about the commitment of foundation hospital trusts to democratic participation, and because the provisions in the Bill appear a little vague. New clause 24 would place

      965
      a legal duty on foundation hospital trusts to take steps to secure a membership that is truly representative of the local community. Amendment No, 233 stipulates that, to obtain authorisation, a foundation hospital trust must be representative, and amendment No. 234 would place an obligation on trusts to report annually on the steps taken to achieve that.
      My prime objective with the amendments is to ensure that the full potential offered by this new form of governance is realised. I believe that the democratic responsibilities of the trusts must not be subordinated to the other freedoms that foundation status will bring. The amendments define more clearly the obligations of applicant trusts to democratic ownership and control. To achieve foundation status, an applicant trust must demonstrate that it is as committed to local accountability as it is to gaining freedom from Whitehall.
      In the debates on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, concern was expressed that the proposed membership arrangements could be open to abuse. One fear was that a highly organised religious group might hijack a governing body to demand that the clinical priorities of the hospital be changed in accordance with its religious beliefs, irrespective of the views or needs of the local community.
      Another concern was that the governing body would be dominated by representatives of the so-called sharp-elbowed middle classes. It was feared that the professional, better educated and more self-confident members of the local community would be more skilled at using the democratic machinery. and that the views and principles that they expressed would take precedence over the interests of the less educated and more inarticulate members of the community.
      The amendments are designed to stop that. However, they are not just defensive: they are also designed to promote social inclusion. My constituency is fairly representative of a large number of inner-city areas. It has a high percentage of elderly people on low incomes who do not have cars. They spent their lives in local industry and suffer from a range of conditions related to a hard working life. We also have a substantial ethnic minority population. Many of them are first-generation immigrants, with limited language skills but considerable health needs.
      Such people could be excluded from participation by hidden barriers that are not directly or deliberately erected by a hospital trust. Those barriers could exist because the trust's governors are not sufficiently representative, or because their understanding of the measures that need to be taken to ensure full participation is incomplete. Ironically, it is the elderly and disabled—the ones with the most pressing health care needs—who could be the ones least able to play a part in a service on which their quality of life might crucially depend.
      My amendments would ensure that the elderly, the disabled and the disadvantaged are heard. As a condition of the granting of foundation hospital status, credible steps must be taken to ensure that all views are incorporated into hospital governance.
      966
      The Bill's provisions represent a dramatic change from the centralised, Whitehall-driven control of local hospitals that has developed since the formation of the NHS. I accept that they pose an enormous challenge for management and represent a change in working culture.
      The current management trusts appointed from local applicants are a recognition of the need for local input into hospital management. Many of the trusts are staffed by able and dedicated people, but they are not directly accountable to the local public. They amount to little more than a genuflection in the direction of local participation.
      Currently, hospital management has no track record of democratic involvement. That lack of experience means that there is a danger that the mechanism of member involvement will not achieve its full potential. The last thing that we want is an incomplete and rudimentary form of member participation that enables a coalition of the great and the good in the local community to perpetuate its control of the trust by a form of mutated democracy. That would be no more than a sort of quango with votes on.
      Siobhain McDonagh: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency is not represented on the board of either St. George's hospital or St. Helier hospital, both of which serve my community? It is not represented on the primary care trust and, so far, it has been excluded from all centres of power and the limited democracy in the health service. Does he agree that foundation hospitals will give some of my constituents a chance to be represented on those boards?
      Mr. Bailey: My hon. Friend raises a valuable point. Local membership would give the opportunity to elect people to the governing board, which would effectively represent their interests.
      I believe that Ministers share with me the intention that foundation hospitals should be genuinely mutual. The amendments detail the obligations of the trust, and provide a mechanism by which the means and level of membership recruitment can be measured to ensure that the boards are truly democratic.
      The amendments are positive; they are designed to extend and promote the principles already incorporated in the Bill. They will provide a record of best practice and achievement that can be shared by everyone and passed on to subsequent generations of applicants. Furthermore, as democracy develops and becomes more successful, the model could be transplanted to other NHS services.
      I take the point that has been made about PCTs. However, if we are to pioneer a new form of democratic participation in the health service, it makes sense to do so where the local community has the strongest identity and interest, which is undoubtedly at the local hospital.
      The proposals offer the opportunity for a whole new constituency to engage in the running of our most valued public service. Few institutions arouse more justifiable loyalty and regard than the local hospital. By giving local residents, patients and employees a say in the running of their hospital we are both pioneering new forms of public participation and providing a means of educating people about the structures, policies and priorities of the service. We shall also be educating

      967
      administrators on the wishes and aspirations of the local communities, and making them accountable in a way that might lead to a refinement of established practices better to meet the needs of their constituents.
      Developing the bond between the public and their local hospital opens new possibilities for voluntary support and recruitment to add value to the hospital's existing work. In his Second Reading speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) talked of the potential that could be unlocked. Once people feel that they own and control their local hospital, who knows what extra efforts they will make to support it? Above all—
      Glenda Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Bailey: I am about to conclude my speech; I am conscious that other Members want to speak.
      Above all, that bond will make it much more difficult for enemies of the NHS to privatise our hospitals in the future.
      The only alternative to the proposals is to continue to invest more money in a structure run by local quangos and regulated by Whitehall. Giving local people a say in how the vast sums of money invested in their local services should be used is infinitely preferable.
      We should be radical. It is time that we matched our financial investment to our commitment to local democracy. My amendments are designed to do just that.
      Dr. Richard Taylor: May I pay very sincere tribute to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who put the case in favour of his amendments so intensely clearly and has spoken up so strongly for all NHS staff, who do not want more interference?
      I shall be very brief because time is short, but I want to ask the Minister to clarify new clauses 36 and 37, which, to my amazement, were welcomed by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). As hon. Members will know I am extremely sensitive to mergers and closures, and those new clauses seem to provide draconian powers.
      3.45 pm
      The trusts interested in merger have to apply to the regulator, who at least, I am relieved to hear, will be accountable to the House, but new clause 36(3) says:
      "applicants may modify the application with the agreement of the regulator at any time before authorisation is given".
      The only mention of public consultation is in subsection (6):
      "If regulations require the applicants to consult prescribed persons about the application, the regulator"
      has to be satisfied that the applicants have complied. Which regulations may be relevant? Who are the prescribed persons who might be consulted? Are they just the management boards, the PCT patient forums, or the overview and scrutiny committees?
      Without its own patient forum, a foundation trust has no one to refer matters to overview and scrutiny committees and, in turn, no one to refer to the
      968
      independent reconfiguration panel, unless I have got that wrong, and I should be delighted to hear from the Minister about that. Mergers will inevitably become more likely because of the European working time directive. If those new clauses are accepted, proper open consultation will be bypassed and people will be unable to stop closures because of the unlimited powers in the Bill. I fear that MPs may find their seats at risk.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am pleased to be called to take part in the debate. Before I speak to amendment No. 60, which is in my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends, and a number of consequential amendments, I should like briefly to mention the right of Welsh MPs to speak in the debate, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has indicated that other hon. Members and I should keep our noses out. He may not have noticed, but this is an England and Wales Bill—that will become clear when I speak to amendment No. 60, which is about foundation hospitals. Moreover, other parts of the Bill will be voted on by hon. Members from England in overwhelming numbers compared with the number of Members from Wales.
      I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is interested in those constitutional matters, but if he is, he will have noticed that on every England and Wales Bill in the past I have expressed my frustration that the time available to debate matters of extreme importance to Wales—primary legislation for Wales still rests with the House—is completely inadequate when we are also debating English matters, and I have suggested other routes so that we could have those debates. If we had other routes—if Welsh matters could be referred to a Grand Committee—I would be sympathetic to the argument that I should not participate in English affairs, but we do not, so I shall take part in the debate and I hope that my voice will be respected.
      The problem emerges from the first sentence in the Bill:
      "An NHS foundation trust is a public benefit corporation which is authorised under this Part to provide goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England."
      Hon. Members may not know it, but there is a great deal of cross-border movement for treatment in Welsh hospitals and English hospitals. Overwhelmingly, however, it is for the treatment of Welsh patients in English hospitals. Last year, 43,000 Welsh patients were treated in English hospitals. Some of those hospitals—particularly the one that treats the greatest number of Welsh patients, Countess of Chester hospital—are in the first wave of applications for foundation hospital status. Therefore, whether they have foundation status and whether it works properly is clearly an issue of importance to Welsh Members.
      Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is making extremely important points, and I hope that Ministers will listen. Is he aware that not only is there a cross-border flow of patients but, in the Welsh border areas, the hospital in Chester is the prime referral point for the majority of local GPs?
      Mr. Jones: Yes. The issue is even more important for people from mid-Wales, where the only acute services available are on the other side of the border in

      969
      Shrewsbury, Hereford and other hospitals. For many Welsh patients, therefore, English hospitals provide the only available acute services. How they are run is therefore extremely important.
      This Bill provides a legal duty and responsibility to treat English patients, but does not provide such a duty and responsibility to treat Welsh patients.
      Ian Lucas: Has my hon. Friend, like me, received a letter from the Secretary of State for Health, which talks about the fact that health care should be provided equally to those who need it, free at the point of need? Does he agree that this Bill runs directly contrary to that principle, in that it provides preferential treatment to patients from England over and above those from Wales?
      Mr. Jones: It certainly does. A pattern already exists, even prior to foundation hospitals being established, of Welsh patients finding it difficult to get access to the hospitals to which they would traditionally be sent from their catchment. An article in the Shropshire Star only yesterday stated:
      "A patient from Mid Wales has been refused a vital hip operation at a specialist orthopaedic hospital in Shropshire—because he is from Wales, a letter revealed …GP Dr Hywel Lloyd in Llanidloes received the… letter from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic and district hospital in Gobowen."
      I could cite a number of examples of Welsh patients who are already having difficulty getting into English hospitals, even though those English hospitals do not have the additional power that they would have under foundation trust status to restrict the growing demand for their services from Welsh patients.
      I raised these matters at the Committee's first sitting and the answers given by the Minister, which were repeated by the Secretary of State for Wales, other Ministers and the Health Minister in the Welsh Assembly, were all to the effect that, to paraphrase, nothing in the Bill precluded or prevented Welsh patients from getting treatment. But that was never the question that I had asked. I asked why it was necessary to give Welsh and English patients a different legal status and to put Welsh patients in a disadvantageous position?
      The Government claim that they have amended the Bill to answer that point. They amended clause 14(1) in Committee, and at first glance it appears that the amendment meets the purpose. The original Bill said:
      "An authorisation must authorise the NHS foundation trust to provide goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England."
      The amended Bill now says:
      "An authorisation must authorise the NHS foundation trust to provide goods and services for purposes related to the provision of health care."
      All well and good—it appears to answer the problem. However, the very next subsection says:
      "But the authorisation must secure that the principle purpose of the trust is the provision of goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England."
      970
      How can one read that and not conclude that the Bill and the establishment of foundation hospitals will put Welsh patients in an inferior position?
      On Second Reading, I spoke in support of foundation hospitals, much to the annoyance of several of my hon. Friends, because I am in favour of reform in the health service. However, I must tell my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the Government amendments tabled so far do not address the central point that I am making. I do not believe that they do not want to respond to the argument that I have made. Indeed, I am fairly convinced that privately they would like to agree to my amendments. They must stand up and make that point, because other hon. Members who support my proposals might think that if the Government cannot guarantee equal provision of services for people in Wales after the establishment of foundation hospitals, perhaps they should vote against establishing foundation hospitals. I do not hold that view because I support the principle of modernisation, but others might be less convinced.
      Several hon. Members, especially Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Members, have made a point about devolution. They are reluctant to support my amendments because they would empower the Welsh Assembly to create foundation hospitals if it wished. Provisions giving the Assembly the choice to do something exist in many other Bills. I do not understand—I have received no explanation—why the Welsh Assembly would want to put Welsh patients at a disadvantage in the way in which I described simply in order to make a gesture by saying that it would not create foundation hospitals or take up the power to introduce them at a later date. That puts ideology in front of any practical benefit and protection for Welsh patients.
      Hywel Williams: My party's standpoint is abundantly clear, as is that of the Scottish National party: we do not want foundation hospitals in Wales or Scotland and we are worried about cross-border effects. As was said earlier, the standpoint of the newly democratically elected Labour Government in the National Assembly for Wales is clear: they are against foundation hospitals.
      As the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) said, clause 1 contains no reference to Wales, and he tabled amendment No. 60 to add such a reference. I take it from his remarks that he is in favour of establishing foundation hospitals throughout Wales, but that would be against the expressed wishes of my party and the Labour Government in Cardiff.
      The hon. Gentleman says that adding a reference to Wales in clause 1 would address the problems of cross-border treatment. We are certainly worried about those problems. We are concerned that three tiers of treatment will be available in England: treatment available in foundation hospitals, treatment available in other hospitals and treatment available for Welsh patients. As my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) said, there are potential consequences for the Barnett formula if hospitals in England lever in large amounts of private money. Will the Minister explain the consequences that that would have on the proportion of money available for Scotland and Wales?
      We accept the force of some of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central about cross-border treatments, but we note the Government's

      971
      assurances that the issues are properly addressed. Presumably, the logical conclusion for the hon. Gentleman is that if his amendments are not adopted, the Bill is flawed. In that case, is he prepared to vote against it? I understand from his remarks that he will support it even if it is flawed. Should he undertake to vote against the Bill, Plaid Cymru will be prepared to consider our position on his amendments.
      4 pm
      Mr. Frank Field: I want to speak to amendment No. 321, the 25 associated amendments and new clause 34, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
      I begin where my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) began, by reminding the House that we are debating the one institution about which this country cares. He was right to say that, but it was only a partial truth. If we look back over the past 20 years, the respect that the NHS has commanded among our voters has declined. Just because most of our constituents willingly vote for extra taxes to pay for improvements in the NHS, we cannot sit back and think that that state of affairs will continue. If any of my hon. Friends doubt me, they need only look at that other popular institution of 20 years ago—the monarchy—which was more popular than the NHS. The fact that something commands public favour at one point in time does not of itself mean that that favour will continue.
      So the Government are right to take a twofold approach to NHS reform. The first approach is to commit record sums of taxpayers' money to improving services. The second is to consider institutional changes. I want to dwell on the size of the extra moneys that our constituents are willingly putting towards the NHS. We are approaching the mid-point of the Parliament. Even if our minds are not concentrated on the next election, our voters are increasingly thinking about it and the Government's record and performance. They will want improvement, over and above what they already expect, from the very large sums of money that they have willingly donated to improve the NHS. So my right hon. Friend was correct in saying that there are huge dangers in the Government playing around with the structure again at this time in the Parliament.
      I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is in the Chamber. No one was more favourable to the Bill's principles when we discussed it on Second Reading than I was. The direction that the Government wish to take—the ownership of the NHS—is right. I just question whether they have had sufficient time to listen enough or think enough about the structure that they will not only impose on many people, but roll out before the next election.
      Before hon. Members vote, I beg them to acquaint themselves with what is in the Bill on the register of electors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was rather gentle with the Government. He talked about the additional cost each year for local authorities to keep their register of electors up to date—some £50 million. But we will not be asking foundation hospitals to use an existing body of electors. They have to start from scratch, so mega resources will go into
      972
      trying to understand the legislation which we may or may not pass today, and building up that body of electors.
      The amendments and new clause in my name and that of my hon. Friends recognise that the Government are right to consider ways of changing from a producer-run to a consumer-run organisation. I do not accept that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, there was a choice only between a producer-run body and a laptop. If that were the only choice, we would be with him. The Government are trying to feel a new way as they in effect denationalise the last nationalised industry in this country and the only nationalised industry about which people care.
      Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The amendments in my right hon. Friend's name, mine and that of several other hon. Members, all make the simple point that there is no use in planning for a roll-out of a major reorganisation that has not been pilot-tested first. The proposals embody some good and bold aspirations. Is not the answer to try them first, involve the new foundation hospitals together with primary care trusts on a limited geographical scale, and let them iron out the difficulties without another massive disruptive reorganisation?
      Mr. Field: My speech can now be even briefer. That was the next point that I wanted to make, and I agree with every word my hon. Friend said. Our large group of amendments is intended to say to the Government, "Well done. We think you are moving in the right direction, but we are worried about any possible disruption in the delivery of services between now and the next election." The amendments therefore propose the establishment of six foundation hospitals and six primary care trusts. New clause 34 lists who would carry out the evaluation and how they would report back to the Secretary of State and to us before there was any further roll-out.
      The simplest form of election would be to use the roll of electors who elect us. That would entail no extra administrative cost, and the people who act as returning officers in parliamentary elections would return the board members in the 12 pilots that the amendments propose. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) asks whether it would be a mutual organisation. No, of course not. I do not understand why the term "mutual" is being used. Most of my constituents think they own the health service. When one considers the difficulties that we place on our hospitals now, the idea of asking them to collect the quids or parts of quids and to deal with more administrative detail is a nightmare. My constituents are willingly paying to try and own the health services that they have. The Bill should be designed to give that effective form.
      The amendments set out the procedure for nominations. When we want to stand for Parliament, we have to get, say, 50 members of our local electorate to support us, and the same should apply to the election of board members. The returning officer would be the same as for parliamentary elections, as I said, and the Comptroller and Auditor General would carefully examine the key pilot experiments.

      973
      We were told by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), that we must not go into the Lobby with the Tories on any of the amendments today. Our fear is that if we rush headlong into reforms that are almost open-ended, we will deliver the NHS up to their reforms. What we want to do more than anything is to make sure that the extra resources being put through the NHS are shown to be effective, and that our constituents are allowed to experiment. The NHS has survived for 60 years because everybody in the country knew that it had a cast-iron guarantee, a security, a fall-back position. We could all say to our electorates, "Don't worry, the NHS would perform better if only it had more money," but the Government have bravely stripped away that defence. We cannot go into the next election saying, "The service would be better if only you were prepared to cough up more taxes," as our constituents are already doing that. I beg the Government to draw back a little in their proposed pace of reform, to concede that we need an array of pilots to deal with PCTs and foundation hospitals and to ensure that the vast majority of hospitals do what they are meant to do—deliver improved services—particularly before we have to meet our paymasters, the electorate, at the next election.
      Mrs. Calton: Time is short, so I shall be brief and confine my remarks to two areas about which I am especially concerned. They have been raised by other hon. Members and, to that extent. I shall seek to labour them, as I think they are important.
      Amendments Nos. 397 and 398 seek to reverse the Government amendments made in Committee that changed the sense of clause 15 and, in particular, the severity of the cap on private treatment. My hon. Friends and I regard it as imperative that the clause should be made clearer. Unfortunately, the Government have tabled yet another amendment, Government amendment No. 248, which makes it even less clear. It has become a dog's breakfast of a clause and, as a provision that deals with privatisation and the supposed cap on privatisation, it needs to be reconsidered to ensure that there is a cap on the amount of private treatment that can be given in a foundation hospital.
      The second area about which I am very concerned again relates to a Government proposal—Government new clause 36, relating to mergers. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) mentioned that issue, which goes beyond an attempt by the Government simply to ensure that there is not another hon. Member for Wyre Forest waiting out there. What is really important is that there should be transparency and honesty about the situation into which we are moving. If a foundation hospital can effectively become merged or closed and if its authorisation can be changed so that it can involve itself with more private treatment, and if all that can happen right up to the point at which authorisation is given, there will be no time whatever for public consultation. People will see their local hospital whipped away from them with no chance for them, their local politicians or anyone else to make any difference whatever.
      974
      I ask the Government to reconsider new clause 36 and especially proposed subsection (3), which allows changes to be made to the application right up to the point at which authorisation is given. That is not right. The public need to know whether their hospital can be changed, closed, merged or privatised. There has been a reduction in transparency as the Bill has passed through the House.
      Mr. Hutton: I should like briefly to respond to some of the points made in the debate after I made my initial speech.
      I pay a very warm tribute to every hon. Member who has spoken in the past three hours or so. All debates about the national health service are high-quality debates. We in this place care about the national health service. I know that that is true of all my hon. Friends, but I ask them to recognise that it is true of Ministers too. We care about the national health service, which is why are making proposals to help improve and sustain the direction of travel that we have set in the NHS plan and beyond. Let us be clear about that.
      It is deeply depressing to see some of the Lib Dem amendments to which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) spoke tabled by someone occupying his space on the political spectrum. He wants to remove the provisions about direct elections to the boards of governors of NHS foundation trusts. I know that some of my hon. Friends would also like that to happen, but I have to say to him and to them that it would be entirely contrary to the spirit and intent of these proposals. A model of governance and representation that involves people being appointed to NHS trusts is no longer acceptable in the society in which we live. Let us have some democracy, but let us have some effective accountability as well.
      4.15 pm
      New clause 9 deals with patients forums. I fully understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and others—for example, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall), who has played a distinguished role in this House in championing the cause of community health councils and the role of patients. However, the Government's arrangements for NHS foundation trusts extend beyond the current requirements for consultation and involvement. Primary care trust patients forums and the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health will provide an additional means for independent patient involvement in the work of NHS foundation trusts. It is not the case that there will be no independent voice or opportunity for patients to be involved in the work of NHS foundation trusts. The patients forums established for primary care trusts will have that overview role. Nor is it the case, in relation to the comments of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor), that there is no role for the overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities, whose role is protected in the Bill. I am afraid that those arguments have little or no substance.
      Let us also be clear about amendment No. 400, which would remove the cap on private charges altogether. replacing it with a system that would at best be a woolly attempt to give priority to the needs of NHS patients,

      975
      but is clearly not a mechanism that is capable of being applied to any extent in the practical environment of the NHS. It is impractical, impossible to operate and riddled with contradictions—no change there as regards the Liberal Democrats.
      On new clause 36, the points made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), which were picked up by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, suggest that there has been some misunderstanding of the Government's proposals. Under the new clause, an NHS foundation trust and another NHS foundation trust or an NHS trust may make a joint application to the regulator for authorisation as a new NHS foundation trust. In every other sense, we have simply mirrored the current provisions in the Bill on the principal application to become an NHS foundation trust. There is nothing different about the process at all.
      On the group of amendments, including new clause 60, that were moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), I am confident that nothing in the Bill changes or adversely affects the way in which Welsh patients are treated in NHS foundation trusts established in England. I say this to my hon. Friend, because I respect and value his counsel: my colleagues and I are prepared to have another look at the Bill to make absolutely sure that the assurances that we gave in Committee and on the Floor of the House are fully honoured. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that.
      We are reaching the conclusion of this debate—which by common consent represents an important and seminal moment in this Parliament—as regards how we take forward improvements in the national health service. We have set out a clear prospectus today. This is not about competition, privatisation or two tiers: it is about taking forward traditional NHS values and applying them in the new world and new society in which we live. No one who is treated at an NHS foundation trust will be charged for that treatment. The standards that are set will be national: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that that is so. These are sensible reforms that will take forward a better basis and a more solid foundation on which we can build genuine and strong public support for public services. I urge my hon. Friends to support the Government in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—

      The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 286.

      Division No.280]

      [4:19 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Allan, Richard

      Bennett, Andrew

      Amess, David

      Bercow, John

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Berry, Roger

      Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

      Best, Harold

      Austin, John

      Blunt, Crispin

      Bacon, Richard

      Boswell, Tim

      Baker, Norman

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Baldry, Tony

      Brady, Graham

      Barker, Gregory

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Barnes, Harry

      Brazier, Julian

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Breed, Colin

      976

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Rhymney)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Hawkins, Nick

      Burnett, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Burns, Simon

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Burnside, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Burstow, Paul

      Hendry, Charles

      Butterfill, John

      Heyes, David

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Hinchliffe, David

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Cameron, David

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Cash, William

      Howard, rh Michael

      Caton, Martin

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Barnet)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Chope, Christopher

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Clapham, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Jack, rh Michael

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Highgate)

      Coleman, Iain

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Collins, Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Connarty, Michael

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Keetch, Paul

      Davidson, Ian

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

      Inverness)

      Howden)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dobson, rh Frank

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Doughty, Sue

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lamb, Norman

      Efford, Clive

      Lansley, Andrew

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Etherington, Bill

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Nigel

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fallon, Michael

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Lidington, David

      Westminster)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Fisher, Mark

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Flight, Howard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Loughton, Tim

      Forth, rh Eric

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      McDonnell, John

      Francois, Mark

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Maclean, rh David

      Garnier, Edward

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gerrard, Neil

      Malins, Humfrey

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Maples, John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

      Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

      Atcham)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Mates, Michael

      Grayling, Chris

      Maude, rh Francis

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Greenway, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Grieve, Dominic

      Coldfield)

      Gummer, rh John

      Moore, Michael

      Hague, rh William

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hammond, Philip

      Mudie, George

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Abingdon)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Harvey, Nick

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      977

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Öumlpik, Lembit

      Spicer. Sir Michael

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Spring, Richard

      Page, Richard

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Paice, James

      Streeter, Gary

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Paterson, Owen

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Pickles, Eric

      Syms, Robert

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Dinefwr)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Purchase, Ken

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Randall, John

      Thurso, John

      Redwood, rh John

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Tredinnick, David

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

      Robertson, Angus (Moray

      Kernptown)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Tyrie Andrew

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Ruffley,David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Salmond, Alex

      Webb Steve (Northavon)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Weir, Michael

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wilkinson, John

      Sawford, Phil

      Willetts, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Selous, Andrew

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Wilshire, David

      Shepherd, Richard

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Short, rh Clare

      (Macclesfield)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Wishart, Pete

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Young, rh Sir George

      Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

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

      Mr. George Stevenson and

      Kincardine)

      Angela Eagle

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

      Ainger, Nick

      E)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Alexander, Douglas

      Waffsend)

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Browne, Desmond

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

      Bryant, Chris

      Darwen)

      Burden, Richard

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Burnham, Andy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cairns, David

      Banks, Tony

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Barron rh Kevin

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Beard Nigel

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Caplin, Ivor

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Casale, Roger

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Cawley, Ian (Brigg)

      Benn, Hilary

      Challen, Colin

      Betts, Clive

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Chaytor, David

      Blair, rh Tony

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Blunkett, rh David

      Pertlands)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Chryston)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Clwycl, Ann (Cynon V)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      978

      Cohen, Harry

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Colman, Tony

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jamieson, David

      Corston, Jean

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cousins, Jim

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Cranston, Ross

      Hatfield)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cummings, John

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      (Copeland)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      David, Wayne

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kidney, David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bow)

      Denham, rh John

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Doran, Frank

      Lammy, David

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Edwards, Huw

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Lepper, David

      Farrelly, Paul

      Leslie, Christopher

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Flint, Caroline

      Linton, Martin

      Follett, Barbara

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      McCabe, Stephen

      & Rye)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Foulkes, rh George

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      MacDougall, John

      Gardiner, Barry

      McFall, John

      Gilroy, Linda

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Godsiff, Roger

      McIsaac, Shona

      Goggins, Paul

      McKechin, Ann

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Grogan, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hain, rh Peter

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hanson, David

      McWilliam, John

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Healey, John

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Hermon, Lady

      Shettleston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hodge, Margaret

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Miliband, David

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Miller, Andrew

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Mole, Chris

      Sefton E)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Moran, Margaret

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Morley, Elliot

      Urmston)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hutton, rh John

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      979

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Southworth, Helen

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Spellar, rh John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Straw, rh Jack

      Pearson, Ian

      Stringer, Graham

      Pickthall, Colin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Timms, Stephen

      E)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Prescott, rh John

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Trickett, Jon

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh"ton SE)

      Purnell, James

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rammell, Bill

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Ward, Claire

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      BelIshii)

      Watts, David

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      White, Brian

      Anniesland)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rooney, Terry

      Wills, Michael

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Wilson, Brian

      Ruane, Chris

      Winnick, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      C)

      Chester)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Woolas, Phil

      Salter, Martin

      Wray, James (Glasgow

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Baillieston)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Sheerman, Barry

      Yarmouth)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Simon, Siocircn (B'ham Erdington)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Singh, Marsha

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Paul Clark and

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Dr. Fox: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you use your offices to get a quick breakdown of the vote, so that the House can see how many Scottish Members were used to force through legislation that does not apply to their constituencies?
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The normal procedures will apply to this vote as to any other vote in the Chamber.
      It being more than three and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Amendment proposed: No. 96, in clause 2, page 1, line 12, after 'Foundation', insert 'and Community'.—[Mr. Lansley.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 339.

      Division No. 281]

      [4:36 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E surrey)

      Gray,James(N Wilts)

      Allan, Richard

      Grayling, Chris

      Amess, David

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Greenway, John

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Bacon, Richard

      Gummer, rh John

      Baker, Norman

      Hague, rh William

      Baldry, Tony

      Hammond, Philip

      Barker, Gregory

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Abingdon)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Harvey, Nick

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bercow, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hendry, Charles

      Boswell, Tim

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Holmes, Paul

      Brady, Graham

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Howard, rh Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Breed, Colin

      Hunter, Andrew

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Jack, rh Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Burnett, John

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Burns, Simon

      Keetch, Paul

      Burnside, David

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

      Burstow, Paul

      Inverness)

      Butterfill, John

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Cameron, David

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lamb, Norman

      Cash, William

      Lansley, Andrew

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Barnet)

      Leigh, Edward

      Chope, Christopher

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Collins, Tim

      Lidington, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Loughton, Tim

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Howden)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Dodds, Nigel

      Maclean, rh David

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Doughty, Sue

      Malins, Humfrey

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Maples, John

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

      Evans, Nigel

      Atcham)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Mates, Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maude, rh Francis

      Fallon, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Field, Mark (Cities of London &

      Mercer, Patrick

      Westminster)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

      Flight, Howard

      Coldfield)

      Forth, rh Eric

      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)

      Garnier, Edward

      Öpik, Lembit

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Ottaway, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Page, Richard

      981

      Paice, James

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Spring, Richard

      Paterson, Owen

      Streeter, Gary

      Pickles, Eric

      Stunell, Andrew

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Dinefwr)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Randall, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Redwood, rh John

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Thurso, John

      Rendel, David

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tredinnick, David

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Watkinson, Angela

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Ruffley, David

      Weir, Michael

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wilkinson, John

      Salmond, Alex

      Willetts, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Selous, Andrew

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Wilshire, David

      Shepherd, Richard

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Simmonds, Mark

      (Macclesfield)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Wishart, Pete

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

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Kincardine)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Mr. Robert Syms and

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Mr. Mark Hoban

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Bryant, Chris

      Ainger, Nick

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Burden, Richard

      Alexander, Douglas

      Burgon, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Burnham, Andy

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cairns, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Darwen)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caplin, Ivor

      Austin, John

      Casale, Roger

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Banks, Tony

      Challen, Colin

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Chaytor, David

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Clapham, Michael

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

      Benn, Hilary

      Pentlands)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

      Belts, Clive

      Chryston)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blair, rh Tony

      Clelland, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blunkett, rh David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Colernan, Iain

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Colman, Tony

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Conrarty, Michael

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

      Corston, Jean

      Wallsend)

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cranston, Ross

      Browne, Desmond

      Crausby, David

      982

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

      Cummings, John

      Urmston)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      (Copeland)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hutton, rh John

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      David, Wayne

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

      Dawson, Hilton

      Hatfield)

      Denham, rh John

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

      Doran, Frank

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Efford, Clive

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Etherington, Bill

      Kidney, David

      Farrelly, Paul

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bow)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Flint, Caroline

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Follett, Barbara

      Lammy, David

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Fositer, Michael Jabez (Hastings

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      & Rye)

      Lepper, David

      Foulkes, rh George

      Leslie, Christopher

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Geirrard, Neil

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Linton, Martin

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Love, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Grogan, John

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hain, rh Peter

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hanson, David

      McDonnell, John

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      MacDougall, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McFall, John

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Rhymney)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Healey, John

      McKechin, Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hendrick, Mark

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Heppell, John

      MacShane, Denis

      Hermon, Lady

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hesford, Stephen

      McWalter, Tony

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      McWilliam, John

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Sefton E)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Shettleston)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      983

      Martlew, Eric

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Singh, Marsha

      Merron, Gillian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

      Miller, Andrew

      Finsbury)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

      Mole, Chris

      Lunesdale)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Moran, Margaret

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morley, Elliot

      Soley, Clive

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Southworth, Helen

      Mountford, Kali

      Spellar, rh John

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stevenson, George

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Straw, rh Jack

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Hara, Edward

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Neill, Martin

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Perham Linda

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Picking, Anne

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Timms' StePhen

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Plaskitt, James

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Trickett, Jon

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Truswell, Paul

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      E)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Prescott, rh John

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ward, claire

      Purchase Ken

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Purnell, James

      Watson Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Quina Lawrie

      Watts, David

      Rammell, Bil1

      White, Brian

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      wicks, Malcolm

      Reed, Andy (Loughbomugh)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Bellshill)

      Wills Michael

      Robertson, John (Glasgow

      Wilson Brian

      Anniesland)

      Winnick, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

      NW)

      C)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Rooney, Terry

      Woodward, Shaun

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Woolas, Phil

      Ruane, Chris

      Wray, James (Glasgow

      Ruddock, Joan

      Baillieston)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

      Chester)

      Yarmouth)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Salter, Martin

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wyatt, Derek

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Sheridan, Jim

      Derek Twigg

      Question accordingly negatived.

      New Clause 9

        FOUNDATION PATIENTS' FORA
        '(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body to be known as a Foundation Patients' Forum—

        (a) for each NHS Trust which has made an application under section 4(2);

        (b) for each person who has been incorporated as a public benefit corporation under section 5(5).

        (2) The members of the Foundation Patients' Forum are to be appointed by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health.
        (3) Once the Foundation Patients' Forum has been established, it may do anything (including the things mentioned in subsection (4) below) which appears to it to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of preparing for effective patient and public involvement in the NHS Trust or public benefit corporation once it becomes a Foundation Trust.
        (4) A Foundation Patients' Forum must—

        (a) monitor and review the range and operation of services provided by, or under arrangements made by, the trust for which it is established,

        (b) obtain the views of patients' and their carers about those matters and report on those views to the trust,

        (c)provide advice, and make reports and recommendations, about matters relating to the range and operation of those services to the trust,

        (d) make available to patients and their carers advice and information about those services,

        (e) in prescribed circumstances, perform any prescribed function of the trust with respect to the provision of a service affording assistance to patients and their families and carers,

        (f)carry out such other functions as may be prescribed.

        (5) In providing advice or making recommendations under subsection (4)(c), a Foundation Patients' Forum must have regard to the views of patients and their carers.
        (6) If, in the course of exercising its functions, a Foundation Patients' Forum becomes aware of any matter which in its view—

        (a) should be considered by a relevant overview and scrutiny committee, the Forum may refer that matter to the committee,

        (b) should be brought to the attention of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, it may refer that matter to the Commission.

        (7) Subsection (6) does not prejudice the power of a Foundation Patients' Forum to make such other representations or referrals as it thinks fit, to such persons or bodies as it thinks fit about matters arising in the course of its exercising its functions.
        (8) An NHS Trust or public benefit corporation exercising its powers under sections 4(4)(b) or 5(7)(b) as the case may be shall be obliged to have regard to and take account of the reports and recommendations of the Foundation Patients' Forum.
        (9) The governors and non-executive directors of the Foundation Trust shall be obliged to respond in writing to the reports and recommendations of the Foundation Patients' Forum.
        (10) All the members, governors and directors of a Foundation Trust shall be obliged to have regard to and take account of the reports and recommendations of the Foundation Patients' Forum in exercising their functions within the Foundation Trust.
        (11) The terms in this section shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of section 15(8) and (9) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 (c.17).'.—[Joan Ryan.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 340.

        Division No. 282]

        [4:48 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (ESurrey)

        Grayling, Chris

        Allan, Richard

        Green, Damian (Ashford)

        Amess, David

        Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

        Ancram, rh Michael

        Greenway, John

        Arbuthnot, rh James

        Grieve, Dominic

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Gummer, rh John

        Bacon, Richard

        Hague, rh William

        Baker, Norman

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Baldry, Tony

        Hammond, Philip

        Barker, Gregory

        Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

        Baron, John (Billericay)

        Abingdon)

        Berth, rh A. J.

        Harvey, Nick

        Bellingham, Henry

        Hawkins, Nick

        Bercow, John

        Heald, Oliver

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

        Boswell, Tim

        Hendry, Charles

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

        Brady, Graham

        Hogg, rh Douglas

        Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

        Holmes, Paul

        Brazier, Julian

        Horarn, John (Orpington)

        Breed, Colin

        Howard, rh Michael

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Bruce, Malcolm

        Hunter, Andrew

        Burnett, John

        Jack, rh Michael

        Burns, Simon

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Burnside, David

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Burstow, Paul

        Johnson, Boris (Henley)

        Butterfill,

        John Keetch, Paul

        Cable, Dr. Vincent

        Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

        Carton, Mrs Patsy

        Inverness)

        Cameron, David

        Key, Robert (Salisbury)

        Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

        Kirkwood, Sir Archy

        Carmichael, Alistair

        Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

        Cash, William

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Barnet)

        Lamb, Norman

        Chope, Christopher

        Lansley, Andrew

        Clappison, James

        Laws, David (Yeovil)

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Leigh, Edward

        Collins, Tim

        Letwin, rh Oliver

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

        Cran, James (Beverley)

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Lidington, David

        Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

        Lilley, rh Peter

        Howden)

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Dodds, Nigel

        Loughton, Tim

        Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

        Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

        Doughty, Sue

        Mackay, rh Andrew

        Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

        Maclean, rh David

        Duncan Smith, rh lain

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Evans, Nigel

        Malins, Humfrey

        Ewing, Annabelle

        Maples, John

        Fabricant, Michael

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

        Fallon, Michael

        Atcham)

        Field, Mark (Cities of London &

        Mates, Michael

        Westminster)

        Maude, rh Francis

        Flight, Howard

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Forth, rh Eric

        Mercer, Patrick

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

        Fox, Dr. Liam

        Coldfield)

        Francois, Mark

        Moore, Michael

        Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Garnier, Edward

        Murrison, Dr. Andrew

        George, Andrew (St. Ives)

        Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

        Gidley, Sandra

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Öpik, Lembit

        Gray, James (N Wilts)

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        986

        Ottaway, Richard

        Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

        Page, Richard

        Spring, Richard

        Paice, James

        Streeter, Gary

        Paisley, Rev. Ian

        Stunell, Andrew

        Paterson, Owen

        Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

        Pickles, Eric

        Syms, Robert

        Portillo, rh Michael

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Dinefwr)

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

        Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

        Pugh, Dr. John

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Randall, John

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Redwood, rh John

        Thurso, John

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Tongs, Dr. Jenny

        Bendel, David

        Tredinnick, David

        Robathan, Andrew

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Robertson, Angus (Moray)

        Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

        Waterson, Nigel

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Watkinson, Angela

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Steve (Northavon)

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Weir, Michael

        Ruffley, David

        Wilkinson, John

        Ruffell, Bob (Colchester)

        Willetts, David

        Salmond, Alex

        Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

        Sanders, Adrian

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Selous, Andrew

        Wilshire, David

        Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

        Winterton, Sir Nicholas

        Shepherd, Richard

        (Macclesfield)

        Simmonds, Mark

        Wishart, Pete

        Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

        Young, rh Sir George

        Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

        Soames, Nicholas

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Mrs. Annette L. Brooke and

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Sir Robert Smith

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Browne, Desmond

        Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

        Bryant, Chris

        Ainger, Nick

        Buck. Ms Karen

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Burden, Richard

        Alexander, Douglas

        Burgon, Colin

        Allen, Graham

        Burnham, Andy

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

        Caborn, rh Richard

        Darwen)

        Cairns, David

        Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Austin, John

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Bailey, Adrian

        Caplin, Ivor

        Banks, Tony

        Casale, Roger

        Barnes, Harry

        Cawley, Ian (Brigg)

        Barron, rh Kevin

        Challen, Colin

        Beard, Nigel

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Beckett, rh Margaret

        Chaytor, David

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Clapham, Michael

        Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Benn, Hilary

        Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

        Bennett, Andrew

        Pentlands)

        Benton, Joe (Bootle)

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Berry, Roger

        Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

        Best, Harold

        Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

        Betts, Clive

        Chryston)

        Blackman, Liz

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Clelland, David

        Blizzard, Bob

        Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

        Boateng, rh Paul

        Coaker, Vernon

        Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Cohen, Harry

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Coleman, Iain

        Brennan, Kevin

        Colman, Tony

        Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

        Connarty, Michael

        E)

        Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

        Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

        Cooper, Yvette

        Wallsend)

        Corston, Jean

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Cousins, Jim

        987

        Cranston, Ross

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Crausby, David

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

        Cruddas, Jon

        Urmston)

        Cummings, John

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        (Copeland)

        Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

        Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

        Hutton, rh John

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Iddon, Dr. Brian

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Ingram, rh Adam

        Darling, rh Alistair

        lrranca-Davies, Huw

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        David, Wayne

        Jamieson, David

        Davidson, Ian

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

        Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Hatfield)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Denham, rh John

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Jowell, rh Tessa

        Doran, Frank

        Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

        Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

        Kaufman, rh Gerald

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Keen, Alan (Feltham)

        Edwards, Huw

        Keen, Ann (Brentford)

        Efford, Clive

        Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

        Ellrnan, Mrs Louise

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

        Kidney, David

        Etherington, Bill

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Farrelly, Paul

        King, Andy (Rugby)

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Bow)

        Flint, Caroline

        Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

        Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

        Kumar, Dr. Ashok

        Follett, Barbara

        Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

        Foster, rh Derek

        Lammy, David

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

        Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

        & Rye)

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Foulkes, rh George

        Lepper, David

        Francis, Dr. Hywel

        Leslie, Christopher

        Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

        Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

        Gardiner, Barry

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

        Gibson, Dr. Ian

        Linton, Martin

        Gilroy, Linda

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Love, Andrew

        Goggins, Paul

        Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        McCabe, Stephen

        Grogan, John

        McCafferty, Chris

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        McCartney, rh Ian

        Hanson, David

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Harman, rh Ms Harriet

        MacDonald, Calum

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        MacDougall, John

        Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

        McFall, John

        Rhymney)

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Healey, John

        McIsaac, Shona

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        McKechin, Ann

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Hendrick, Mark

        McNamara, Kevin

        Hepburn, Stephen

        McNulty, Tony

        Heppell, John

        MacShane, Denis

        Hermon, Lady

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Hesford, Stephen

        McWalter, Tony

        Heyes, David

        McWilliam, John

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Hodge, Margaret

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

        Mallaber, Judy

        Hoon, rh Geoffrey

        Mandelson, rh Peter

        Hope, Phil (Corby)

        Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

        Marshall, David (Glasgow

        Sefton E)

        Shettleston)

        Howells, Dr. Kim

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        988

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

        Martlew, Eric

        Singh, Marsha

        Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Merron, Gillian

        Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

        Michael, rh Alun

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Milburn, rh Alan

        Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

        Miliband, David

        Finsbury)

        Miller, Andrew

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

        Moffatt, Laura

        Lunesdale)

        Mole, Chris

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Moonie, Dr. Lewis

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Moran, Margaret

        Soley, Clive

        Morley, Elliot

        Southworth, Helen

        Morris, rh Estelle

        Spellar, rh John

        Mountford, Kali

        Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Stevenson, George

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Naysmith, Dr. Doug

        Stoate, Dr. Howard

        Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

        Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Straw, rh Jack

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Stringer, Graham

        O'Hara, Edward

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        O'Neill, Martin

        Tami, Mark (Alyn)

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

        Palmer, Dr. Nick

        Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

        Pearson, Ian

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Perham, Linda

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Picking, Anne

        Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Timms, Stephen

        Pike, Peter (Burnley)

        Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

        Plaskitt, James

        Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

        Pollard, Kerry

        Trickett, Jon

        Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

        Truswell, Paul

        Pound, Stephen

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

        Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

        E)

        Kemptown)

        Prescott, rh John

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Primarolo, rh Dawn

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

        Purchase, Ken

        Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

        Purnell, James

        Vis, Dr. Rudi

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Ward, Claire

        Rammell, Bill

        Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

        Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

        Watts, David

        Raynsford, rh Nick

        White, Brian

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Whitehead, Dr. Alan

        Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Bellshill)

        Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

        Robertson, John (Glasgow

        Williams, Betty (Conwy)

        Anniesland)

        Wills, Michael

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

        Wilson, Brian

        NW)

        Winnick, David

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Wiinterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

        Rooney, Terry

        C)

        Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

        Wood, Mike (Batley)

        Ruane, Chris

        Woodward, Shaun

        Ruddock, Joan

        Woolas, Phil

        Russell, Ms Christine (City of

        Wray, James (Glasgow

        Chester)

        Baillieston)

        Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

        Wright Anthony D. (Gt

        Salter, Martin

        Yarmouth)

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Sawford, Phil

        Wyatt, Derek

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Sheerman, Barry

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Sheridan, Jim

        Derek Twigg and

        Short, rh Clare

        Mr. Fraser Kemp

        Question accordingly negatived.
        5 pm
        Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, after the Division on amendment No. 164, the

        989
        Government had their lowest majority in this Session—35. It might help the House to know that 40 Labour Scottish MPs voted with the Government to ensure that England did not have—[Interruption.]
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. I ruled on a similar matter earlier this afternoon.
        I understand that the Minister is prepared to move amendments Nos. 233, 354, 242 to 244 and 234 and new clause 24, so I shall include them in the groups that I am about to call him to move.

      Clause 5
        OTHER APPLICATIONS
        Amendment made: No. 245, in page 3, line 7, leave out 'registration' and insert 'incorporation'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
      Clause 6

        AUTHORISATION OF NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTS
        Amendment made: No. 233, in page 3, line 27, at end insert—
        '() taken as a whole the actual membership of the applicant's public constituency will be representative of those eligible for such membership,'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 10

        REGISTER OF NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTS
        Amendment made: No. 355, in page 5, line 8, leave out from 'who' to end of line and insert
        'were first elected or appointed as'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 11

        POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO GIVE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
        Amendment made: No. 356, in page 5, line 21, at end insert—
        '() The Secretary of State may guarantee the payment of any amount payable by an NHS foundation trust under an externally financed development agreement.
        "Externally financed development agreement" has the same meaning as in section 1 of the National Health Service (Private Finance) Act 1997 (c.56), reading references in subsections (3) and (5) of that section to the trust as references to the NHS foundation trust.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 12

        PRUDENTIAL BORROWING CODE
        Amendment made: No. 246, in page 5, line 27, leave out 'organisations' and insert 'bodies.
        A body is non-profit making if it does not carry on activities for the purpose of making profits for distribution to its members or others.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 15

        PRIVATE HEALTH CARE
        Amendments made: No. 247, in page 7, line 16, leave out
        'which was an NHS trust'.
        No. 248, in page 7, line 18, leave out 'the NHS foundation trust' and insert
        'an NHS foundation trust which was an NHS trust'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 33

        OFFENCE
        Amendments made: No. 249, in page 12, line 31, leave out 'trust' and insert
        'relevant constituency and is not prevented from being a member of the board by paragraph 6A of Schedule I'.
        No. 250, in page 12, line 32, leave out 'general'.
        No. 251, in page 12, line 34, leave out 'trust' and insert
        'relevant constituency and is not prevented from being a member of the board by paragraph 6A of Schedule 1'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

      Clause 35
        INTERPRETATION OF PART 1
        Amendment made: No. 357, in page 13, line 11, at end insert 'or (Mergers)'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
      New Clause 25

        AUDIT
        'Schedule (Audit of accounts of NHS foundation trusts) (which makes provision in relation to the audit of the accounts of NHS foundation trusts) has effect.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 36

        MERGERS
        '(1) An application may be made jointly by—

        (a) an NHS foundation trust, and

        (b) another NHS foundation trust or an NHS trust,

        to the regulator for authorisation of the dissolution of the trusts and the transfer of some or all of their property and liabilities to a new NHS foundation trust established under this section.
        (2) The application must—

        (a) be supported by the Secretary of State if one of the parties to it is an NHS trust,

        (b) specify the property and liabilities proposed to be transferred to the new NHS foundation trust,

        (c) describe the goods and services which it is proposed should be provided by the new trust, and

        (d) be accompanied by a copy of the proposed constitution of the new trust;

        and must give any further information which the regulator requires the applicants to give.
        (3) The applicants may modify the application with the agreement of the regulator at any time before authorisation is given under this section.
        (4) The regulator may—

        (a) issue a certificate incorporating the directors of the applicants as a public benefit corporation, and

        (b) give an authorisation under this section to the corporation to become an NHS foundation trust,

        if he is satisfied as to the following matters.
        (5) The matters are that—

        (a) the constitution of the new trust will be in accordance with Schedule 1 and will otherwise be appropriate,

        (b) taken as a whole the actual membership of the public constituency of the new trust will be representative of those eligible for such membership.

        (c) the new trust will be able to provide the goods and services which the authorisation is to require it to provide, and

        (d) any other requirements which he considers appropriate are met.

        (6) If regulations require the applicants to consult prescribed persons about the application, the regulator may not give an authorisation under this section unless he is satisfied that the applicants have complied with the regulations.
        (7) The certificate is conclusive evidence of incorporation; and the authorisation is conclusive evidence that the corporation is an NHS foundation trust.
        (8) On an authorisation being given under this section, the proposed constitution of the NHS foundation trust has effect, but the directors of the applicants may exercise the functions of the trust on its behalf until a board of directors is appointed in accordance with the constitution.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 37

        SECTION (MERGERS): SUPPLEMENTARY
        '(1) Where an authorisation is given under section (Mergers), the regulator is to specify the property and liabilities to be transferred to the new NHS foundation trust.
        (2) Where such an authorisation is given, the Secretary of State is to make an order—

        (a) dissolving the trusts in question, and

        (b) transferring, or providing for the transfer of, the property and liabilities specified by the regulator to the new NHS foundation trust.

        (3) The order may—

        (a) transfer, or provide for the transfer of, any of the remaining property or liabilities to the persons mentioned in section 25(3),

        (b) include provisions corresponding to those of Schedule 3.

        (4) Where an NHS foundation trust is dissolved under this section, the regulator must give notice of the dissolution to the registrar of companies.
        (5) Where one of the parties to an application under section (Mergers) is an NHS trust, the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act are not exercisable in relation to the trust.
        (6) Subsections (3) and (5) of section 6 apply to an authorisation under section (Mergers) as they do in relation to an authorisation under that section.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 24

        REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERSHIP
        'An authorisation may require an NHS foundation trust to take steps to secure that (taken as a whole) the actual membership of its public constituency is representative of those eligible for such membership.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Schedule 2
        'AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS OF NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTS

          General duty
          1 In auditing the accounts of any NHS foundation trust an auditor must by examination of the accounts and otherwise satisfy himself—

          (a) that they are prepared in accordance with directions under paragraph 21 of Schedule 1,

          (b) that they comply with the requirements of all other provisions contained in, or having effect under, any enactment which are applicable to the accounts,

          (c) that proper practices have been observed in the compilation of the accounts, and

          (d)that the trust has made proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources.

          Right to documents and information
          2 (1) An auditor of an NHS foundation trust has a right of access at all reasonable times to every document relating to the trust which appears to him necessary for the purposes of his functions under Part 1.
          (2) The auditor may—

          (a) require a person holding or accountable for any such document to give him such information and explanation as he thinks necessary for the purposes of his functions under Part 1,

          (b) if he thinks it necessary, require the person to attend before him in person to give the information or explanation or to produce the document.

          (3) The auditor may also—

          (a) require any director or officer of the trust to give him such information or explanation as he thinks necessary for the purposes of his functions under Part 1,

          (b) if he thinks it necessary, require the director or officer to attend before him in person to give the information or explanation.

          (4) The trust must provide the auditor with every facility and all information which he may reasonably require for the purposes of his functions under Part 1.
          This paragraph does not affect the generality of subparagraphs (1) to (3).
          (5) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any requirement of an auditor of an NHS foundation trust under any of subparagraphs (1) to (3) is guilty of an offence.
          (6) A person guilty of an offence under subparagraph (5) is liable on summary conviction—

          (a) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, and

          (b) to an additional fine not exceeding £20 for each day on which the offence continues after conviction for the offence.

          (7) Any expenses incurred by an auditor of an NHS foundation trust in connection with proceedings for an offence under subparagraph (6) alleged to have been committed in relation to the audit of the accounts of the trust, so far as not recovered from any other source, are recoverable from the trust.

          Reports
          3 In auditing the accounts of an NHS foundation trust, the auditor must consider—

          (a) whether, in the public interest, he should make a report on any matter coming to his notice in the course of the audit, in order for it to be considered by the trust or brought to the attention of the public, and

          (b) whether the public interest requires any such matter to be made the subject of an immediate report rather than of a report to be made at the conclusion of the audit.

          4 (1) When an auditor of an NHS foundation trust has concluded his audit of the trust's accounts, he must enter on the accounts—

          (a) a certificate that he has completed the audit in accordance with Part 1, and

          (b) his opinion on the accounts.

          (2) But where the auditor makes a report to the trust under paragraph 3 at the conclusion of the audit, he may instead include the certificate and his opinion in that report.
          5 (1) Any report under paragraph 3 must be sent by the auditor to the trust and the regulator—

          (a) at once if it is an immediate report,

          (b) otherwise not later than 14 days after conclusion of the audit.

          (2) The trust must take the report into consideration as soon as practicable after receiving it.

          Referral to regulator
          6 If the auditor of an NHS foundation trust has reason to believe that the trust or a director or officer of the trust—

          (a) is about to make, or has made, a decision which involves or would involve the incurring of expenditure which is unlawful, or

          (b) is about to take, or has taken, a course of action which, if pursued to its conclusion, would be unlawful and likely to cause a loss or deficiency,

          he must refer the matter at once to the regulator.

          Audit of accounts of directors or officers
          7 (1) Where a director or officer of an NHS foundation trust receives money or other property—

          (a) on behalf of the trust, or

          (b) for which he ought to account to the trust,

          the accounts of the director or officer are to be audited by the auditor of the accounts of the trust.
          (2) The accounts of the director or officer are to be made up to 31st March.
          (3) Paragraph 20(4) of Schedule 1 and paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Schedule apply with the necessary modifications to the audit under this paragraph.

          Restriction on disclosure of information
          8 (1) No information relating to an NHS foundation trust or other person and obtained by an auditor (or by a person acting on the auditor's behalf) under Part 1 or in the course of an audit under that Part is to be disclosed except—

          (a) with the consent of the person to whom the information relates,

          (b) for the purposes of any functions of an auditor of an NHS foundation trust,

          (c) for the purposes of the functions of the regulator,

          (d)for the purposes of the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General under Part 1,

          (e)for the purposes of the functions of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection under Part 2,

          (f) for the purposes of any criminal proceedings.

          (2) A person who discloses information in contravention of subparagraph (1) is guilty of an offence.
          (3) A person guilty of an offence under subparagraph (2) is liable—

          (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both),

          (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine (or to both).'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

        chedule 1

          CONSTITUTION OF PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS
          Amendments made: No. 253, in page 99, line 16, at end insert—
          '() The area specified under subparagraph (1)(a) must be an electoral area for the purposes of local government elections in England or an area consisting of two or more such electoral areas.'.
          No. 254, in page 99, line 20, leave out subparagraphs (3) and (4) and insert—
          '(3) The constitution may also provide for the staff constituency to comprise individuals who exercise functions for the purposes of the corporation otherwise than under a contract of employment with the corporation.
          (4) A person may become or continue as a member of the staff constituency only if—

          (a) he is employed by the corporation under a contract of employment which has no fixed term or has a fixed term of at least 12 months, or

          (b) he has been continuously employed by the corporation for at least 12 months or, where subparagraph (3) applies, he has continuously exercised functions for the purposes of the corporation for such a period.

          (5) A person eligible for membership of the staff constituency may not become or continue as a member of the public constituency.
          (6) Chapter 1 of Part 14 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18) applies for the purpose of determining whether an individual has been continuously employed by the corporation, or has continuously exercised functions for the purposes of the corporation, as it applies for the purposes of that Act.'.
          No. 255, in page 99, line 26, leave out 'be' and insert 'become'.
          No. 256, in page 99, line 28, leave out subparagraph (2).
          No. 257, in page 99, line 36, leave out 'be' and insert 'become or continue as'.
          No. 258, in page 100, line 3, leave out subparagraph (2) and insert—
          '(2) Only members of the corporation and persons appointed under the following provisions may become or continue as members of the board.'.
          No. 259, in page 100, line 11, leave out 'postal' and insert 'secret'.
          No. 260, in page 100, line 11, at end insert—
          '6A (1) The following may not become or continue as members of the board of governors—

          (a) a person who has been adjudged bankrupt or whose estate has been sequestrated and (in either case) has not been discharged,

          995

          (b) a person who has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors and has not been discharged in respect of it,

          (c) a person who within the preceding five years has been convicted in the British Islands of any offence if a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not) for a period of not less than three months (without the option of a fine) was imposed on him.

          (2) The constitution may make further provision as to the circumstances in which a person may not become or continue as a member of the board.'.
          No. 354, in page 100, line 16, at end insert—
          '() At least one member of the board is to be appointed by one or more qualifying local authorities.
          A qualifying local authority is a local authority for an area which includes the whole or part of the area specified under paragraph 3(1)(a).'.
          No. 261, in page 100, line 19, at end insert—
          '(5) An organisation specified in the constitution as a partnership organisation may appoint a member of the board.'.
          No. 262, in page 101, line 7, leave out subparagraph (2) and insert—
          '(2) A person may not be appointed as an executive director if he is within paragraph 6A(1).
          (3) A person may be appointed as a non-executive director only if—

          (a) he is a member of the public constituency, or

          (b) where any of the corporation's hospitals includes a medical or dental school provided by a university, he exercises functions for the purposes of that university,

          and he is not within paragraph 6A(1).'.
          No. 263, in page 101, line 9, at end insert 'chairman and the other'.
          No. 242, in page 101, line 28, at end insert—
          '(d) a register of interests of the directors.'.
          No. 243, in page 101, line 30, at end insert—
          '17A The constitution is to make provision for dealing with conflicts of interest of the directors.'.
          No. 244, in page 101, line 36, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
          '(c) the registers mentioned in paragraph 17,'.
          No. 234, in page 103, line 7, leave out 'any' and insert—

          (a) information on any steps taken by the corporation to secure that (taken as a whole) the actual membership of its public constituency is representative of those eligible for such membership,

          (b) any other'.…[Mr. Hutton.]

        Schedule 2

          INDEPENDENT REGULATOR OF NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTS
          Amendments made: No. 264, in page 104, line 23, leave out from 'is' to first 'a' in line 24.
          No. 265, in page 104, line 29, leave out
          'as a member of staff'
          and insert
          'in the employment by reference to which he was a participant'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

        Schedule 4

          AMENDMENTS RELATING TO NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTS
          Amendments made: No. 266, in page 110, line 29, after 'or', insert 'otherwise'.
          No. 358, in page 114, line 8, at end insert—
          '(c) in paragraph 32, at the end there is inserted "or section (Section (Mergers): supplementary) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003".'.
          No. 267, in page 116, line 28, at end insert—
          'The Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c.24)
          118A The Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is amended as follows.
          118B In Schedule 4 (extension of existing disclosure powers), at the end of Part 1 there is inserted—
          "53A Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule (Audit of accounts of NHS foundation trusts) to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003.".'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
          Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that that extraordinary list of amendments, which was not read out by Mr. Deputy Speaker for understandable reasons, will be printed in Hansard, so that people know how many amendments were tabled for this short period?
          More important, Madam Deputy Speaker, would you ask Mr. Speaker whether he will refer the whole question of programming to the Procedure Committee so that, in future, the time taken for votes is not counted in the programme motion? As it is, we have exactly half an hour left to debate what we were given an hour and a half to debate. I hope that you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption)—and I hope that those who are protesting would agree that this adds to the insult to Parliament.
          Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
          Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. In response to the first part of the point of order, I can assure the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that all those amendments and new clauses will be included in Hansard tomorrow.
          On the second point, as the present occupant of the Chair, I am very mindful both that time is proceeding and of the time that is left for the debate. I shall certainly make sure that Mr. Speaker is aware of that. The Procedure Committee or the Modernisation Committee may already be considering the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

        New Clause 30

          COMPLAINTS ABOUT HEALTH CARE
          '(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the handling and consideration of complaints made under the regulations about—

          (a) the exercise of any of the functions of an English NHS body or a cross-border SHA;

          (b) the provision of health care by or for such a body;

          997

          (c) the provision of services by such a body or any other person in pursuance of arrangements made by the body under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c.8) in relation to the exercise of the health-related functions of a local authority.

          (2) The Assembly may by regulations make provision about the handling and consideration of complaints made under the regulations about—

          (a) the exercise of any of the functions of a Welsh NHS body;

          (b) the provision of health care by or for a Welsh NHS body;

          (c) the provision of services by a Welsh NHS body or any other person in pursuance of arrangements made by the body under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c.8) in relation to the exercise of the health-related functions of a local authority.

          (3) Regulations under this section may provide for a complaint to be considered by one or more of the following—

          (a) an NHS body;

          (b) the CHAT;

          (c) an independent lay person;

          (d) an independent panel established under the regulations;

          (e) any other person or body.

          (4) Regulations under this section may make provision for a complaint or any matter raised by a complaint—

          (a) to be referred to a Health Service Commissioner for him to consider whether to investigate the complaint or matter under the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (c.46) (and to be treated by him as a complaint duly referred to him under section 10 of that Act);

          (b) to be referred to any other person or body for him or it to consider whether to take any action otherwise than under the regulations.'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
          Government new clause 31—Complaints about social services.
          Government new clause 32—Complaints regulations: supplementary.
          Government new clause 33—Representations relating to special guardianship support services.
          Government amendment No. 301.
          Amendment No. 40, in clause 107, page 44, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
          '(1) Complaints under this Act may be made by an individual or a body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
          (1A) A complaint may be submitted in respect of—

          (a) the exercise by an NHS body of any of its functions,

          (b) the provision by any person of health care for which the body is responsible.

          (c) the provision of services by the body or any other person in pursuance of arrangements made by the body under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 in relation to the exercise of the health-related functions of a local authority.

          (1B) A complaint may be initiated by—

          (a) the person aggrieved,

          (b) his personal representative,

          (c) a member of his family,

          (d) an independent advocate, or

          (e) some body or individual suitable to represent him.'.

          Amendment No. 41, in page 44, line 7, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
          Amendment No. 42, in page 44, line 17, leave out 'may in particular make' and insert 'shall make further'.
          Amendment No. 43, in page 44, line 17, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
          Amendment No. 44, in page 44, line 18, leave out paragraph (a).
          Amendment No. 45. in page 44, line 20, at end insert
          ',including timescales for completion of each stage'.
          Amendment No. 46, in page 44, line 26, at end insert—
          '(h) for a specific complaint and redress procedure for challenging the refusal of NHS-funded continuing care'.
          Amendment No. 47, in page 44, line 27, leave out subsection (3).
          Amendment No. 48, in page 44, line 29, leave out
          'and within the prescribed period'.
          Amendment No. 49, in page 44, line 37, leave out paragraph (d).
          Amendment No. 50, in page 44, line 37, at end insert—
          '(e) primary care practices providing NHS services under contract, and other private providers treating patients under contract with an NHS body'.
          Amendment No. 51, in page 44, line 37, at end insert—
          '(4A) The provision that may be made under subsection (2)(f) includes the provision for a report about a complaint to recommend the making of an ex-gratia payment in respect of injuries sustained, loss of earnings or expenses incurred as a consequence of the incident or incidents complained about.'.
          Amendment No. 52, in page 45, line 4, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
          Amendment No. 53, in page 45, line 6, at end insert—
          '(6A) Provision under subsection (2)(g) will include provision for a complaint to be referred to either the CHAI or the Health Service Commissioner if the complaints procedure has not been completed at the relevant stage within a reasonable timeframe.'.
          Amendment No. 54, in page 45, line 16, at end insert—
          '(8A) Regulations under this section shall include provisions for the right to an oral hearing with the investigating officers of the relevant body where appropriate.'.
          Amendment No. 26, in page 45, line 19, at end insert—
          '(10) No regulations may be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
          Government amendments Nos. 302 and 303.

          999
          Amendment No. 55, in clause 109, page 46, line 43, at end insert—
          '() for circumstances in which a complaint may be considered, including—

          (i) the breach of any duty under Part IV of the Care Standards Act 2000, and

          (ii) the breach of any duty to provide services under Part III of the Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19).'.

          Amendment No. 27, in page 47, line 41, at end insert—
          '(10) No regulations may be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
          Government amendments Nos. 304 to 312 and 316 to 318.
          Amendment No. 28, in clause 181, page 95, line 35, after 'from', insert
          'regulations under section 107 or 109 or'.
          Government amendments Nos. 313 to 315 and 319.
          Dr. Ladyman: We now come to the part of the Bill that everyone is really interested in. I wish to speak to Government new clauses 30, 31 and 32, and I will comment on the other new clauses and amendments in this group. I shall try to be as brief as possible so that other hon. Members can speak.
          Government new clauses 30 to 32 will replace clauses 107 to 110 on health and social services complaints in England and Wales, so removing a large amount of repetition of common provisions by combining those clauses into a supplementary clause. I apologise to the House for tabling replacement clauses on Report, but I hope that hon. Members will agree that that approach is preferable to tabling a large number of drafting amendments. I took that decision because I thought it preferable to introduce the new clauses on Report, rather than waiting for the Bill to reach the Lords. Time constraints did not allow a debate on the complaints clauses in Committee, so time has not been wasted debating those clauses that we now propose to replace.
          Sir Patrick Cormack rose
          Dr. Ladyman: New clause 30 will allow regulations to be made setting out the procedure to be followed when considering complaints received by an NHS body in England and Wales about the exercise of its functions.
          Hon. Members: Give way.
          Dr. Ladyman: I shall give way, but then I want to make progress.
          Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but that is the very point that I am making. Does he truly and sincerely think that the
          1000
          House now has adequate time to debate what was not debated in Committee? Can he give a straight answer to that question?
          Dr. Ladyman: The House has voted on the programme motion; the House clearly believes that it has adequate time.
          Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?
          Dr. Ladyman: Yes, but this is the last time.
          Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend says that he took that decision. May I ask whether he personally took the decision?
          Dr. Ladyman: Of course not; I made a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Health and he made the decision.
          New clause 31 will allow regulations to be made setting out the procedure to be followed when considering complaints received by a local authority in England or Wales about the discharge of its social services functions.
          New clause 30(1) and (2), and new clause 31(1) and (3) will allow regulations to be made setting out the procedure for handling and considering complaints where a complaint is made about the exercise of an NHS body's functions or health care provided by or for such a body, or where a complaint is made to a local authority in England or Wales respectively. The regulations made under those clauses can specify in what circumstances a complaint will trigger the formal complaints procedures, as prescribed in the regulations.
          NHS bodies or local authorities may often be able to address concerns expressed or issues raised by service users, or their relatives or carers, without the formal complaints procedures being used. We want people to have access to the formal procedures when they want them, but we do not want to force people to undertake the whole process if they prefer a less formal approach.
          There are also a number of drafting amendments to provide for consistency and clarity of wording between the various complaints clauses. The new clauses make it clear that, if the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, the Commission for Social Care Inspection or, in Wales, the independent panel, refer a complaint to the health service commissioner or local government ombudsman, the commissioner or ombudsman will have discretion about the action that they might take in response and are not obliged to investigate every case. A further amendment aims to clarify the intention of clause 109(8) and reconcile it with the language used in the Children Act 1989 in respect of representations and complaints.
          The purpose of new clause 32 is to combine all common provisions that exist for the handling and consideration of health care and social services complaints for both England and Wales into one new clause. It has been drafted to clarify the policy intentions and any procedural differences between health care and social services in both England and Wales. Subsection (2) combines common provisions in clauses 107 to 110, and specifies the persons who may make a complaint,

          1001
          the complaints which may or may not be made, complaints which need not be considered, the period within which complaints must be made and the procedures for making and considering a complaint. It also allows for regulations to be made about which complaints may be heard, about the making of a report about the complaint and the action to be taken once a complaint is made.
          Subsection (3) is intended to provide for the body considering a complaint to be able to recover its costs from the body complained about if it wishes, depending on precisely how it decides to execute the functions being bestowed on it to investigate and resolve complaints. The new wording of subsection (3) is intended to clarify the position on who makes the payment and to whom the payment is made. It also replaces the word "fee", which implies a service rendered, with "payment", which more accurately reflects the position that the payment is to cover costs incurred in considering the complaint.
          The new clause also contains a consequential amendment to ensure consistency of wording in the Bill in relation to disclosure of information to third parties. As currently drafted, clauses 107(9), 108(9), 109(9) and 110(10) may be interpreted as applying to unspecified obligations of confidence, which would mean that they would override obligations arising under statute as well as common law. The clause does not override the specific protections from disclosure for individuals set out in the Data Protection Act 1998: information relating to individuals must not be disclosed without the consent of that individual unless it is necessary to do so for any of the reasons specified in the Act. Personal data will still need to be processed lawfully in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and it is not the intention that information relating to individuals will be disclosed without their consent unless the Data Protection Act provides that that may be done.
          Subsection (5) allows for regulations to provide for cross-cutting complaints, not all of which could be considered under one set of regulations. The intention is that when a complaint would fall to be considered under two different schemes, the regulations enable the complaint to be considered in parallel. A single complaint of this kind would trigger action under both sets of regulations, each working in parallel, so that for the complainant, it appears as one system.
          New clause 33 tidies up the legislation by revoking section 14G of the Children Act 1989 and inserting a new subsection into section 26 of that Act, which brings complaints about such special guardianship support services functions as may be specified in regulations within the ambit of the complaints procedure established under section 26. Section 14G was inserted into the Children Act 1989 by section 115 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The policy intention was always that complaints about special guardianship support services in relation to children should be considered under the Children Act complaints procedure.
          The Bill preserves a separate procedure for the consideration of complaints that are capable of being considered under section 24D or section 26 of the Children Act, and we therefore need to make it possible
          1002
          for some complaints about special guardianship support services to be considered under this procedure. We also want such complaints to come within the provisions for further consideration by the Commission for Social Care Inspection under clause 111. The most effective way of achieving that is to revoke section 14G of the Children Act, and to extend the coverage of section 26 to include those complaints, which is what the new clause does.
          Work is still to be done on defining the precise nature of special guardianship support services. During the passage of the Adoption and Children Bill, the Government promised that we would consult stakeholders extensively on the development of support services for special guardianship. The definitive range of support services will be finalised only after a public consultation. We will then wish to consider which complaints about which services will be considered under the Children Act procedure because we envisage that only complaints relating to the provision of services that are directly for the benefit of a child should be considered under that procedure. That explains why we need to be able to specify the functions that will be considered under the Children Act procedure in regulations. That is consistent with the system for complaints from people provided by the adoption service. There should be parity for special guardianship.
          5.15 pm
          Amendments Nos. 301 to 304 are necessary because they remove clauses 107 to 110—the current complaint clauses—so that they may be replaced by new clauses 30 to 32.
          I shall briefly touch on the other amendments in the group and explain why the House would be well advised to resist them. Clause 107(1) sets out in general terms what a complaint may be about. However, amendment No. 40 would broaden that provision by detailing who may make a complaint. The amendment is unnecessary and would put too great a level of detail in the Bill.
          Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 and 52 should also be resisted. I understand the effect that they would have but they are unnecessary. I assure the House that we have every intention of using the regulation-making power provided by clause 107 and the other clauses relating to complaints procedures.
          Amendments Nos. 44 and 47 should be resisted. They would remove the ability to make regulations to set parameters for the complaints procedure in terms of what, who, how and when, which is not sensible. It is right that the procedure has always allowed patients, or a person acting on their behalf, the right to complain if they are not happy with the service or treatment received from the NHS. Of course, other people who use or are in NHS facilities, such as visitors and contractors, should be able to raise concerns, but not necessarily under the NHS complaints procedure.
          Amendment No. 45 is unnecessary because the existing wording of the Bill is sufficient to provide for the time scales and deadlines that it would create. Amendment No. 46 should be resisted because the powers in the Bill and Government new clauses 30 and 32 are sufficient to ensure that the complaints procedure

          1003
          will apply to all manner of services and treatment provided, subject to any exceptions thought necessary. The amendment would add too much detail to the Bill.
          I understand the motives behind amendment No. 48. However, it is important for there to be a time limit so that people are encouraged to make complaints as quickly as possible while events are fresh in the memories of those involved. I appreciate that there might be extenuating circumstances if people suffer trauma or distress, so it is right and proper that there should be discretion to waive the time limit, if appropriate. Sensitivity must be used and I promise that we will consider the matter carefully when drawing up the regulations.
          Hon. Members should resist amendment No. 49. I do not understand the point of accepting an amendment that would restrict the range of options available for the successful resolution of a complaint. Amendment No. 50 should be resisted and although I understand the thinking behind it, the Bill adequately covers the proposed provision.
          Amendment No. 51 is unnecessary. NHS bodies are already allowed to make ex-gratia payments if a claimant has suffered a financial loss, such as expenses incurred as a result of a complaint. NHS organisations will continue to have such flexibility after we have made regulations under the Bill. Again, I understand the thinking behind amendment No. 53, but it would add too much detail to the Bill.
          The provisions suggested by amendment No. 54 are already covered by the Bill. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are undesirable because they would provide that regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution. Opposition amendment No. 28 deals with things that are usually addressed under the negative procedure. Amendment No. 55 should be resisted because clause 111 provides for an effective, speedy and fair process. The clause, and other provisions, also cover the measures proposed in the amendment. Finally, I recommend amendments Nos. 305 to 319. They are technical, clean up the wording and are consequential on other amendments.
          Mr. Burns: I assure the House that I shall not speak for long. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) rightly explained, the vagaries of the Government's programme motion mean that we have only 45 minutes to discuss a key part of the Bill, bearing it in mind that we were unable to debate 50 clauses in Committee because of the programme motion Upstairs. In addition, the Government have tabled four new clauses and 18 amendments, which have eaten into that time.
          I shall concentrate on amendments Nos. 26 to 28. It is clear from the Government new clauses that they will once again rely on regulations to flesh out the fine detail of how the Bill will operate in practice. That has happened with many of their measures and reflects their approach to the crucial subject of social care. We all know that negative procedures are about as relevant as an ex-MP. It is difficult to find opportunities to hold the Government to account and debate such measures in detail. We can pray against them, but that is not the same as insisting on affirmative resolution, which triggers an automatic debate before measures become law.
          1004
          Imitation is apparently the greatest form of flattery. My amendments try to imitate what the Labour Opposition did for 18 years when they sought to hold the Government of the day to greater account by insisting on secondary legislation that was subject to affirmative resolution. On reflection, we were probably wrong to use the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. However, having researched primary health legislation during the Thatcher-Major years, it is clear that we were prepared to make far more of the secondary legislation in our primary legislation subject to affirmative resolution rather than to negative resolution.
          The Minister is new, so my speech will be novel to him. It would not be novel to the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and I must apologise to my hon. Friends who heard it numerous times when we discussed three primary health Bills in Committee. I think that it gains in stature with the telling, and I am pleased that the Minister is hearing it for the first time. He kindly and uniquely for a Minister in this Government assured us in a Standing Committee last week that he was the sort of thinking man—again, unusual for this Government—who was prepared to consider the Opposition's valid points. To the utter horror of his Whip, he said that if the Opposition had a good point, he would be prepared to change the legislation.
          I challenge the new Minister—a so-called thinking Minister, if that is not a contradiction in terms for this Government—to give an instant response to my concerns. I know that that is unlikely because he responded to my amendments before I had a chance to explain what they would do. However, there is time in another place for him to show how reflective—the word he used last week—and intelligent he is. He should realise that it is right that we hold the Government more to account and save them from themselves if they make mistakes in secondary legislation. He can table amendments in another place to include affirmative resolution. Much of the detail is important because it fleshes out the Bill.
          Mr. Paul Burstow: I shall speak briefly to the principles behind the amendments, without elaborating on the detail, as the Minister kindly outlined the purpose of our amendments for us. I entirely subscribe to the view expressed by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) about the need for the affirmative procedure in respect of this important subject, not least because the House will not have the opportunity adequately to scrutinise this part of the Bill. We did not debate it at all in Committee and we have a minuscule amount of time in which to try to do it justice today, yet there is no doubt that independent complaints procedures that are transparent and easily accessible, and which ensure a good flow of communication between the body that is the subject of the complaint and the complainant, are an important part of improving patients' experience and the quality of care that they receive.
          I shall raise a couple of points with the Minister. Can he say whether, in the regulations that the Government plan to introduce, they will stipulate training requirements for NHS and social services staff to make them aware of the complaints procedures that they have

          1005
          to operate, and to enable them to provide the informality that he mentioned, before a more formal complaints process begins?
          Amendments No. 41 to 43 deal with whether there should be a discretionary power to make regulations, as implied by the use of the word "may", or an explicit mandatory duty for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to establish clear complaints procedures. The Liberal Democrat view is that that should not be at the discretion of Secretaries of State, but a requirement. There should be a complaints procedure. That should not need the assurance of a Minister that powers will be exercised. It should be for the House to write into the Bill that we expect Ministers to exercise those powers, consult and introduce regulations.
          The Minister says that our amendments to deal with time scales are a level of detail too far. That argument is regularly deployed by Ministers to rebut any amendments to regulation-making powers, but can he explain to me and perhaps to those out side, why it is appropriate to impose a time limit on complainants for making a complaint, but reasonable for the Government not to set time scales for each stage of the complaints process? Amendments Nos. 45 and 53 try to concentrate the minds of NHS bodies and social services departments to ensure that they do not just hit their target by responding by letter within 20 days and say that they have dealt with the complaint, but go about dealing with it meaningfully.
          That brings me to a couple of questions that I raised in Committee but which, because of the vagaries of the process, never received a reply from the Minister with responsibility for these matters at the time. Where a complaint has been made—for example, where a poor assessment is made in an acute trust, which leads to an inappropriate discharge to intermediate care provided by a primary care trust, which itself fails to realise that the discharge is inappropriate and fails to readmit the person to the acute trust—is it for the complainant to navigate their way round the system, complain to the PCT and the acute trust, and work out where the complaint should be directed? Should it not be for the bodies that are the subject of the complaint to work together co-operatively so that they provide a seamless approach to dealing with complaints? Should there not be regulations to that effect?
          The same applies in respect of health and social care. Increasingly, where services are integrated and provided seamlessly, it becomes less clear whether complaints should be addressed to social services or health departments. The regulations need to clarify that. I hope the Minister can give us some reassurance on those matters. We shall return to some of the amendments at later stages of the Bill. Hopefully, in the other place, there will be sufficient time to ensure that we get adequate responses to our concerns.
          5.30 pm
          Sir Patrick Cormack: There may indeed be some time in the other place, but that is no answer to those of us who are concerned about this place. While I welcome the Minister to his portfolio—he comes to it with a reputation as a thoughtful and hard-working man and I
          1006
          wish him every success—he must be ashamed of himself for what he had to do today. He had to gabble through, reading every last word, not only on the details of what the Government are proposing, but prepared replies on all the amendments that had not yet been spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) or the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). That is not only an insult to Parliament, but an insult through Parliament to every constituent who sent us here.
          I do not blame the Minister individually. He is working to orders, as he made plain in replying to an intervention. He cannot yet make the decisions, but no self-respecting parliamentarian, whatever his or her views and whatever party he or she belongs to, could be anything but ashamed that this is how Parliament deals with a Bill of extreme importance.
          I do not make these remarks merely as somebody who is opposing the Government. Indeed, I did not oppose them in the first Division. Neither do I speak having never opposed my own Government. Although the guillotine was generous in comparison with today's, I remember throwing down my papers and refusing to vote on Third Reading of the NHS reform Bill introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), as I felt that Parliament was being badly treated. However, if Parliament was being badly treated then, it is being totally abused now, and Ministers should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
          When we look at the selection list, we see that there are four new clauses and about 40 amendments relating to the crucial subject of complaints procedures, which affect so many of our constituents. There are issues such as guardianship, but the Minister gabbled through that bit at such a rate of knots that, quite honestly, I could not understand what he was saying and I shall have to read it in Hansard tomorrow. Of course, I shall do so, but that is not good enough. When we have dealt with the current group of amendments, and although we have to finish at 5.50 pm, we must still deal with standards for health and social care, provision of health and social care in cross-border areas and registration and regulation of social care services and other services for children—and this Government are supposed to be child-friendly.
          Madam Deputy Speaker, this is really not good enough. I was grateful to you for the thoughtful and considerate manner in which you replied to my point of order, but unless the voting time can be taken out of such programme motions, we may as well all pack up and go home, and show people out there how little care, concern, consideration and deliberation we give to issues that affect their daily lives.
          I sit down in total disgust at the way in which this matter has been handled.
          Dr. Ladyman: I shall be very brief in answering the points that have been raised. I hear what the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) is saying and I shall certainly reflect on his thoughts and his admonition to me.
          The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) pointed out that a prayer against could be used to secure the negative procedure, which puts in the hands of the

          1007
          House the decision on whether these matters are debated. He also noted my assurance that I would reflect on points made by the Opposition and be prepared to change the legislation if they made a good point. He will recollect that I said that I thought it highly unlikely that they would come up with any such points that we had not thought of. None the less, I confirm that I shall reflect on everything that the Opposition say to me.
          I can assure the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) that we will consider the possibility of training in the regulations. We are determined that the two organisations will review complaints and carry out reviews in a seamless fashion. Indeed, the legislation requires them to work closely together, so I hope that people who complain will get such an assurance. We will also consider time limits for each stage of the procedure during consultation on the regulations.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 31

          COMPLAINTS ABOUT SOCIAL SERVICES
          '(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the handling and consideration of complaints made under the regulations about—

          (a) the discharge by a local authority in England of any of its social services functions;

          (b) the provision of services by another person pursuant to arrangements made by such an authority in the discharge of those functions;

          (c) the provision of services by such an authority or any other person in pursuance of arrangements made by the authority under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c.8) in relation to the functions of an NHS body (within the meaning of that section).

          (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide for a complaint to be considered by one or more of the following—

          (a) the local authority in respect of whose functions the complaint is made;

          (b) the CSCI;

          (c) an independent panel established under the regulations;

          (d) any other person or body.

          (3) The Assembly may by regulations make provision about the handling and consideration of complaints made under the regulations about—

          (a) the discharge by a local authority in Wales of any of its social services functions;

          (b) the provision of services by another person pursuant to arrangements made by such an authority in the discharge of those functions;

          (c) the provision of services by such an authority or any other person in pursuance of arrangements made by the authority under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c.8) in relation to the functions of an NHS body (within the meaning of that section).

          (4) Regulations under subsection (3) may provide for a complaint to be considered by one or more of the following—

          (a) the local authority in respect of whose functions the complaint is made;

          (b) an independent panel established under the regulations;

          (c) any other person or body.

          (5) Regulations under this section may provide for a complaint or any matter raised by a complaint—

          (a)in the case of regulations under subsection (1), to be referred to the Commission for Local Administration in England for it to consider whether to investigate the complaint or matter under Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974) (and to be treated as if it had been duly made under section 26 of that Act);

          (b) in the case of regulations under subsection (3), to be referred to the Commission for Local Administration in Wales for it to consider whether to investigate the complaint or matter under Part 3 of that Act (and to be treated as if it had been duly made under section 26 of that Act);

          (c) to be referred to any other person or body for him or it to consider whether to take any action otherwise than under the regulations.

          (6) Regulations under this section may not make provision about complaints capable of being considered as representations under section 24D or section 26 of the Children Act 1989 (c.41).'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 32

          COMPLAINTS REGULATIONS: SUPPLEMENTARY
          '(1) Regulations under subsection (1) or (2) of section (Complaints about health care) or under subsection (1) or (3) of section (Complaints about social services) ("the regulations") may, without prejudice to the generality of the subsection under which they are made, make the following provision.
          (2) The regulations may make provision about—

          (a) the persons who may make a complaint;

          (b) the complaints which may, or may not, be made under the regulations;

          (c) complaints which need not be considered;

          (d) the period within which complaints must be made;

          (e) the procedure to be followed in making and considering a complaint;

          (f) matters which are excluded from consideration;

          (g) the making of a report or recommendations about a complaint;

          (h) the action to be taken as a result of the complaint.

          (3) The regulations may require—

          (a) the making of a payment, in relation to the consideration of a complaint under the regulations, by any person or body in respect of whom the complaint is made;

          (b) any such payment to be—

          (i) made to such person or body as may be specified in the regulations; and

          (ii) of such amount as may be specified in, or calculated or determined under, the regulations;

          (c) an independent panel to review the amount chargeable under paragraph (a) in any particular case and, if the panel thinks fit, to substitute a lesser amount.

          (4) The regulations may also—

          (a) provide for different parts or aspects of a complaint to be treated differently;

          (b) require the production of information or documents in order to enable a complaint to be properly considered;

          (c) authorise the disclosure of information or documents relevant to a complaint to a person or body—

          (i) who is considering a complaint under the regulations; or

          (ii) to whom a complaint has been referred;

          1009
          and any such disclosure may be authorised notwithstanding any rule of common law that would otherwise prohibit or restrict the disclosure.

          (5) The regulations may make provision about complaints which raise both matters falling to be considered under the regulations and matters falling to be considered under other statutory complaints procedures, including in particular provision for—

          (a) enabling such a complaint to be made under the regulations; and

          (b) securing that matters falling to be considered under other statutory complaints procedures are treated as if they had been raised in a complaint made under the appropriate procedures;

          and in this subsection "statutory complaints procedures" means procedures established by or under any enactment.'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 33

          REPRESENTATIONS RELATING TO SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP SUPPORT SERVICES
          '(1) In section 26 of the Children Act 1989 (c.41) (representations), after subsection (3B) insert—
          "(3C) The duty under subsection (3) extends to any representations (including complaints) which are made to the authority by—

          (a) a child with respect to whom a special guardianship order is in force,

          (b) a special guardian or a parent of such a child,

          (c) any other person the authority consider has a sufficient interest in the welfare of such a child to warrant his representations being considered by them, or

          (d) any person who has applied for an assessment under section 14F(3) or (4),

          about the discharge by the authority of such functions under section 14F as may be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations."
          (2) Section 14G of that Act (special guardianship support services: representations) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause38

          JOINT ANNUAL REVIEWS
          '(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may provide that, where services of a description specified in the regulations are provided under arrangements under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c.8), the CHAI and the CSCI shall jointly—

          (a) review the provision by the parties to the arrangements of such services as may be specified in the regulations;

          (b) award a performance rating in respect of those services.

          (2) The regulations may provide that the CHAI and the CSCI are to exercise their functions under this section—

          (a) at such times as may be specified in the regulations;

          (b) by reference to criteria determined by the CHAI and the CSCI and approved by the Secretary of State.

          (3) The regulations may require the CHAI and the CSCI to publish a report after conducting a review under this section.'—[Dr. Ladyman.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Dr. Ladyman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
          New clause 2—Duty of the CHAI to prepare standards guidance relating to health care—

          '(1) It shall be the duty of the CHAI to prepare guidance to assist in securing the raising of standards in health care.

          (2) In preparing guidance for the purposes of subsection (1), the CHAI shall have regard to performance indicators relating to—

          (a) the availability of, and access to, health care;

          (b) the quality and effectiveness of the health care provided to patients; and

          (c) the financial and other management of the delivery of the health care to patients.

          (3) The CHAI must—

          (a) lay a copy of any guidance prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section before Parliament, and

          (b) once they have done so, send a copy of it to the Secretary of State.'.

          New clause 3—Duty of the CSCI to prepare standards guidance relating to social care—

          '(1) It shall be the duty of the CSCI to prepare guidance to assist in securing the raising of standards in social care.

          (2) In preparing guidance for the purposes of subsection (1), the CSCI shall have regard to performance indicators relating to—

          (a) the availability of, and access to, social care services;

          (b) the quality and effectiveness of the social care services provided to the public; and

          (c) the management of the delivery of the social care services.

          (3) The CSCI must—

          (a) lay a copy of any guidance prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section before Parliament, and

          (b) once they have done so, send a copy of it to the Secretary of State.'.

          New clause 4—Duty of the CHAI to prepare standards guidance relating to health care in Wales—

          '(1) It shall be the duty of the CHAI to prepare guidance to assist in securing the raising of standards in health care in Wales.

          (2) In preparing guidance for the purposes of subsection (1), the CHAI shall have regard to performance indicators relating to—

          (a) the availability of, and access to, health care;

          (b) the quality and effectiveness of the health care provided to patients; and

          (c) the financial and other management of the delivery of the health care to patients.

          (3) The CHAI must—

          (a) lay a copy of any guidance prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section before Parliament, and

          (b) once they have done so, send a copy of it to the Secretary of State and the Assembly.'.

          New clause 5—Duty of the CSCI to prepare standards guidance relating to social care in Wales—

          '(1) It shall be the duty of the CSCI to prepare guidance to assist in securing the raising of standards in social care in Wales.

          (2) In preparing guidance for the purposes of subsection (1), the CSCI shall have regard to performance indicators relating to—

          (a) the availability of, and access to, social care services;

          (b) the quality and effectiveness of the social care services provided to the public; and

          1011

          (c) the management of the delivery of the social care services.

          (3) The CSCI must—

          (a) lay a copy of any guidance prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section before Parliament, and

          (b) once they have done so, send a copy of it to the Secretary of State and the Assembly.'.

          Amendment No. 38, in clause 41, page 14, line 23, at end insert—
          '(lA) The Secretary of State must publish all such statements and must publish a statement of the evidence-base upon which these standards are set'.'.
          Amendment No. 39, in page 14, line 24, leave out from 'may' to end of line 25 and insert
          'amend the standards whenever he considers it appropriate.
          (2A) The Secretary of State must publish amended statements, and must publish a statement of the evidence-base of the statements.'.
          Government amendment No. 359.
          Amendment No. 1, in clause 45, page 15,1ine 34, leave out from 'must' to end of line and insert
          'undertake an assessment of the performance of each such body in relation to the guidance issued under section [duty of the CHAI to prepare standards guidance relating to health care]'.
          Government amendments Nos. 360 to 370 and 372 to 377.
          Amendment No. 226, in clause 70, page 28, line 20, at end insert
          'of vulnerable adults and of people with disability'.
          Government amendments Nos. 379 and 380.
          Amendment No. 2, in clause 73, page 29, line 14, leave out from 'must' to end of line and insert
          'undertake an assessment of the performance of that authority in relation to the guidance issued under section [duty of the CSCI to prepare standards guidance relating to social care]'.
          Government amendments Nos. 381 and 382.
          Amendment No. 3, in clause 75, page 30, line 24, leave out from 'CSCI' to 'a' and insert
          'concludes as a result of an assessment that there is significant cause for concern about the effectiveness of the performance of.
          Government amendment No. 383.
          Amendment No. 23, in clause 88, page 35, line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
          '(b) undertake an assessment of the performance of each such body in relation to the guidance issued under section [duty of the CHAI to prepare standards guidance relating to health care in Wales]'.
          Government amendments Nos. 384 to 386.
          Amendment No. 56, in clause 114, page 51, line 5 at end insert—
          '(5) Regulations may make further provision—

          (a) for prescribed functions of the CSCI to be exercised by CHAI on behalf of the CSCI;

          (b) for prescribed functions of the CHAI, so far as exercisable in relation to England, to be exercised by the CSCI on behalf of the CHAI.'.

          Government amendments Nos. 387 to 396.
          Amendment No. 57, in schedule 5, page 117, line 36, at end insert—
          '(4) The CHAI must consult and have regard to the advice of the Children's Rights Director under Schedule 6(5)(2) in discharging its functions under section 43(2)(d).'.
          1012
          Amendment No. 58, in page 119, line 14, at end insert
          'and is to be responsible to it for the general exercise of its functions'.
          Amendment No. 59, in page 122, line 12, at end insert
          'and is to be responsible to it for the general exercise of its functions'.
          Dr. Ladyman: New clause 38 allows CHAI and CSCI to conduct jointly a review of services of a prescribed description provided under section 31 of the Health Act 1999, including reviews of care trusts. The aim of the new clause is to seek maximum flexibility to enable CHAI and CSCI to carry out, where appropriate, a joint review of services provided to the NHS and local authorities in partnership. We recognise and welcome the fact that the number and type of services provided under section 31 partnerships are constantly growing. We wish to allow for the possibility that in future it might be appropriate for CHAI and CSCI to carry out a joint review of certain services provided under a partnership and to award a performance rating in respect of those joint services.
          Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could we have English spoken in this Chamber, not these extraordinary mnemonics and so on? Can the Minister explain what he is saying?
          Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps Dr. Ladyman can respond to that point of order.
          Dr. Ladyman: I certainly can. The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection are often referred to as CHAI and CSCI for the sake of speed.
          We wish to allow for the growth of organisations where those two services will have joint responsibilities. We want them to have the flexibility to be able to work together. For example, we may choose to provide in regulations that all adult mental health services provided under a section 31 partnership should be subject to a joint performance review under the clause. The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection would be responsible for drawing up criteria under that section, which might include aspects such as how joined up and seamless was the provision of services under the partnership. The services provided under the partnership would still receive separate performance ratings for their health and social care elements, but we felt that it would be useful to have a separate rating to be able to judge the added value that the partnership had given to the service provision. We will consult all relevant stakeholders closely before drawing up any regulations under the provision and prescribing the services that will be subject to a joint review. I hope that that goes some way towards tackling the anxieties that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) expressed earlier about our determination that both organisations should work closely together.
          Government amendment No. 359 has been tabled in response to a commitment that the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) made in

          1013
          Committee. That shows the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who has unfortunately left his place, that my hon. Friend listened in Committee and was prepared to respond to good points.
          The amendment makes it clear that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will be concerned with all the factors in clause 43(2) when it exercises any of its functions that relate to NHS health care, not only the functions to which that provision currently refers.
          The list of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection's functions in clause 43(2) will be extended to include giving advice and information under clauses 49 to 50 to the appropriate authority—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Assembly or the regulator—reviewing data obtained by others in relation to providing health care and any conclusions drawn from such analysis under clause 51; and promoting the effective co-ordination of reviews or assessments that other bodies undertake under clause 52.
          The amendment will therefore ensure that, in discharging those functions, as well as the functions under clauses 44 to 48, the commission will pay particular attention to availability and access; quality and effectiveness; and the economy and efficiency of providing health care. In discharging those functions, the commission, as specified in clause 43(2)(d) and (e), will also concern itself with the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children and the effectiveness of NHS bodies or persons who provide—or are to provide—health care.
          We gave assurances in Committee that we would consider further the application of the clause and I therefore hope that Opposition Members will support amendment No. 359.
          Government amendments Nos. 360 and 361 are among the cluster of amendments that we are considering. Amendment No. 360 amends clause 46 to ensure that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection can undertake a review of the overall provision of health care by and for NHS bodies in England and Wales. We are taking the opportunity to clarify the function because the clause as currently drafted technically enables the commission to review only health care of a specific description. Without the amendment, the commission might carry out a review of cancer services in England and Wales but not of NHS care more generally.
          Amendment No. 360 aligns clause 46 with clause 47 when amended by amendment No. 363 expressly to enable the commission to review the overall provision of health care by or for English NHS bodies and cross-border strategic health authorities.
          Amendment No. 361 would ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could request the commission to undertake such a review, should he consider one necessary. That will enable my right hon. Friend to ensure that the commission undertakes such necessary work so that issues of interest to the public or Parliament will receive the required attention from the inspectorate.
          1014
          I shall not speak in detail about the other Government amendments, but, if I get the opportunity to do so, I shall happily respond to any points later in the debate.
          Chris Grayling: In the few moments available, I want to concentrate on new clause 2 and amendment No. 1. Before I do that, I emphasise that it is a shame that the Government did not see fit to include in new clause 38, which deals with joint annual reviews, provision for joint reviews between England and Wales to avoid the huge duplication that the measure will cause across borders.
          New clause 2 gives CHAI the right to participate in the process of setting standards. Under the Bill, it is the duty of the Secretary of State alone to prepare standards for health care. Conservative Members believe that that is unacceptable. That is doubly true when the Bill gives the new Secretary of State, who, by his own admission, has limited knowledge and experience of health care, the power to frame standards. There is no involvement of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Improvement, which has the job of monitoring and tracking the performance of our health care system and understanding when it is and is not doing well. We believe that CHAI should be formally involved in the process, and new clause 2 would enable that to happen. I intend—with your consent, Madam Deputy Speaker—to press new clause 2 to a vote.
          5.45 pm
          Amendment No. 1 returns the debate to what is, in our view, one of the big handicaps and impediments confronting the health service: the star-rating system, an ill-judged, ill-thought-out process that sets hospital against hospital, causes confusion in both clinical and management sectors, and throws up extraordinary anomalies.
          Let me, in the few minutes available to me, give a clear explanation and a clear example of the problem, with reference to the Audit Commission's recently published report "Achieving the NHS Plan". Three hospitals are cited. Of the first it is said:
          "This Acute Trust performed poorly in relation to NHS Plan targets, and was rated as poor managerially".
          According to the second case study,
          "This Specialist Acute Trust achieved most NHS Plan targets, and was rated as 'very good' on the majority of measures of financial and performance management".
          Pretty good, really. As for the third example,
          "This Acute Trust has performed poorly in relation to NHS Plan targets, and the auditor noted significant financial management failings, without identifying any substantial signs of imminent improvement."
          What do those three hospitals have in common? The first, which performed poorly in relation to NHS plan targets, was awarded two stars by the Department of Health. The second, which performed well, was awarded two stars. The third, which performed poorly and showed no substantial signs of imminent improvement, was awarded two stars.
          The current star-rating system is a disgrace, which is founded on poor statistics and bears no relation to the true clinical performance of hospital trusts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said this

          1015
          afternoon, there are good hospitals in this country that are stuck with zero star ratings and all the handicaps that that entails. The star-rating system should go. It should be replaced by a system shaped by CHAI, on the basis of its experience of what is good and what is bad in our health service. CHAI should be given an active role in helping to shape the standards for health care.
          I want to press new clause 2 and amendment No. 1 to the vote, because I believe that they would make a real and positive difference to health care, and would help to get the politicians out of the health service.
          Mr. Burstow: I want to speak, exceedingly briefly, on amendments Nos. 38, 39, 56 and 59. In all of them the key issues are who decides standards, the process for setting them, and whether that should be entirely within the Secretary of State's remit or the commissions should play a role. That goes to the heart of the question whether the commissions are genuinely independent from the Secretary of State, or independent only at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. At present the Bill is inadequate, because the commissions are beholden to the Secretary of State in regard to much of what they must do.
          Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 would require the Secretary of State or indeed the commissions, when publishing standards, to have an evidence base and to refer specifically to the evidence. That strikes me as a sensible proposition, on which a thinking Minister might wish to reflect.
          We will support both the amendments that will shortly be put to the vote, not least because we believe that the star-rating system is deeply corrosive of the national health service. It misleads patients, and does not provide an adequate or reliable measure of what NHS performance actually is. It should be swept aside, and replaced by something that is more objective and more independent. We presented that argument in Committee in rather greater detail than I can present it now, but I hope that there will be more time to discuss it in the other place.
          Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
          Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I put on record that the debate has not been concluded, and that two subjects of great importance to your constituents and mine, and everyone else's, have not even been touched on? Will you please report that to Mr. Speaker when you ask him about taking Division time out of programme time?
          Mr. Lansley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be appropriate also to note that I sought to discuss new clause 22, which stands in my name, in Committee, but it was not reached by virtue of the time limitations imposed in Committee? So this is the second time that it has not been debated.
          Madam Deputy Speaker: I am very mindful of what Members have said, but as I am sure that they will appreciate, I am bound by the programme order.
          It being more than four and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme
          1016
          motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 2

          DUTY OF THE CHAI TO PREPARE STANDARDS GUIDANCE RELATING TO HEALTH CARE
          '(1) It shall be the duty of the CHAI to prepare guidance to assist in securing the raising of standards in health care.
          (2) In preparing guidance for the purposes of subsection (1), the CHAI shall have regard to performance indicators relating to—

          (a) the availability of, and access to, health care;

          (b) the quality and effectiveness of the health care provided to patients; and

          (c) the financial and other management of the delivery of the health care to patients.

          (3) The CHAI must—

          (a) lay a copy of any guidance prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section before Parliament, and

          (b) once they have done so, send a copy of it to the Secretary of State.'.

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
          The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 344.

          Division No. 283]

          [5:51 pm

          AYES

          Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

          Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

          Allan, Richard

          Barnet)

          Amess, David

          Chope, Christopher

          Ancram, rh Michael

          Clappison, James

          Arbuthnot, rh James

          Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

          Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

          Collins, Tim

          Bacon, Richard

          Cormack, Sir Patrick

          Baker, Norman

          Cran, James (Beverley)

          Baldry, Tony

          Davey, Edward (Kingston)

          Barker, Gregory

          Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

          Baron, John (Billericay)

          Howden)

          Beith, rh A. J.

          Dodds, Nigel

          Bellingham, Henry

          Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

          Bercow, John

          Doughty, Sue

          Beresford, Sir Paul

          Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

          Blunt, Crispin

          Duncan Smith, rh lain

          Boswell, Tim

          Evans, Nigel

          Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

          Fabricant, Michael

          Brady, Graham

          Fallon, Michael

          Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

          Field, Mark (Cities of London &

          Brazier, Julian

          Westminster)

          Breed, Colin

          Flight, Howard

          Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

          Forth, rh Eric

          Browning, Mrs Angela

          Foster, Don (Bath)

          Burnett, John

          Francois, Mark

          Burns, Simon

          Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

          Burnside, David

          Garnier, Edward

          Burstow, Paul

          George, Andrew (St. Ives)

          Butterfill, John

          Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

          Cable, Dr. Vincent

          Gidley, Sandra

          Calton, Mrs Patsy

          Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

          Cameron, David

          Gray, James (N Wilts)

          Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

          Grayling, Chris

          Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

          Green, Damian (Ashford)

          Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

          Carmichael, Alistair

          Greenway, John

          Cash, William

          Grieve, Dominic

          1017

          Hague, rh William

          Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

          Hammond, Philip

          Dinefwr)

          Harvey, Nick

          Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

          Hawkins, Nick

          Pugh, Dr. John

          Heald, Oliver

          Redwood, rh John

          Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

          Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

          Hendry, Charles

          Rendel, David

          Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

          Robathan, Andrew

          Hogg, rh Douglas

          Robertson, Angus (Moray)

          Holmes, Paul

          Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

          Horam, John (Orpington)

          M-Kent)

          Howard, rh Michael

          Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

          Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

          Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

          Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

          Hunter, Andrew

          Rosindell, Andrew

          Jack, rh Michael

          Ruffley, David

          Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

          Russell, Bob (Colchester)

          Jenkin, Bernard

          Sanders. Adrian

          Johnson, Boris (Henley)

          Selous, Andrew

          Keetch, Paul

          Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

          Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

          Shepherd, Richard

          Inverness)

          Simmonds, Mark

          Key, Robert (Salisbury)

          Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

          Kirkbride, Miss Julie

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

          Kirkwood, Sir Archy

          Kincardine)

          Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

          Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

          Laing, Mrs Eleanor

          Soames, Nicholas

          Lait, Mrs Jacqui

          Spelman, Mrs Caroline

          Lamb, Norman

          Spicer, Sir Michael

          Lansley, Andrew

          Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

          Laws, David (Yeovil)

          Spring, Richard

          Leigh, Edward

          Steen, Anthony

          Letwin, rh Oliver

          Streeter, Gary

          Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

          Stunell, Andrew

          Liddell-Grainger, Ian

          Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

          Lidington, David

          Syms, Robert

          Lilley, rh Peter

          Taylor, Ian (Esher)

          Llwyd, Elfyn

          Taylor, John (Solihull)

          Loughton, Tim

          Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

          Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

          Taylor, Sir Teddy

          Mackay, rh Andrew

          Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

          Maclean, rh David

          Thurso, John

          McLoughlin, Patrick

          Tonge, Dr. Jenny

          Malins, Humfrey

          Tredinnick, David

          Maples, John

          Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

          Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

          Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

          Atcham)

          Tyrie, Andrew

          Mates, Michael

          Waterson, Nigel

          Maude, rh Francis

          Watkinson, Angela

          May, Mrs Theresa

          Webb, Steve (Northavon)

          Mercer, Patrick

          Whittingdale, John

          Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

          Wilkinson, John

          Coldfield)

          Willetts, David

          Moore, Michael

          Williams Hywel (Caernarfon)

          Moss, Malcolm

          Williams, Roger (Brecon)

          Murrison, Dr. Andrew

          Wilshire, David

          Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

          Winterton, Sir Nicholas

          O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

          (Macclesfield)

          Ottaway, Richard

          Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

          Page, Richard

          Young, rh Sir George

          Paice, James

          Younger-Ross, Richard

          Paisley, Rev. Ian

          Paterson, Owen

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Pickles, Eric

          Mr. George Osborne and

          Portillo, rh Michael

          Mr. John Randall

          NOES

          Abbott, Ms Diane

          Atkins, Charlotte

          Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

          Austin, John

          Ainger, Nick

          Bailey, Adrian

          Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

          Banks, Tony

          Alexander, Douglas

          Barnes, Harry

          Allen, Graham

          Barron, rh Kevin

          Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

          Beard, Nigel

          Darwen)

          Beckett, rh Margaret

          Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

          Begg, Miss Anne

          1018

          Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

          Doran, Frank

          Benn, Hilary

          Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

          Bennett, Andrew

          Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

          Benton, Joe (Bootle)

          Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

          Berry, Roger

          Edwards, Huw

          Betts, Clive

          Efford, Clive

          Blackman, Liz

          Ellman, Mrs Louise

          Blears, Ms Hazel

          Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

          Blizzard, Bob

          Etherington, Bill

          Boateng, rh Paul

          Farrelly, Paul

          Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

          Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

          Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

          Fisher, Mark

          Bradshaw, Ben

          Fitzpatrick, Jim

          Brennan, Kevin

          Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

          Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

          Flint Caroline

          Wallsend)

          Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

          Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

          Follett, Barbara

          Browne, Desmond

          Foster, rh Derek

          Bryant, Chris

          Foster, Michael (Worcester)

          Buck, Ms Karen

          Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

          Burden, Richard

          & Rye)

          Burgon, Colin

          Foulkes, rh George

          Burnham, Andy

          Francis, Dr. Hywel

          Caborn, rh Richard

          Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

          Cairns, David

          Gardiner, Barry

          Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

          Gerrard, Neil

          Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

          Gibson, Dr. Ian

          Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

          Casale, Roger

          Gilroy, Linda

          Caton, Martin

          Godsiff, Roger

          Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

          Goggins, Paul

          Challen, Colin

          Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

          Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

          Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

          Chidgey, David

          Grogan, John

          Clapham, Michael

          Hain, rh Peter

          Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

          Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

          Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

          Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

          Pentlands

          Hanson, David

          Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

          Harman, rh Ms Harriet

          Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

          Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

          Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

          Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

          Chryston)

          Rhymney)

          Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

          Healey, John

          Clelland, David

          Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

          Coaker, Vernon

          Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

          Coffey, Ms Ann

          Hendrick, Mark

          Cohen, Harry

          Hepburn, Stephen

          Coleman, Iain

          Heppell, John

          Colman, Tony

          Hermon, Lady

          Connarty, Michael

          Hesford, Stephen

          Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

          Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

          Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

          Heyes, David

          Cooper, Yvette

          Hill, Keith (Streatham)

          Corbyn, Jeremy

          Hodge, Margaret

          Corston, Jean

          Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

          Cousins, Jim

          Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

          Cranston, Ross

          Hoon, rh Geoffrey

          Crausby, David

          Hope, Phil (Corby)

          Cruddas, Jon

          Hopkins, Kelvin

          Cummings, John

          Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

          Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

          (Copeland)

          Sefton E)

          Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

          Howells, Dr. Kim

          Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

          Hoyle, Lindsay

          Darling, rh Alistair

          Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

          Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

          Urmston)

          David, Wayne

          Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

          Davidson, Ian

          Humble, Mrs Joan

          Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

          Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

          Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

          Hutton, rh John

          Dawson, Hilton

          Iddon, Dr. Brian

          Denham, rh John

          Ingram, rh Adam

          Dhanda, Parmjit

          Irranca-Davies, Huw

          Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

          Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

          Dobson, rh Frank

          Jamieson, David

          Donohoe, Brian H.

          Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

          1019

          Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

          Mullin, Chris

          Hatfield)

          Munn, Ms Meg

          Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

          Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

          Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

          Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

          Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

          Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

          Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

          Naysmith, Dr. Doug

          Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

          Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

          Jowell, rh Tessa

          O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

          Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

          O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

          Kaufman, rh Gerald

          O'Hara, Edward

          Keeble, Ms Sally

          O'Neill, Martin

          Keen, Alan (Feltham)

          Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

          Keen, Ann (Brentford)

          Palmer, Dr. Nick

          Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

          Pearson, Ian

          Kidney, David

          Perham, Linda

          Kilfoyle, Peter

          Picking, Anne

          King, Andy (Rugby)

          Pickthall, Colin

          King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

          Pike, Peter (Burnley)

          Bow)

          Plaskitt, James

          Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

          Pollard, Kerry

          Kumar, Dr. Ashok

          Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

          Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

          Pound, Stephen

          Lammy, David

          Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

          Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

          E)

          Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

          Prescott, rh John

          Lazarowicz, Mark

          Primarolo, rh Dawn

          Lepper, David

          Prosser, Gwyn

          Leslie, Christopher

          Purchase, Ken

          Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

          Purnell, James

          Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

          Quinn, Lawrie

          Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

          Rammell, Bill

          Linton, Martin

          Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

          Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

          Raynsford, rh Nick

          Love, Andrew

          Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

          Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

          Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Bellshill)

          McCabe, Stephen

          Robertson, John (Glasgow

          McCafferty, Chris

          Anniesland)

          McCartney, rh Ian

          Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

          McDonagh, Siobhain

          NW)

          MacDonald, Calum

          Roche, Mrs Barbara

          McDonnell, John

          Rooney, Terry

          MacDougall, John

          Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

          McFall, John

          Ruane, Chris

          McGuire, Mrs Anne

          Ruddock, Joan

          McKechin, Ann

          Russell, Ms Christine (City of

          McKenna, Rosemary

          Chester)

          McNamara, Kevin

          Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

          McNulty, Tony

          Salter, Martin

          Mactaggart, Fiona

          Sarwar, Mohammad

          McWalter, Tony

          Savidge, Malcolm

          McWilliam, John

          Sawford, Phil

          Mahmood, Khalid

          Sedgemore, Brian

          Mahon, Mrs Alice

          Shaw, Jonathan

          Mallaber, Judy

          Sheerman, Barry

          Mandelson, rh Peter

          Sheridan, Jim

          Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

          Short, rh Clare

          Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

          Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

          Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

          Singh, Marsha

          Marshall, David (Glasgow

          Skinner, Dennis

          Shettleston)

          Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

          Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

          Smith, Angela (Basildon)

          Martlew, Eric

          Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

          Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

          Finsbury)

          Merron, Gillian

          Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

          Michael, rh Alun

          Lunesdale)

          Milburn, rh Alan

          Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

          Miliband, David

          Smith, John (Glamorgan)

          Miller, Andrew

          Soley, Clive

          Moffatt, Laura

          Southworth, Helen

          Mole, Chris

          Spellar, rh John

          Moonie, Dr. Lewis

          Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

          Moran, Margaret

          Steinberg, Gerry

          Morley, Elliot

          Stevenson, George

          Morris, rh Estelle

          Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

          Mountford, Kali

          Stinchcombe, Paul

          1020

          Stoate, Dr. Howard

          Watts, David

          Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

          White, Brian

          Stringer, Graham

          Whitehead, Dr. Alan

          Sutcliffe, Gerry

          Wicks, Malcolm

          Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

          Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

          Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

          Williams, Betty (Conwy)

          Taylor, David (NW Leics)

          Wills, Michael

          Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

          Wilson, Brian

          Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

          Winnick, David

          Timms, Stephen

          Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

          Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

          C)

          Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

          Wood, Mike (Batley)

          Trickett, Jon

          Woodward, Shaun

          Truswell, Paul

          Woolas, Phil

          Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

          Wray, James (Glasgow

          Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

          Baillieston)

          Kemptown)

          Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

          Turner, Neil (Wigan)

          Yarmouth)

          Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

          Wright, David (Telford)

          Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

          Wright, Tony (Cannock)

          Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

          Wyatt, Derek

          Vis, Dr. Rudi

          Walley, Ms Joan

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Ward, Claire

          Mr. Fraser Kemp and

          Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

          Derek Twigg

          Question accordingly negatived.

        Clause 43
          INTRODUCTORY
          Amendment made: No. 359, in page 15, line 16, leave out '48' and insert '52'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
        Clause 46

          GENERAL REVIEWS
          Amendments made: No. 360, in page 16, line 10, at end insert—
          '(za) the overall provision of health care by and for NHS bodies;'.
          No. 361, in page 16, line 15, at end insert—
          '() a review under subsection (1)(za)'.
          No. 362, in page 16, line 34, leave out from 'publish' to end of line 35 and insert 'a report'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 47

          OTHER REVIEWS AND INVESTIGATIONS
          Amendments made: No. 363, in page 16, line 38, leave out from 'by' to end of line 40 and insert
          'and for English NHS bodies and cross-border SHAs.
          (1 A) The CHAI may in particular under this section conduct—

          (a) a review of the overall provision of health care by and for English NHS bodies and cross-border SHAs;

          (b) a review of the overall provision of a particular kind of health care by and for English NHS bodies and cross-border SHAs;

          (c) a review of, or investigation into, the provision of any health care by or for a particular English NHS body or cross-border SHA.'.

          No. 364, in page 16, line 42, leave out from 'by' to 'duty' in line 1 on page 17 and insert
          'English NHS bodies and cross-border SHAs for the purpose of discharging their'.
          No. 365, in page 17, line 2, leave out from 'conduct' to 'as' in line 4 and insert—

          (a) a review under subsection (1A)(a);

          1021

          (b) a review under subsection (1A)(b) of the overall provision of a kind of health care specified in the request;

          (c) a review or investigation under subsection (1A)(c), or a review under subsection (2), in relation to the provision of such health care by or for such body'.

          No. 366, in page 17, line 10, leave out
          'the NHS body in question'
          and insert
          'any English NHS body or cross-border SHA'.
          No. 367, in page 17, line 11, leave out 'that' and insert 'such a'.
          No. 368, in page 17, line 14, leave out from 'publish' to end of line and insert 'a report'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 48

          FAILINGS
          Amendments made: No. 369, in page 17, line 27, leave out 'person' and insert 'body'.
          No. 370, in page 17, line 41, leave out 'other person' and insert 'body'.
          No. 371, in page 18, line 15, leave out 'person' and insert 'body'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 51
          REVIEWS OF DATA
          Amendment made: No. 372, in page 19, line 14, leave out from 'publish' to end of line 15 and insert 'a report'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
        Clause 53

          STUDIES AS TO ECONOMY, EFFICIENCY ETC
          Amendment made: No. 373, in page 19, line 32, leave out
          'at least a summary of'
          and insert
          'its recommendations and'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 64

          REVIEWS AND INVESTIGATIONS RELATING TO WALES
          Amendments made: No. 374, in page 25, line 5, leave out from 'conducting' to end of line 11 and insert
          'reviews of, and investigations into, the provision of health care by and for Welsh NHS bodies.
          (1A) The Assembly may in particular under this section conduct—

          (a) a review of the overall provision of health care by and for Welsh NHS bodies;

          (b) a review of the overall provision of a particular kind of health care by and for Welsh NHS bodies;

          (c) a review of, or investigation into, the provision of any health care by or for a particular Welsh NHS body.

          (1B) The Assembly has the function of conducting reviews of the arrangements made by Welsh NHS bodies for the purpose of discharging their duty under section 40.'.
          No. 375, in page 25, line 12, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.
          No. 376, in page 25, line 25, leave out 'subsection (1)' and insert 'this section'.
          No. 377, in page 25, line 30, leave out from 'publish' to end of line 31 and insert 'a report'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 65

          REPORTING TO SECRETARY OF STATE
          Amendment made: No. 378, in page 26, line 6, at end insert—
          '(2A) The Assembly must report to the regulator where, after conducting a review or investigation under section 64, it is of the view that—

          (a) there are significant failings in relation to the provision of health care by or for an NHS foundation trust;

          (b) there are significant failings in the running of an NHS foundation trust; or

          (c) there are significant failings in the running of any body, or the practice of any individual, providing health care for an NHS foundation trust.

          (2B) A report under subsection (2A) may include a recommendation that, with a view to remedying the failings, the regulator take special measures in relation to the NHS foundation trust.'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 71

          INFORMATION AND ADVICE
          Amendment made: No. 379, in page 28, line 33, at end insert
          ',in the standards prepared and published from time to time under section 23 of that Act'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 72
          REVIEW OF STUDIES AND RESEARCH
          Amendment made: No. 380, in page 29, line 7, leave out from 'publish' to end of line 8 and insert 'a report'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
        Clause 73
          ANNUAL REVIEWS
          Amendment made: No. 381, in page 29, line 19, leave out 'function' and insert 'functions'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
        Clause 74
          OTHER REVIEWS AND INVESTIGATIONS
          Amendment made: No. 382, in page 30, line 19, leave out from 'publish' to end of line and insert 'a report'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
        Clause 76

          STUDIES AS TO ECONOMY, EFFICIENCY ETC
          Amendment made: No. 383, in page 31, line 27, leave out
          'at least a summary of'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 88
          REVIEWS AND INVESTIGATIONS
          Amendment made: No. 384, in page 35, line 38, leave out from 'publish' to end of line and insert 'a report'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
        Clause 92

          RIGHT OF ENTRY
          Amendment made: No. 385, in page 37, line 9, leave out from 'inspect' to end of line 16 and insert—

          '(a) any premises owned or controlled by a local authority in Wales;

          (b) any premises falling within subsection (1A), other than premises used wholly or mainly as a private dwelling.

          (1A) The premises referred to in subsection (1)(b) are premises—

          (a) which are used, or proposed to be used, by any person in connection with the provision of a Welsh local authority social service; or

          (b) which the Assembly reasonably believes to be so used, or proposed to be so used.'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 105

          BOARDING SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES: REPORTS
          Amendment made: No. 386, in page 43, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert—
          '"(9A) Where the Commission or the National Assembly for Wales exercises the power conferred by subsection (5), it must publish a report.'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 107
          COMPLAINTS ABOUT HEALTH CARE: ENGLISH AND CROSS-BORDER BODIES
          Amendment made: No. 301, in page 44, line 6, leave out clause 107.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
        Clause 108
          COMPLAINTS ABOUT HEALTH CARE: WELSH BODIES
          Amendment made: No. 302, in page 45, line 20, leave out clause 108.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
        Clause 109
          COMPLAINTS ABOUT SOCIAL SERVICES: ENGLAND
          Amendment made: No. 303, in page 46, line 32, leave out clause 109.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
        Clause 110
          COMPLAINTS ABOUT SOCIAL SERVICES: WALES
          Amendment made: No. 304, in page 47, line 42, leave out clause 110.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
        Clause 111

          COMPLAINTS UNDER THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
          Amendments made: No. 305, in page 49, line 13, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 45 and insert—
          '(2) The regulations may in particular make provision—

          (a)for the further consideration of a representation by the Commission for Social Care Inspection ("the CSCI");

          (b) for a representation to be referred by the CSCI for further consideration by an independent panel established under the regulations;

          (c) about the procedure to be followed on the further consideration of a representation;

          1024

          (d) for the making of recommendations about the action to be taken as the result of a representation;

          (e) about the making of reports about a representation;

          (f) about the action to be taken by the local authority concerned as a result of the further consideration of a representation;

          (g) for a representation to be referred by the CSCI back to the local authority concerned for reconsideration by the authority;

          (h) for a representation or any matter raised by the representation to be referred by the CSCI—

          (i) to the Commission for Local Administration in England for it to consider whether to investigate the representation or matter under Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1974 as if it were a complaint duly made under section 26 of that Act; or

          (ii) to any other person or body for him or it to consider whether to take any action otherwise than under the regulations.

          (3) The regulations may require—

          (a) the making of a payment, in relation to the further consideration of a representation under this section, by any local authority in respect of whose functions the representation is made;

          (b) any such payment to be—

          (i) made to such person or body as may be specified in the regulations;

          (ii) of such amount as may be specified in, or calculated or determined under, the regulations;

          (c) an independent panel to review the amount chargeable under paragraph (a) in any particular case and, if the panel thinks fit, to substitute a lesser amount.

          (4) The regulations may also—

          (a) provide for different parts or aspects of a representation to be treated differently;

          (b) require the production of information or documents in order to enable a representation to be properly considered;

          (c) authorise the disclosure of information or documents relevant to a representation—

          (i) to a person or body who is further considering a representation under the regulations; or

          (ii) to the Commission for Local Administration in England (when a representation is referred to it under the regulations);

          and any such disclosure may be authorised notwithstanding any rule of common law that would otherwise prohibit or restrict the disclosure.".'.

          No. 306, in page 49, line 45, at end insert—
          '(1 A) After section 26ZA of that Act (as inserted by subsection (1)) insert—
          "26ZB Representations: further consideration (Wales)
          (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the further consideration of representations which have been considered by a local authority in Wales under section 24D or section 26.
          (2) The regulations may in particular make provision—

          (a) for the further consideration of a representation by an independent panel established under the regulations;

          (b) about the procedure to be followed on the further consideration of a representation;

          (c) for the making of recommendations about the action to be taken as the result of a representation;

          (d) about the making of reports about a representation;

          (e) about the action to be taken by the local authority concerned as a result of the further consideration of a representation;

          1025

          (f) for a representation to be referred back to the local authority concerned for reconsideration by the authority.

          (3) The regulations may require—

          (a)the making of a payment, in relation to the further consideration of a representation under this section, by any local authority in respect of whose functions the representation is made;

          (b) any such payment to be—

          (i) made to such person or body as may be specified in the regulations;

          (ii) of such amount as may be specified in, or calculated or determined under, the regulations; and

          (c) for an independent panel to review the amount chargeable under paragraph (a) in any particular case and, if the panel thinks fit, to substitute a lesser amount.

          (4) The regulations may also—

          (a) provide for different parts or aspects of a representation to be treated differently;

          (b) require the production of information or documents in order to enable a representation to be properly considered;

          (c) authorise the disclosure of information or documents relevant to a representation to a person or body who is further considering a representation under the regulations;

          and any such disclosure may be authorised notwithstanding any rule of common law that would otherwise prohibit or restrict the disclosure.".'.
          No. 307, in page 50, line 5, after '26ZA', insert 'or 26ZB'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 112

          COMPLAINTS ABOUT HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS
          Amendment made: No. 308, in page 50, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 and insert
          'any person or body in the exercise of any function under section (Complaints about health care) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (complaints about health carer)'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 113

          COMPLAINTS: DATA PROTECTION
          Amendments made: No. 309, in page 50, line 25, leave out
          '107, 108, 109, or 110'
          and insert
          '(Complaints about health care) (1) or (2) or (Complaints about social services) (1) or (3).
          No. 310, in page 50, line 27, leave out 'or 26ZA' insert 26ZA or 26ZB'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 121

          ANNUAL REPORTS: CHAI
          Amendments made: No. 387, in page 53, line 28, at end insert—
          '() what it has found in the course of exercising its functions during the year in relation to the persons for whom it is the registration authority under the Care Standards Act 2000 (c.14).'—[Dr. Ladyman.]
          No. 388, in page 53, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
          No. 389, in page 53, line 34, at end insert—
          '() The CHAI must also provide the Secretary of State with such reports and information relating to the exercise of its functions as he may from time to time request.'—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 127

          INQUIRIES: CHAI
          Amendments made: No. 390, in page 55, line 27, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
          '(1) The Secretary of State may cause an inquiry to be held into any matter connected with the exercise by the CHAI of any of its functions.
          (1A) The Assembly may cause an inquiry to be held into any matter connected with the exercise by the CHAI of any of its functions in relation to any health care provided by or for a Welsh NHS body.'
          No. 391, in page 55, line 30, leave out 'authority' and insert
          'Secretary of State or (in the case of an inquiry under subsection (1A)) the Assembly'.
          No. 392, in page 55, line 38, leave out 'authority' and insert
          'Secretary of State or (in the case of an inquiry under subsection (1A)) the Assembly'.
          No. 393, in page 56, line 1, leave out 'appropriate authority' and insert
          'Secretary of State or (in the case of an inquiry under subsection (1A)) the Assembly'.
          No. 394, in page 56, line 3, leave out subsection (7).—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 130

          SECTION 129: DEFENCE
          Amendment made: No. 311, in page 57, line 18, leave out '107 (complaints)' and insert
          '(Complaints about health care) (complaints about health care)'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 131

          INFORMATION OBTAINED BY CHAI: SUPPLEMENTARY
          Amendment made: No. 395, in page 58, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
          '(2) Where subsection (3) applies, the CHAI may disclose any information obtained by it notwithstanding any rule of common law which would otherwise prohibit or restrict the disclosure.
          (3) This subsection applies where—

          (a) in the case of information relating to an individual, the circumstances in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) of section 130 apply in relation to the disclosure;

          (b) in any case, the circumstances in any of paragraphs (c) to (g) of that subsection apply in relation to the disclosure; or

          (c) in any case, the disclosure is made as specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (3) of that section.

          (4) Subsection (4) of section 130 applies for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) above.'—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Clause 139

          INTERPRETATION OF PART 2
          Amendments made: No. 396, in page 60, line 2, leave out from 'Authority' to end of line 3 and insert
          'not performing functions only or mainly in respect of England or only or mainly in respect of Wales'.
          No. 312, in page 60, line 46, leave out '95, 108 and 110' and insert 'and 95'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        Schedule 8

          PART 2: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
          Amendments made: No. 316, in page 126, line 17, leave out 'Sections 109 and 110' and insert
          'Section (Complaints about social services)'
          No. 317, in page 126, line 31, leave out '107 or 108' and insert
          '(Complaints about health care)(1) or (2)'
          No. 318, in page 127, line 17, leave out '107 or 108' and insert
          '(Complaints about health care)(1) or (2)'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]

        New Clause 26

          PROVISION OF PRIMARY MEDICAL SERVICES
          'In the 1977 Act, after section 16CB (as inserted by section 162 above) insert—
          "16CC Primary medical services

          (1) Each Primary Care Trust and Local Health Board must, to the extent that it considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, exercise its powers so as to provide primary medical services within its area, or secure their provision within its area.

          (2) A Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board may (in addition to any other power conferred on it)—

          (a) provide primary medical services itself (whether within or outside its area);

          (b) make such arrangements for their provision (whether within or outside its area) as it thinks fit, and may in particular make contractual arrangements with any person.

          (3) Each Primary Care Trust and Local Health Board must publish information about such matters as may be prescribed in relation to the primary medical services provided under this Part.

          (4) A body on which functions are conferred under this section must cooperate with any other such body in the discharge of their respective functions relating to the provision of primary medical services under this Part.

          (5) Regulations may provide that services of a prescribed description are, or are not, to be regarded as primary medical services for the purposes of this Part.

          (6) Regulations under this section may in particular describe services by reference to the manner or circumstances in which they are provided.".'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Mr. Hutton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
          Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
          Government new clause 27—General medical services contracts.
          1028
          And the following amendment thereto: (a), after 'appropriate', insert—
          '(4A) No direction issued under subsection (1) shall involve payment based on rewarding contractors for reaching a target number or target proportion of treatments given.'.
          Government new clause 28—Government medical services: transitional.
          Government new clause 29—Abolition of pilot schemes.
          New clause 40—Definition of personal medical service—
          'In the 1977 Act, in section 29(2), leave out "adequate" and, after "attendance", insert "to meet their clinical needs".'.
          Government amendments Nos. 270 to 299, 268, 269 and 300.
          Mr. Hutton: Following the recent decision by doctors in the British Medical Association to approve the new general medical services contract for family practitioners, the Government are taking the earliest possible opportunity to legislate for the necessary implementation. These clauses were not laid during earlier stages of the Bill's passage because we did not want to prejudge the outcome of the BMA ballot. As it turned out, 79.4 per cent. chose to support the new contract: 31,945 GPs cast a vote, which was a 70 per cent. turnout. That indicates the strength of support for the change.
          Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister tell the House when the clauses and amendments were drafted? It may not necessarily have pre-empted the ballot, but it would have informed the House—notwithstanding the requirement for a positive vote in the ballot—if the clauses and amendments had been available for scrutiny earlier.
          Mr. Hutton: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, these amendments have been through several iterations in the Department and were not finally ready to be tabled until we were satisfied—as the BMA and the NHS Confederation were—that they provided the right legal framework to deliver the new contract. That was not until Thursday. I apologise to hon. Members and the House for the fact that the documentation that we sent out on Thursday did not reach them until Monday. That is regrettable and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members who take a close interest in these matters. We were genuinely trying to be helpful in that regard. I am sorry if it did not end up like that. To help Members understand the clauses, I wrote to them with an explanatory note last week. I hope that, despite the delays in reaching them, it has turned out to be at least some help for this afternoon's debate.
          In general terms, the new clauses are designed to achieve two things: first, to implement the new GMS contract as agreed overwhelmingly by general practitioners; and, secondly, to make provision for putting personal medical services arrangements on to a permanent basis, as originally envisaged in the 1997 Act, in order to reflect the success of PMS as a means of providing primary care services.
          In order to effect these changes, we need to give primary care trusts additional powers to commission primary medical services. In the process, our objectives

          1029
          have been to simplify the existing legal framework, to minimise the volume of secondary legislation—an inevitable by—product, I am afraid—and to make the new arrangements more straightforward for family doctors, patients and NHS organisations.
          New clause 26 replaces the existing duty on PCTs and local health boards to make arrangements for the provision of general medical services with a new duty to provide or to secure the provision of primary medical services. The primary care trust or the local health board can meet this duty by entering into general medical services contracts, personal medical services arrangements, through providing the service itself, or by commissioning services from other health care suppliers. New clauses 27 and 28 provide for the making of the new GMS contract and for the necessary transitional regulations.
          New clause 29 and amendments Nos. 278 to 282 will remove the pilot status of personal medical services arrangements and place PMS in the mainstream of delivering primary care services in the NHS. To do that, the power to make pilot schemes will be repealed, and sections 28C to 28E of the National Health Service Act 1977 will be commenced. As part of that process, several amendments will be introduced to sections 28C to 28E, simply to bring them up to date and, in particular, to reflect the changes made to the GMS provisions.
          Amendments Nos. 284 to 291 will amend clause 166 to provide for a single list of performers in primary medical services to be held by primary care trusts, replacing the existing three-list structure set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2001. It is a helpful streamlining of those arrangements.
          Amendments Nos. 292 to 295 will amend clause 167 to extend the assistance and support provisions to general medical services and personal medical services. Remaining amendments cover minor and consequential amendments and list the associated repeals.
          That is what each new clause and amendment does in a nutshell. I would now briefly like to explain that while the new clauses make significant and important changes to the old GMS arrangements, the new GMS contract will retain many of the features of traditional general practice. For example, primary care trusts and local health boards will be under a duty to secure or provide within their areas the provision of primary medical services, to the extent that the trusts or boards consider that necessary to meet all reasonable requirements. It is that legal responsibility to ensure a comprehensive package of commissioning arrangements in respect of primary medical services that underpins the very important patient services guarantee described in chapter 6 of the agreement. We have made copies of the framework agreement available in the Vote Office for right hon. and hon. Members to consult.
          Patients need to be assured that the new contractual arrangements do not deny them access to services, and they will not. The new arrangements do not envisage any diminution of the services currently provided under GMS contracts. Indeed, it is envisaged that most practices will continue to deliver the full range of additional services. Where they do not, the PCT must
          1030
          step in, and it is in those cases that a patient might need to go to another provider for certain services. The PCT will therefore have a power to commission services through other arrangements, including providing the services itself, if necessary. However, patients can expect the PCT to ensure that they continue to be offered at least the range of services that they currently enjoy under the existing GMS arrangements. That is the patient services guarantee.
          All GMS contracts must include a duty to provide essential services, including the management of patients who are ill, or believe themselves to be ill, for the duration of that condition; care for those who are terminally ill; and the management of chronic disease. Where additional services such as minor surgery are provided for patients—that will be the case in all PCT areas, albeit that every practice may not provide such services—existing practices in the PCT or local health board area will start off with a preferential right to provide such services and will normally be expected to do so.
          We are also retaining list-based general practice. In future, a patient will not be registered with an individual GP but will still be registered with a practice. A practice-based contract, rather than an individually based contract, will provide much more flexibility for the practice to decide how it delivers services. That will be a helpful degree of flexibility that we will provide for busy family doctors. For example, it will enable nurses to be contracting partners in the practice, which is not possible at the moment.
          Once registered with a practice, the patient will continue to have the right to request to be seen by the doctor of their choice. That is important for patients who value seeing their own GP, and I certainly count myself among that number. The PCT will also retain its ability to help patients who, for whatever reason, cannot register with a general practice. It will retain the ability to assign patients to general practice but can additionally, for example, arrange to provide primary medical services itself where that is an appropriate solution.
          Sir Patrick Cormack: My constituency has only two practices in which the doctors themselves provide all the out-of-hours services. All the rest contract out that provision. Will that situation change as a result of the Bill? I know from experience that patients prefer to see a doctor from the practice to which they are assigned, rather than some locum from far away.
          6.15 pm
          Mr. Hutton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those are important issues, and patients value that provision highly. The situation will change under the new contract that we have agreed with the BMA and the NHS Confederation. Essentially, it will be for GPs to choose whether to provide an out-of-hours service directly. The new contract will not remove the requirement to provide out-of-hours services, but it will change who has the responsibility to organise the delivery of that service. At the moment, GPs must provide it, and some provide it directly themselves. They will continue to be able to do so if they wish to, but increasingly, for a variety of reasons—including work-

          1031
          life balance and other lifestyle issues—GPs do not want that onerous responsibility to fall entirely on their practices. They are happy for the service to be delegated, which is what happens with GP co-ops and other providers. The agreement provides for the PCTs to take on the principal responsibility for organising local out-of-hours services. I hope that they will be provided by patients' own GPs in many cases, but that will have to be decided locally.
          Dr. Andrew Murrison: Does the Minister agree that the Government are putting several new duties on primary medical care providers, which makes the out-of-hours provision mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) impossible, if GPs are to achieve a work-life balance?
          Mr. Hutton: I have significant sympathy with that view, which is why the new agreement reached with the BMA and the NHS Confederation provides for the solution that I have just described. GPs will be able to opt out of the responsibility of providing out-of-hours services, mainly for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that family doctors voted overwhelmingly for the new contract. It is the right contract for the future of primary care and it strikes the right balance between the need to ensure that patients have access to effective services and that doctors have the chance to lead their own lives and balance their work with their family and other responsibilities. That is our aim.
          There has been some misunderstanding about the out-of-hours aspect of the agreement. Headlines in some newspapers claimed that there would be no 24-hour family doctor service. That is not what the new contract is all about. Such provision in the future will be the responsibility of the PCT or local health board, and that is where the responsibility should be located, not—as at present—with the busy family doctor.
          Sir Patrick Cormack: How will patients be affected? I presume that as far as they are concerned, the service will continue to be provided through the general practice.
          Mr. Hutton: Yes, that is how it is likely to be arranged. The usual arrangement of providing a telephone number for out-of-hours services will continue. One of the clauses that we shall discuss later provides for a new obligation on PCTs to provide such information to everyone in the area they serve. I would expect PCTs and local health boards to send out notes reminding people that the 24-hour services still exist and providing the telephone number. Some practices will decide to provide those services themselves and some will use other out-of-hours services providers, such as GP co-ops or private companies, which provide such services to many GPs now. Whatever the arrangements are, the maximum amount of information must be available to people locally, so that they know when and who to ring. That will be the responsibility of the PCTs.
          We will also retain PCTs' ability to make decisions about the suitability of general practitioners to provide primary medical services. We are simplifying the legislative process, but retaining all the effective and
          1032
          necessary controls, by merging the current multiple list system into a single list of primary care performers. The detail of the new contract is set out in the agreement document, called "Investing in General Practice", which was published on 26 February. Copies of it have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.
          The new contract will be accompanied by a substantial additional investment of nearly £2 billion for primary care services across the UK. Funding will increase from £6.1 billion this year to £8 billion by 2005–06. That is 11 per cent. per year, each year, for the next three years.
          To implement the contract, it has been necessary to make significant amendments to the legislative basis on which general medical services are presently provided, and to repeal a significant amount of primary as well as secondary legislation. It is intended that, after the implementation and commencement of these provisions, the volume of delegated legislation will be less extensive and more transparent than at present. Subsections (5) and (6) of proposed new section 16CC, as inserted by new clause 26, provide regulation powers to clarify what should and should not be considered to be primary medical services. This power could be used, if necessary, to maintain a national range of primary medical services across all PCTs and local health boards.
          New clause 40, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), seeks to amend a primary care trust's duty to secure primary medical services and to require PCTs to meet the clinical needs of patients. His new clause removes the reference to "adequate" care. The existing duty set out in section 29 of the 1977 Act requires every primary care trust to make arrangements with individual medical practitioners to provide personal medical services, and for the recipients of those services to receive
          "adequate personal care and attendance".
          The PCT duty in proposed new section 16CC replaces that duty, and is intended to be no less stringent than the duty in the existing legislation.
          The duty on PCTs is to provide services to the extent that they consider necessary to meet all reasonable requirements. There was some discussion about this issue in Committee, as I am sure the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and the other Conservative Members on the Committee, will remember. They will probably not recall every nuance of the debate—I certainly do not—but I remember that this was registered as a problem. There was, for example, concern that the duty to commission primary dental services was not properly aligned with the duty to provide primary medical services. We have tried to deal with that particular problem in a subsequent amendment, which I shall come to in a moment.
          I had hoped that the wording of the duty in respect of primary medical services would provide a more direct read-across, which would satisfy the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, following our discussions in Committee. As I said, we have tried to take on board the concerns that were expressed at that time. The similarity in wording for medical and dental services is appropriate because the provision of services by the

          1033
          PCT goes towards the fulfilment of the Secretary of State's duty under section 3 of the 1977 Act with regard to primary medical services.
          The problem with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is that it seeks to amend a section of the 1977 Act that we are about to repeal, so it would be difficult for me to accept it.
          Dr. Evan Harris: We tabled that new clause at what we reasonably thought was the last minute, but it became clear yesterday when the Minister tabled his new clause that this was going to be the case. I accept what he has just said.
          Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, because we have taken away the comments that he and other hon. Members made and tried to amend the Bill to reflect their concerns. There is a problem with new clause 40 and I am grateful to him for clarifying that point. I assume that that means that he will not want to press the matter to a vote.
          Sadly, I also have a problem with the hon. Gentleman's amendment (a) to new clause 27, because it seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to issue payments based on rewarding contractors for reaching a target or
          "target proportion of treatments given".
          The United Kingdom has one of the most successful vaccine programmes in the world, with high levels of uptake. It has been achieved by the hard work of general practitioners and enforced by the system of targeted financial incentives. The target payment scheme incentivises levels of uptake that protect children not only individually but collectively in the wider community, especially those for whom immunisation is contra-indicated. Removing the target payments could have a negative effect on vaccine uptake, and could perpetuate coverage that is insufficient for the protection of the wider community.
          I understand the hon. Gentleman's wider objections to targets; he and I have debated the matter extensively across the Floor of the House and elsewhere. I believe, however, that he is pursuing the wrong issue here. This particular method of incentivising achievement in primary care and general practice has worked; it has helped to protect the health and safety of children. On this issue, therefore, he might not have chosen the strongest ground on which to fight his battle.
          Dr. Harris: I accept the Minister's invitation not to go into the whole issue of targets in this debate, but in my speech I shall go into the reasons why, even if this system worked, it would give rise to major problems. Can he provide any evidence that the incentive payments for those vaccination targets have provided the cover that exists—questionable and dodgy though it is, because of other factors—or does he simply think that the system must be working because the incentive scheme exists and we have reasonable coverage? Is there any evidence?
          Mr. Hutton: I think that there is, and I should be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman setting out some of the trends involved in immunisation so that he can form his own view on the matter.
          1034
          On the future of this type of payment, the new contract makes it clear that we will be discussing with the BMA how we can use the target payments more effectively in a way that meets general practitioners' concerns—I acknowledge that such concerns exist—and encourages even higher uptake, protecting children from potentially life-threatening diseases.
          Mr. Lansley: The Minister's exchange with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) did not touch on a particularly difficult issue relating to the contract and the target payments. The Minister will be aware that, in respect of this particular set of targets, exception reporting for informed dissent does not apply. The effect of that is that GPs are operating under a financial incentive to raise their level of compliance, regardless of the fact that parents might choose for their children not to have a particular vaccination. I have been consistent in my support of the childhood immunisation programme—including vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella—but there is a serious question mark over this practice, as perceived by patients.
          Mr. Hutton: I certainly accept that, and I have taken part in some of the discussions with the BMA on precisely that issue. In the light of the new agreement, we clearly need to continue to discuss it with the association. I am talking here about the general principle, however, rather than about how the details of the payment mechanisms are working.
          Mr. Lansley: It is in the contract, on page 8.
          Mr. Hutton: It is, but it is also clear from paragraph 2.11 of the agreement that we shall continue to discuss the detail of those arrangements with the BMA. That is the only point that I am trying to make.
          The second of the two principal purposes of these amendments is to make changes to the legislation on personal medical services—the alternative to general medical services. We have already considered the amendments necessary to implement the agreement between the BMA and the NHS Confederation for a new GMS contract. We have also looked at the new duty on PCTs to provide or secure the provision of primary medical services as set out in proposed new section 16CC. This will have an impact on other areas of primary care, including PMS schemes. The intention of new clause 29 and amendments Nos. 278 to 283 is, therefore, to provide the legal basis for changes to PMS that are, in the main, consequential to the new GMS contract.
          We are taking the opportunity to bring local PMS contracts into the mainstream of primary medical services. It is our intention that all existing PMS pilots will become mainstream with effect from 1 April 2004. The National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Administration and supported by the then Labour Opposition, introduced the concept of personal medical and dental services, and inserted new sections 28C, 28D and 28E into the 1977 Act. However, the concept was considered at the time to be very different from the traditional national GMS agreements, so a period of piloting was provided for in part 1 of the 1997 Act.

          1035
          Personal medical service pilot schemes are voluntary—rightly so—and are intended to give GPs, nurses and primary care trusts the flexibility and opportunity to innovate by offering different options for addressing primary care needs that have to be met locally. It was always the intention, however, that, provided that PMS proved successful, the system would be made permanent. It has proved to be successful and we are therefore repealing part 1 of 1997 Act in respect of England and Wales. PMS will continue under the permanency arrangements that were set out in the 1997 Act. In other words, the legal basis of PMS switches to sections 28C to 28E of the 1977 Act. This also applies to personal dental service arrangements.
          This means that decisions can be made locally rather than nationally about individual schemes, now that we have moved beyond the pilot phase. The House will be aware that individual PMS schemes need to be approved by Ministers, but I believe that that is no longer necessary, and that we can move beyond that sort of centralism. The intention is that under the general transitional powers in the Bill we will issue an order that allows existing PMS agreements to continue, but automatically changes the legislative basis of those contracts to the 1977 legislation. All things being equal, that will have no impact at all on PMS providers unless there are variations to their PMS agreements. We are also making a number of other changes to the provisions in sections 28C, 28D and 28E, which are largely technical and reflect some of the changes brought about by the new general medical services contract provisions.
          6.30 pm
          That concludes the formal substance of my remarks, but I think that this is an important moment for primary care. We have had a strong, positive endorsement of the new contract from family doctors, and the House now has the means to give effect to it. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support our new clauses, which command the support of the BMA and the NHS Confederation.
          Mr. Burns: May I begin by thanking the Minister? In Standing Committee, it emerged that large parts of the Bill relied heavily on the Government's regulation-making powers. We did not know how the Government intended to use regulations to build on the nuts and bolts of the Bill—this is not a criticism—because they were not yet in a position to share their views with Opposition parties or anyone else. However, towards the end of proceedings in Committee, the Minister said that he would seek to introduce new clauses and amendments on Report to incorporate the GP contract in the Bill, and gave a commitment to make available to Committee members explanatory notes and a briefing on the Government's proposals. That commitment was honoured, and the briefing and notes arrived yesterday morning. Of course, it would have been better and more convenient to have them over the weekend, but not getting them then was not the end of the world. In the first post yesterday we received an extensive briefing from the Minister, which will certainly assist us during today's proceedings. I thank the Minister for going to the bother of keeping us informed.
          As the Minister will be aware, five new clauses and 32 amendments have been tabled on the GP contract, so incorporating it in primary legislation constitutes an
          1036
          extensive addition to the Bill. The Minister was factually correct when he said that it had taken two years to get a GP contract, but he did not say that it had had a chequered history. The Government have had to make significant changes to the initial contract that they hoped to persuade GPs to accept. Dr. John Chisholm, chairman of the BMA's general practitioners committee said:
          "The profession has given a clear mandate for change. A large majority of general practitioners—eight out of ten—want the new contract to be introduced".
          Significantly, Dr. Chisholm continued:
          "While I am delighted by the overwhelmingly supportive vote in favour of the new contract, I am in no way complacent. The negotiations have been difficult and there are GPs who do not have confidence in parts of the new contract. The negotiating team is in no doubt what their concerns are and there is much work to be done during the implementation phase of the contract. This will begin immediately."
          Dr. Chisholm summed it up 100 per cent. accurately. A number of GPs have misgivings, and those who supported the contract despite their misgivings probably did so because they thought that it was important to resolve the issue. I hope that during the implementation of the contract, everyone will work together to seek to iron out any problems, concerns and difficulties that arise.
          I do not want to detain the House for long, but I should like to raise a number of matters with the Minister. If he catches Madam Deputy Speaker's eye and responds to my questions later in the debate, I shall be grateful; equally, given the time pressure on our proceedings, I shall fully understand if he thinks it better to write to me rather than using up time that other hon. Members could use to contribute to the debate.
          First, as the Minister's briefing and the amendments demonstrate, the proposals, like other proposals that we debated earlier, will involve considerable regulation-making powers. I suspect that I will get the same old answer, to the effect that those powers will be subject to the negative procedure rather than the affirmative, but I would appreciate it if the Minister confirmed that my assessment is right. I will not repeat the speech that I made a little earlier about the affirmative procedure, save to say that, as, sadly, the sadly was not here for my contribution, I would immodestly recommend for once that he read it tomorrow—[Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who obviously enjoyed my speech and understood the wisdom of it, but I shall spare the House a repetition—the Minister can read it.
          The Minister has said that the measures before us will simplify the legislative base—despite the new delegated powers, the overall volume of delegated legislation after implementation will be less than it is now. I would welcome confirmation that that is the case, but I am intrigued to learn how regulation will be reduced. I am old enough to have heard Governments of all political persuasions claim that there will be less regulation, and that less regulation means better government. I am cynical about those claims because, when it comes to the crunch, they are never realised. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on that.

          1037
          I should now like to deal with one or two specific issues arising from new clause 26. Subsection (4) of proposed new section 16CC, as the Minister will know, specifies that a PCT or a local health board must
          "co-operate with any other such body in the discharge of their respective functions".
          The explanatory notes state that that subsection imposes a duty on PCTs and local health boards in Wales to co-operate with other bodies. If the provision is intended specifically to deal with cross-border co-operation, why has it been drafted so widely? Is it intended to cover other instances in which co-operation is required? If that is the case, can the Minister explain what those instances will be, and in what sort of situations he envisages a need for such co-operation? Finally, will he confirm that the provision will mean that English PCTs and Welsh bodies have a reciprocal duty to co-operate with one another?
          Turning to enhanced services, new clause 27 inserts a number of new sections into the National Health Service Act 1977. The Minister referred to the changes that the Government will make to that Act through their amendments. However, the explanatory notes state that under proposed new section 28Q, a general medical services contract is a contract for primary medical services, as specified in paragraph 2.8 of the new GMS contract. However, it may also include enhanced services on the boundary of primary and secondary care such as specialised services in areas like drug and alcohol misuse, sexual health and depression. Where the new GMS contract does not provide for enhanced services, will the Minister confirm how and by what mechanism those services will be available to patients? I am sure that he will agree that this is a matter of critical importance. From the outset, there must be no misunderstanding about how the Government envisage this part of the Bill working.
          On the question of pay, proposed new section 28T allows the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly to make directions regarding payments to be made under the new contract. Will those directions provide for the minimum income guarantee? Can the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend to place a time limit on the minimum practice guarantee? Again, if the Minister can give some more information on that point, it will go a long way towards satisfying our quest for knowledge and will send a message beyond this Chamber to those who may have some concerns or uncertainty about what is a very important matter and a crucial part of the contract.
          Finally, proposed new section 28T(3) states that the payments will be made
          "by reference to compliance with standards or the achievement of levels of performance".
          Will the Minister provide more detail about the standards and performance targets intended under the regulations?
          The Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to reopen the debate pursued with such skill in our Opposition day debate yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Chancellor, and by
          1038
          my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State for Health. I do not want to cause the Government embarrassment for a second day running, but I should be grateful if the Minister would expand on the question of targets.
          In his concluding remarks, the Minister said that he hoped that hon. Members on both sides of the House would accept the Government amendments and, in effect, the new GP contract. I assure him that the Opposition broadly accept the GP contract. I have no intention of asking Opposition Members to divide the House on this matter. However, I should be grateful if the Minister will provide me, when it is practicable and sensible to do so, with answers to my questions.
          Dr. Evan Harris: I begin by offering my apologies to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister, for my slightly delayed arrival. There was a lobby of social services users—appropriately enough—from my county this afternoon. They are waiting for me to lodge a petition this evening, which I shall do if I am able to catch your eye when the time comes. I was detained with them, and I regret missing the beginning of the Minister's speech. However, I understand that, in the bit I missed, he set out in general terms the issues relating to the background of the new clauses.
          I am keen to speak to amendment (a), tabled in my name. The Minister began to deal with that, and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), in his perceptive style, also made a substantial part of the contribution that I was going to make. However, I also have a number of questions with which I hope that the Minister will deal, given the Committee style of our proceedings today. I should be grateful if he ensures that he is able to cover them. By way of advance notice, I can tell him that he will find some of the matters that I want to raise among the questions that I placed on the Order Paper yesterday. They were not selected for debate, but I am grateful that a starred amendment was selected, given its late submission.
          I share the gratitude expressed by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for the fact that we have some explanatory notes, even if we did not get much warning that they were coming and had little time to read them before the deadline for tabling amendments. As I said in respect of the programme motion, it is not very satisfactory that a large chunk of new clauses and amendments should be presented with so little time to consider them before the debate. Even so, like the hon. Gentleman, we must do what we can with what we are given.
          With regard to amendment (a), the Minister rightly recognised that it raises concerns about incentive payments in general terms. However, he—and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—were both right to recognise that it relates specifically to incentive payments for vaccinations and immunisations, especially childhood immunisations.
          6.45 pm
          The problem is that, if the system works, it will be of questionable ethics. If it does not work, it will be unnecessary. The Minister has argued that, if GPs were not paid to meet a target, some people would not receive the vaccination that they needed, even after a

          1039
          consultation. Effectively, therefore, there is a third person in the consultation room with the doctor and the patient, or the patient's parents. That third person is the doctor's accountant.
          In general terms, I do not think that that is how a doctor-patient relationship should be conducted. It seems to me entirely wrong that GPs should entertain the notion that, if seven out of the next 10 patients do not end up with being immunised after their consultation, they—the GPs—will miss out on a significant amount of money. It is not an item of service payment, or a payment per immunisation, as the payment kicks in once a threshold is reached. If a doctor is on the cusp of achieving that incentive, the risk is that that factor will creep into the consultation.
          The Minister would consider that to be a success. Like me, he believes that immunisation, where clinically inappropriate and in the absence of contraindications, is a good thing. Even so, it is not appropriate for a GP's recommendation to be backed up—in force or in any other way—by the promise of payment for reaching a particular target. That is not the relationship of equipoise that ought to exist. Doctors and patients should not have these incentive payments and targets in mind.
          If the Minister is arguing that the system works and that doctors are right to chase payment in the consultations, that is not an ethical basis for giving treatment. If the system does not work—if it is not a relevant factor in increasing the number of immunisations—then what is the point in having it? Indeed, I would go further and state that not only is the system pointless, it is damaging. Even if a GP is not influenced by the equation that states that, to reach the threshold, he needs to get seven of the next 10 patients immunised, the perception that he is being influenced still exists. To a great extent, that will undermine the doctor-patient relationship.
          Informed patients—and patients in general—may well be concerned that their doctors will be influenced by the incentive payment. That is especially the case in an area such as immunisation, where the recommendation is being given not to a competent patient—that is a patient with capacity—or even to a Gillick-competent patient, but to a patient without capacity, whose parents must make a decision.
          That is an especially sensitive area. We are talking about treatments that are given to healthy people, and it is understandable that some parents may feel that an unnecessary intervention is being made in respect of a healthy child. It is always more difficult to see the need for such an intervention than for treatment for a person who is symptomatic.
          In addition, many parents and patients may be aware that they benefit from herd immunity and consider that they do not need the immunisation because they can rely on others. That is not an approach that I recommend, but it is a serious concern.
          Mr. Lansley: Before the hon. Gentleman moves off this point, does he share my concern about the incentive payment mechanism? The mechanism is not specified in the contract, which states only that it will be the subject of further discussion and that exception reporting does not apply. Moreover, under the new contract, GP
          1040
          practices will be able to opt out from providing additional services, at a cost of just over £1,000 of the global sum. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a risk that practices that are unhappy with the ethical position presented in the contract may simply choose to opt out of the arrangement? Would not that undermine our ability to deliver this additional service?
          Dr. Harris: Quite so. Immunisation levels are so marginal that we cannot run that risk. The Minister may say that he cannot run the risk of removing incentive payments, but I hope that he will give me some comfort by assuring us that if the system is pursued, it will be changed. There is less of an argument against having a threshold for the number of consultations, so that GPs will be incentivised to consult patients. However, if patients refuse or reject standard immunisation, even with no good clinical reason, that should not penalise the doctor. The Minister could achieve the improvement of access to immunisation that he wants and ensure that there is a proper call and recall system by setting incentive payments—if they have to happen—at a proportion of the eligible population receiving those consultations.
          In fact, that should be the default position and the Minister should have to justify his current position on two grounds. First, there should be clear evidence that a threshold for immunisation payments given works. It is not good enough to look at trends without having an adequate control group to determine what would happen over time if the threshold payment system did not apply. Indeed, the Minister might consider a test whereby in some parts of the country some practices did not operate an incentive scheme for immunisations given, so they would not be penalised when people without good clinical reasons refused immunisation. Simply to cite trends coincident with the introduction of incentive payments is the same sort of logic as he and I both reject when people cite increases in the incidence of autism at the time the MMR vaccine was introduced. If the test is not controlled, such arguments do not have a rational scientific basis. Where there is better evidence—as there was in that case—it should be cited. I urge the Government to show convincingly that there is evidence that the scheme works.
          Secondly, the Minister needs to show that he can overcome the ethical objection that I identified and the public relations problem—people who have lost confidence in the system—before he proceeds with the incentive scheme.
          In Committee, the Minister said that it would be unwise to try to amend these provisions because GPs had just come to an agreement, so any amendments would undermine that agreement. That cannot be right. First, it is the right of the House to make amendments to legislation. Secondly, GPs are still not happy about some aspects. As we know from the recent BMA meeting, incentive payments are one such matter. I should be grateful if the Minister provided some explanation and a defence of his position in response to those charges.
          I have a few more questions that relate to the Liberal Democrat amendments that were not selected. Can the Minister explain why subsection 28U (2) of the new clause states "may" rather than "must"? One would have thought that regulations were definitely needed to

          1041
          make provision for all the points listed under subsection (2). Indeed, a series of questions flows from that and we should try to deal with them if we had time.
          Subsection (3) refers to regulation of the circumstances in which a contract or or contractors
          "may decline to accept a person as such a patient; or…may terminate his or their responsibility for a patient".
          Will the Minister explain how that will work? Can he confirm whether the provisions are merely a translation of the existing arrangements? If so, he will know from representations made to him and from the health ombudsman's report that that is not satisfactory. Like many other Members, I certainly know of patients in my constituency who have been struck off their GP's list with no reason, even where—as is true in the majority of circumstances—there is no question that it would damage the patient's interests to know the reason.
          Often the reason is that the patient has made a complaint. The Minister knows that that is an unacceptable basis for striking off. He knows that the BMA guidelines sent out by family health services authorities, health authorities or whatever they are called nowadays make it clear that the practice is unacceptable. I have an example from my constituency. In a conciliation meeting, a GP told a patient that they should not have complained to their GP if they wanted to stay in the practice. That is unacceptable.
          The Minister has an opportunity to toughen up the regulations. There is an argument that the reasons for which patients can have their relationship with their GP terminated should be limited. That is not just on the ground of natural justice but because it can be so damaging for a patient to be treated in that way, especially when they do not receive a good reason or even any reason at all. Unfortunately, that is a problem in the culture—I speak as someone who has practised as a doctor. It is on the wane, but it still exists; GPs and other doctors still find it hard to adjust to having their treatments questioned. However, that is part and parcel of a modern NHS with empowered patients, and the regulations must keep pace.
          Will there be provision for an appeals process that is open and transparent? It should allow the patient to be reinstated in the practice without GPs automatically saying that they cannot possibly have the patient back because the termination process means that the GP-patient relationship is irrevocably broken. That is a circular argument and such a fallback position cannot be right. I should be grateful if the Minister explained his thinking about that.
          Subsection 28U (6) states that a GMS contract
          "must contain provision requiring the contractor or contractors to comply with any directions given by the appropriate authority"—
          which, as we know from reading the regulations, is the Secretary of State in England—
          "for the purposes of this section as to the drugs, medicines or other substances which may or may not be ordered for patients in the provision of medical services under the contract".
          1042
          At short notice, it is difficult for me to determine whether that is a brand new provision or a translation of existing provisions. Can the Minister clarify that point?
          Mr. Hutton: There is a risk that I might forget that point in my summing up. The provision is a continuation of the existing legislative arrangements; it is not new.
          Dr. Harris: I checked in the table provided by the Minister to determine whether that was the case. It states that the provision replaces schedules 10 and 11, which are, as we know from our debates on Sildenafil, infamous. Is the provision a direct translation? Sildenafil, or Viagra, probably offers a good example, although I do not want to go too far down that path.
          Sir Patrick Cormack: Why not?
          Dr. Harris: Because I know that other Members want to speak and I do not want to provoke Members into reopening that debate.
          Can the Minister tell us whether it would be a breach of contract, or a breach of the terms and conditions of a general practitioner under a GMS contract, for a GP providing primary care services under a GMS contract to prescribe something that the Secretary of State has put under schedules 10 or 11? At present, that is not a breach of terms and conditions because GPs can provide such drugs privately; indeed, they have to do so if they are not to be out of pocket, because they are not reimbursed. In effect, that is rationing. I do not object to rationing itself, but it should be explicit. Normally, if rationing is an issue, it is possible for prescribing freedoms not to be limited and the GP has to explain, within the reimbursement process, what is going on. There may be exceptions, where reimbursement for such a prescription is appropriate, but the blanket provision in the regulations that the subsection may herald could go further than schedules 10 and 11.
          I accept that the matter is technical and that the Minister may not be able to address it at present. If we were in Committee, I should ask him to write to me before Report. However, perhaps he can address that point, as several practitioners have raised it.
          Proposed section 28R deals with the power to set out in regulations the primary medical services that a GP must provide under a GMS contract. In the third column—headed "replaces"—of that very useful table in the explanatory notes, the Minister explains that proposed new section 28R will replace a description in section 29 of the National Health Service Act 1977. The explanatory notes do not specify any provision; they refer to the agreement on essential services in paragraph 2.8. However, among other things, section 29 of the 1977 Act states:
          "Regulations may provide for … securing that the arrangements will be such that all persons availing themselves of those services will receive adequate personal care and attendance, and the regulations shall include provision".
          It goes on to provide further specifications.

          1043
          7 pm
          New clause 26 has been written in very vague terms, so it waters down the obligation in the Bill to ensure that patients can refer to something when protesting that the essential services are insufficient to fall within the remit of the primary legislation. I should be grateful to the Minister if he reassured me about the absence of any description in primary legislation in respect of what must be provided to meet reasonable needs.
          Why are such things not still defined in the new arrangements? If they were defined, future negotiations could allow something that patients have a right to expect beyond the current definition of adequate personal care and attendance to be moved from paragraph 2.8 of the GP contract, which deals with essential services. Does the Minister accept that removing section 29 of the 1977 Act without replacing it with a similar duty represents a dilution, unless I have missed something? That brings me to the Government's amendments on primary dental contracts.
          Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 20 minutes now.
          Dr. Harris: I have got amendments in this group, and it is reasonable to speak for 20 minutes. The hon. Gentleman made the point earlier that we did not have enough time in Committee. I will ensure that I end my speech shortly, so that he has a chance to speak, but I have a specific question on the Government's amendment on dentistry.
          The Minister has chosen to accept some of the arguments made in Committee about the fact that the definitions in clause 161 were inadequate. He now proposes to delete from clause 161 the words
          "it is reasonable to do so"
          and insert,
          "necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, exercise its powers so as to."
          I should be grateful to the Minister if he clarified whether that addresses the point made in Committee about the language used. Is the word "necessary" the significant addition? If it is, I should like to thank him for making that concession. I should like him to deal with the description of services set out in clause 161 for primary dental services and identify—I may have missed it—where the similar general description of the reasonable requirements that it is felt necessary to meet for primary medical services appears in the new provisions.
          My last point relates to proposed new section 28U(3), where the Government's description refers to a power to make regulations setting out the relationship between contractors and their patients. Those relationships are covered in chapter 6 of the NHS Confederation/General Practitioners Committee agreement. The legislation refers to issues relating to termination of the relationship between patients and GPs. I have mentioned patients being the struck off the list. However, I am a bit concerned whether chapter 6 of that agreement is the way by which the proposals that the Government floated in the Labour party about a contract between the patient and the GP may be enforced.
          1044
          I should like the Minister to clarify whether chapter 6 of that agreement could be used, if amended in future, to make patients agree to stop smoking, stop eating or start exercising before they can continue to get services. Perhaps the Minister will welcome the opportunity to put that idea to rest, because a number of people have read into the consultation that the Minister is undertaking in the Labour party that that may be the result.
          We recognise that, overall, the contract represents a good deal for GPs, especially in financial and work load terms, but that is not the same as saying that it represents a good deal for patients because, especially in respect of the number of hours that GPs have to work, there is a zero sum gain. If GP work load is reduced, the services that patients can get from their GPs at a one-stop shop, holistically, are inevitably reduced.
          The Government say that GPs will no longer have to provide out-of-hours services if they choose not to do so. Indeed, they will be paid for their other services even if they choose to drop that responsibility. GPs will be paid more, even if they do less, so patients will get less of a service from their own GPs. I understand that there are not enough GPs and that there are not enough hours in the day for GPs, but I hope that the Government will accept that patients would not have voted for the new contract, even if GPs thought that accepting it was the only thing that would allow them to cope with their work load. Until there is a significant number of new GPs, patients and GPs will not benefit from the new contract.
          Sir Patrick Cormack: I will certainly be briefer than the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I do not dispute for a moment that all the points that he raised were very pertinent and should be addressed. Again, the terrible time constraints under which we have to debate this very important Bill have been underlined.
          I regard the Minister as a very honourable and extremely decent man, and I know that he has the interests of patients very much at heart. That is not in dispute, but I am very concerned about one aspect of the contract in particular. I touched on it in an intervention, as did the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon towards the end of his speech. What concerns me is the service that patients will receive.
          I fully understand the need for the contract. I completely support my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who spoke eloquently from the Opposition Front Bench. He said that he supported the Minister and that he would not seek to divide the House. I am glad about that, and I certainly would not wish to do so. I hope that no one will do so on this issue. However, while it is possible to go through life without going into hospital, it is virtually impossible to go through life without needing the services of a doctor, so we are dealing with a part of the Bill that affects every man, woman and child in this country. I believe in the NHS. If we are to have a national health service worthy of the 21st century, it is crucial that the services provided by GPs—family doctors—are of the highest possible excellence.
          I am surprised that no Labour Back Bencher is present for this important debate, but I do not wish to make too much of that. Let me just say that, when the

          1045
          right hon. Gentleman answered my questions most courteously, he did so with a disturbing imprecision. When I asked him about the relationship between the patient and the practice and where the PCT kicked in, he did not give me a terribly clear answer. It is crucial that the patient looks to the practice with which the patient is registered for all services, both those within and without hours.
          If there is a contractual arrangement that the practice does not provide out-of-hours services, that should be fixed up between the PCT and the practice, so that the patient has absolutely clear information. We have to remember that, although there are some hoaxers and malingerers, most patients who need a doctor out of hours are genuine people who are alarmed and need a service. The last thing that they want is a plethora of telephone numbers or a sheaf of papers. Those people are often elderly. They are sometimes old, distressed and even confused. A doctor is needed for the husband, the wife or the child in the middle of the night, but how is that doctor obtained? I should be most grateful to the Minister if he addressed that point and told us how such things will work.
          I have a rural constituency—not as large as some of my colleagues' rural constituencies, but quite large. I have had experience of patients who are registered with practices that rely for virtually all their out-of-hours services on agencies. If the patient gets a doctor who has no idea of the geography of the area, who takes a long time to reach them, who does not know the patient and knows nothing of his or her medical history, it is hardly reassuring. Any agency that provides an out-of-hours service for a practice should have all their cars equipped with satellite navigation, which is simple these days—I have it myself, and I find it helpful when I am driving around an area that I do not know. It would be most reassuring if when people made a telephone call they knew that the doctor would arrive on their doorstep in pretty sharp time.
          This aspect of the contract worries me. It is underlined by something that was said to me by the wife of a GP in my constituency a little while ago. I was shocked—perhaps I am too old-fashioned—that she said, "Of course, medicine is not a vocation any more. It's just a job." I am naive and idealistic enough to believe that the element of vocation is terribly important and should still exist. Of course doctors deserve private lives as much as anybody else, and of course they have great pressures on them—many of them work in practices whose lists contain thousands of names. Of course it is incumbent on us to ensure that they have a contract that allows them to have decent private time and decent private lives. Nobody makes a man or woman become a doctor, however, and the element of vocation is important. When somebody has a sense of vocation, as most of us in this place do, hours sometimes have to be forgotten.
          I trust that the Minister's answer will reassure me satisfactorily—because this would also reassure my constituents—that however the new arrangement works, the patient will still feel registered with a practice, that if illness strikes in the dark hours of a winter's night a doctor can be summoned, will be summoned and will appear in reasonable time, and that the quality of care will be commensurate with that given by the doctor who
          1046
          regularly sees the patient at the surgery. That is what I and my constituents are concerned about, and I am sure that the same applies to the constituents of every Member in every part of the House.
          I thank the Minister for what he has done. I appreciate the information that he got to us—albeit a little late, but that was not his fault—and, I have absolutely no doubt about his personal integrity or desire to ensure that the quality of medicine is the highest possible. I have these worries, however, and I hope that he can reassure me. When he winds up this all-too-brief debate, I hope that he will be able to give me that reassurance, so that I can pass it on to my constituents.
          Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this short debate on an important subject. I feel confident that the Minister will have a few minutes in which to reply fully to the points raised. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was generous to the Minister in contemplating that he might respond to some of the questions asked subsequently. It seems to me that the Minister has lived with the subject of the general medical services contract for some time, and I would be surprised were we to raise issues to which it was not within his competence to reply. I hope that he will reply in substance to our points.
          My purpose is not to speak about the construction of the legislation and the new clauses and amendments, but about what lies beneath them: the new contract and how that it is to be framed. The debate gives us an opportunity for such discussion. It does not depend on the documents sent to us by the Minister, which I received on Friday in the House, but on the "Investing in General Practice" document, which, as the Minister rightly told us, was published in February. There has therefore been scope to think about these issues, but none to raise them. That is why I am disappointed that we did not get an opportunity prior to this to do so. It seems rather last-minute.
          7.15 pm
          Let me run through my points, some of which have already been mentioned. The first was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). Much as we might be putting into legislative effect the framework for the contract negotiated between the NHS Confederation on the one hand and the GPs committee of the British Medical Association on the other, we are the guardians of the interests of the public, and, in that respect, of the interests of patients. I hope that my remarks will not be interpreted wrongly—both those organisations have the interests of patients at heart, too, but the final responsibility rests with us.
          My hon. Friend expressed the concerns that have been raised in the right way, and I do not want to add to them, except to say that this is not simply about out-of-hours cover. The out-of-hours issue is terribly important, and I know that the Government will have thought long and hard about the extent to which practices can opt out of it; offering a timetable of 31 December 2004 for opting out is bold. I hope, however, that we will not find in the latter stages of next year or the early part of 2005 that, in practice, primary care

          1047
          organisations are seeking to provide out-of-hours cover for a high proportion of practices that are not willing to take it up, or a high proportion in rural areas in particular that are not willing to take it up, and that the alternative service models that are being developed simply cannot cope. I hope that we do not arrive at that, and I am sure that the Minister will give us some comfort that he feels confident about the scale—and the relative modesty of the scale—of opting out by practices, as it will be very difficult if it is much more than Ministers anticipate.
          The second point, particularly in relation to rural areas, is the patient services guarantee. The patient services guarantee to which the Minister referred, I understand, is a guarantee for the primary care organisation to have a continuing responsibility for the provision of services under the existing contract. It is not, however, a guarantee that those services will be provided by the existing practice, because, of course, the practice in question has the ability to opt out of additional services. Therefore—this is particularly relevant in rural areas—if the service is being provided by other practices, other primary care providers or by the primary care organisation itself, provision may be in a number of different places. A considerable difference of substance exists between receiving one's essential services from a single practice, and, in respect of additional services, perhaps having to go to a more remote town or city to access a range of different services. In relation to provision for rurality, sparsity and special allocations of funds to reflect the costs of travel and the like in rural areas, I hope that the Minister will think hard and keep a weather eye on the extent to which the patient services guarantee leads to deterioration in the level of service or access to service for patients, whether in rural areas or anywhere else, and that he will be willing to intervene if necessary to boost some of the enhancements to practices, particularly in rural areas, if it proves that the incentives are not sufficient.
          I want to echo two points made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I have been concerned about a case in my constituency, as other Members will be, involving the circumstances under which practices have the right to remove patients from their lists. He referred to that in the text of new clauses, but, of course, it reflects paragraph 6.29 in the contract. Of course, we know that patients may be removed if they are violent and that primary care organisations have to take responsibility in such circumstances. Paragraph 6.29 clearly says:
          "Removal from a list will follow a transparent process that normally would include a warning to the patient before removal".
          That is quite right. The subsequent sentence is less clear and gives rise to a specific concern. It says:
          "When a patient is removed, practices will be required to give specific reasons to the patient as to why the removal has occurred, though it is accepted that, in certain specific circumstances, a statement to the effect that the relationship between the patient and the practice has irrevocably broken down will suffice."
          What are the "certain specific circumstances" in which such a situation could occur? I suspect that they applied when my constituent was removed from a list. That process affected not only him but his wife and family because the practice's decision that the relationship with him had broken down meant that the
          1048
          whole family were effectively treated as though their relationship had broken down. The family live in a rural area, so the distance that they must travel to an alternative practice is substantial. My constituent believed that there was no underlying reason behind his removal from the practice. I suspect that it happened because he made a complaint, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned. That should not be sufficient to allow removal because there should be a formal and transparent process. I want to know the specific circumstances in which patients may be removed.
          On immunisation, I have said that it is surprising that exception reporting for informed dissent will not be applied to the target payments. I have a technical question. Amendment No. 299 will disapply section 53 of the National Health Service Act 1977 under which every practitioner who is under contract to provide personal medical services should be enabled to offer child vaccination and immunisation services. Will the Minister explain why that provision must be removed?
          I want to make a further point about the structure of the contract itself, although perhaps I should have raised it with the British Medical Association because it worries about such things. I earlier expressed concern about the extent to which information technology systems in the NHS are being centralised and said that the responsiveness of the IT system to individual customers was being removed. I fear that the same will be true of information management and technology systems for practices. The BMA and general practitioners might feel comfortable at the moment that they will enjoy the benefits of centralised standardisation, purchasing and funding for the provision of IT systems and the telecommunications to support that, but GPs will not be the customers. I wonder whether the BMA is entirely confident that GP practices will be able to exercise the same control over their service providers that they do at present. They currently spend their own money and obtain their systems from a range of competing providers that meet the necessary protocols of standardisation—the systems need to be able to talk to each other. There should be a customer-contractor relationship between a practice and its service provider, but that will not exist in future.
          I am worried by paragraph 5.16 of the contract. It is an obtuse, yet important, part of the structure of remuneration and it relates to the adjustment of the list size for list inflation. Up until now, the registered population has tended to exceed the population estimates of the Office for National Statistics. In future, primary care organisations will rely on new census population estimates. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that there are places throughout the country—the most prominent are Westminster and central London, but the same can be said of the city of Cambridge—in which there are significant discrepancies between population estimates from the 2001 census and the figures anticipated. If those statistics affect the allocation of resources to primary care organisations and their practices under the contract, I am worried that structural problems with census population data will lead to problems with the contract. I hope that the Minister understands that caveats might need to be entered against that.

          1049
          I asked the Minister earlier about order-making powers. He said that the negative procedure would be used; I assume that he meant in all cases. I imagine that many orders that arise from the Bill would not need to be considered using the affirmative procedure, but I urge the Government and those in another place who care deeply about the structure of legislation to look hard at Government new clause 26. It contains order-making powers to prescribe services that
          "are, or are not, to be regarded as primary medical services"
          and to define how they should be delivered. That is one of the central issues behind the new structure of contracts for personal medical services and general medical services. It would not be excessive for Ministers to give an undertaking that such orders at least would be considered under affirmative resolution. It would be undesirable if Opposition parties had to pray against orders so that something so central to the contract's structure could be debated.
          Mr. Hutton: I warmly thank hon. Members who contributed to the debate for their remarks. I am grateful to the official Opposition and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) for their general support for the new contract. However, I am afraid that I shall lower the tone by saying that the hon. Gentleman's reluctance to express anything like enthusiasm for the decision taken by 80 per cent. of GPs to embrace the new contract was typically curmudgeonly. Although it has nothing to do with the amendments, it is not the case that patients would not have voted for the new contract, although neither the hon. Gentleman nor I can prove that.
          The new contract represents a significant development for primary care that will allow us to provide a better range of primary care services than at present. The arrangement is good for GPs and everyone who works in primary care but it has been exclusively driven by our one simple desire to improve the range of primary care services available to the people of this country. I think that people would overwhelmingly vote for that if they were given the opportunity, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands from our previous debates that we do not suggest extending the democratic franchise quite that far—we have enough on our plate with NHS foundation trusts.
          It is important to bear in mind one or two basic facts and figures about primary care. Much of the debate has been focused on the importance of out-of-hours services, and I agree that they are central to many people's perception of the comprehensive nature of NHS services. GPs and practice staff in primary care deal with about 250 million consultations each year, and 90 per cent. of all patient journeys in the NHS begin and end in a family doctor's surgery. The work done in primary care will certainly be central to the success of the national health service well into the future. I do not question the commitment of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) to the national health service because he, like me, wants it to be a success. It is important that the issues raised by the hon. Members for South Staffordshire, for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon are addressed properly as we move toward implementing the new agreement.
          1050
          There is no doubt that there are risks. Perhaps the most difficult aspects of the agreement were the out-of-hours provisions. I know from my work as a constituency MP that our constituents place a high premium on around-the-clock access to a GP, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a defining characteristic of our primary care services. I can give the hon. Member for South Staffordshire the assurances he seeks: we will implement the agreement to ensure that there is no loss of access to out-of-hours services. That is intrinsic in the agreement that we reached with the NHS Confederation and the British Medical Association. They recognise the importance of the service, too.
          7.30 pm
          I have had the benefit of talking to many GPs about the new contract. Without exception, they all want the out-of-hours services, and the quality of those services, maintained because doctors care deeply about the wellbeing of their patients. They will not accept for a second a diminution in the quality of out-of-hours services. I am sorry if my answer was not to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction, but it will be the responsibility of primary care trusts, in discussions with their local practices, to finalise, over the course of the next year or so, the arrangements that will need to be put in place locally to provide comprehensive out-of-hours services. That will include a proper setting of standards to be met. The arrangements governing accessibility of the service, who comes out to deal with a call and how quickly he or she arrives are important and will need to be put in place. It is a big job, but we have worked actively with primary care trusts to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, like mine, are not put at risk or disadvantaged. I am sorry if my original answers were not precise enough, but I assure him that that is how we intend to proceed. We would not accept anything less.
          The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) mentioned the technical aspects and asked me to give an example of how we are reducing the burden or the volume of secondary legislation. I gave him one example and am happy to give him others in due course. He asked how enhanced services will be provided if not through GMS or PMS. They can be provided through the additional third route of directly commissioned PCT services and the services of additional providers can also be used. He also asked whether the minimum practice income guarantee would be covered by directions under proposed new section 28T. It will be. The minimum income guarantee will continue beyond 2006. It is not time limited.
          On subsection (4) of proposed new section 16CC, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the duties are reciprocal. It is not one-way traffic. The duties are broadly designed to deal with some of the cross-border issues that he mentioned, including the need to move to single commissioning of primary care services in those areas if possible.
          The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon asked a number of questions. I am afraid that I shall have to write to him. I hope that he does not mind. He did invite me to go down that path and I intend to take advantage of that get-out. He kept referring to "U2",

          1051
          which is one of my favourite bands. I did not realise we were debating that today, and I am happy to discuss it with him another time.
          The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asked pertinent questions. Given the time left, I shall have to write to him with further details. I am more than happy to meet hon. Members who contributed to the debate to discuss primary care services at any time in the future. I am also happy to arrange for them to be briefed by my officials, if they would find that helpful. The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficult issue of removing patients from practice lists and how we could deal with that. He is right to refer to sections of the February agreement that attempt to deal with the problem. We intend to use the regulatory powers to set out some of those issues in secondary legislation. It is not an entirely satisfactory state of affairs for any patient to be declined registration or to be removed from a practice. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said, professional practice guidelines have been set out and we hope people will follow them.
          The debate has been helpful. I am grateful for the support expressed for the Government new clauses. I look forward to discussing related issues in due course.
          It being six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 27

          GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES CONTRACTS
          '(1) In the 1977 Act, after section 28P (as inserted by section 163 above) insert—
          "General medical services contracts
          28Q General medical services contracts: introductory
          (1) A Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board may enter into a contract under which primary medical services are provided in accordance with the following provisions of this Part.
          (2) A contract under this section is called in this Act a "general medical services contract".
          (3) Subject to any provision made by or under this Part, a general medical services contract may make such provision as may be agreed between the Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board and the contractor or contractors in relation to—

          (a) the services to be provided under the contract,

          (b) remuneration under the contract, and

          (c) any other matters.

          (4) The services to be provided under a general medical services contract may include—

          (a) services which are not primary medical services;

          (b) services to be provided outside the area of the Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board.

          (5) In this Part, "contractor", in relation to a general medical services contract, means any person entering into the contract with the Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board.
          28R Requirement to provide certain primary medical services
          (1) A general medical services contract must require the contractor or contractors to provide, for his or their patients, primary medical services of such descriptions as may be prescribed.
          (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular describe services by reference to the manner or circumstances in which they are provided.
          28S Persons eligible to enter into GMS contracts
          (1) A Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, enter into a general medical services contract with—

          (a) a medical practitioner;

          (b) two or more individuals practising in partnership where the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied; or

          (c) a company limited by shares where the conditions in subsection (3) are satisfied.

          (2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(b) in relation to a partnership are that—

          (a) at least one partner is a medical practitioner; and

          (b) any partner who is not a medical practitioner is either—

          (i) an NHS employee;

          (ii) a section 28C employee or a section 17C employee;

          (iii) a health care professional who is engaged in the provision of services under this Act; or

          (iv) an individual who is providing services under a general medical services contract or a general dental services contract or in accordance with section 28C arrangements or arrangements under section 17C of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, or has so provided them within such period as may be prescribed.

          (3) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(c) in relation to a company are that—

          (a) at least one share in the company is legally and beneficially owned by a medical practitioner; and

          (b) any share which is not so owned is legally and beneficially owned by a person referred to in subsection (2)(b)(i) to (iv).

          (4) Regulations may make provision as to the effect, in relation to a general medical services contract entered into by individuals practising in partnership, of a change in the membership of the partnership.
          (5) In this section—
          "health care professional" has the same meaning as in section 28M above;
          "NHS employee", "section 28C employee" and "section 17C employee" have the same meanings as in section 28D above.
          28T GMS contracts: payments
          (1) The appropriate authority may give directions as to payments to be made under general medical services contracts.
          (2) A general medical services contract must require payments to be made under the contract in accordance with directions for the time being in force under this section.
          (3) Without prejudice to the generality of the power under subsection (1), directions under that subsection may—

          (a) provide for payments to be made by reference to compliance with standards or the achievement of levels of performance;

          (b) provide for payments to be made by reference to—

          (i) any scheme or scale specified in the direction; or

          (ii) a determination made by any person in accordance with factors specified in the direction;

          (c) provide for the making of payments in respect of individual practitioners;

          (d) provide that the whole or any part of a payment is subject to conditions (and may provide that payments are payable by a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board only if it is satisfied as to certain conditions);

          1053

          (e) make provision having effect from a date before the date of the direction, provided that, having regard to the direction as a whole, the provision is not detrimental to the persons to whose remuneration it relates.

          (4) Before giving a direction under subsection (1), the appropriate authority—

          (a) must consult any body appearing to the authority to be representative of persons to whose remuneration the direction would relate, and

          (b) may consult such other persons as the authority thinks appropriate.

          (5) Section 18(1) and (3)(b) apply in relation to directions under this section.
          (6) References in this section to payments include fees, allowances, reimbursements, loans and repayments.
          (7) In this section "appropriate authority" means—

          (a) the Secretary of State, in relation to a contract made by a Primary Care Trust;

          (b) the National Assembly for Wales, in relation to a contract made by a Local Health Board.

          28U GMS contracts: other required terms
          (1) A general medical services contract must contain such provision as may be prescribed (in addition to the provision required by the preceding provisions of this Part).
          (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular make provision as to—

          (a) the manner in which, and standards to which, services are to be provided;

          (b) the persons who perform services;

          (c) the persons to whom services are to be provided;

          (d) the right of patients to choose the persons from whom they are to receive services;

          (e) the variation of contract terms (other than terms required by or under this Part);

          (f) rights of entry and inspection (including inspection of clinical records and other documents);

          (g) the circumstances in which, and the manner in which, the contract may be terminated;

          (h) enforcement;

          (i) the adjudication of disputes.

          (3) Regulations making provision under subsection (2)(c) may make provision as to the circumstances in which a contractor or contractors—

          (a) must or may accept a person as a patient to whom services are provided under the contract; or

          (b) may decline to accept a person as such a patient; or

          (c) may terminate his or their responsibility for a patient.

          (4) Regulations under subsection (2)(e) may—

          (a) make provision as to the circumstances in which a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board may impose a variation of contract terms;

          (b) make provision suspending or terminating any duty under the contract to provide services of a prescribed description.

          (5) Regulations making provision of the kind described in subsection (4)(b) may prescribe services by reference to the manner or circumstances in which they are provided.
          (6) A general medical services contract must contain provision requiring the contractor or contractors to comply with any directions given by the appropriate authority for the purposes of this section as to the drugs, medicines or other substances which may or may not be ordered for patients in the provision of medical services under the contract.
          (7) Section 18(1) and (3)(b) apply in relation to directions under subsection (6).
          (8) In subsection (6) "appropriate authority" has the same meaning as in section 28T above.
          28V GMS contracts: disputes and enforcement
          (1) Regulations may make provision for the resolution of disputes as to the terms of a proposed general medical services contract.
          (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision—

          (a) for the referral of the terms of the proposed contract to the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales; and

          (b) for the Secretary of State or Assembly, or a person appointed by him or it, to determine the terms on which the contract may be entered into.

          (3) Regulations may make provision for a person or persons entering into a general medical services contract to be regarded as a health service body for any purposes of section 4 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, in circumstances where he or they so elect.
          (4) Regulations under subsection (3) may include provision as to the application of section 4 of that Act in cases where—

          (a) persons practising in partnership elect to become a health service body; and

          (b) there is a change in the membership of the partnership.

          (5) Where—

          (a) by virtue of regulations under subsection (3), subsection (7) of section 4 of that Act applies in relation to a general medical services contract, and

          (b) a direction as to payments is made under that subsection in relation to the contract,

          the direction is to be enforceable in a county court (if the court so orders) as if it were a judgment or order of that court."
          (2) Sections 29 to 34A of the 1977 Act (arrangements for general medical services) shall cease to have effect.'—[Mr. Hutton.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 28

          GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES: TRANSITIONAL
          '(1) The appropriate authority shall by order make transitional provision in respect of persons who, immediately before the coming into force of section (general medical services contracts), are providing services under section 29 of the 1977 Act (general medical services).
          (2) An order under this section may provide that, in such circumstances as the order may prescribe, a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board must, if any such person so wishes, enter into a general medical services contract with him; and the order may make provision as to the terms of any such contract.
          (3) An order under this section may provide that, in such circumstances as the order may prescribe, a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board must, if any such person so wishes, enter into a contract with him, containing such terms as the order may specify, for the provision of medical services.
          (4) An order under this section may make provision for the resolution of disputes in relation to any contract entered into, or proposed to be entered into, under subsection (2) or (3), including provision for the determination of disputes by the appropriate authority or a person appointed by the authority.
          (5) An order under this section may make provision in respect of a period beginning before the coming into force of the provision (or of section (general medical services contracts)), provided that the provision is not as a whole detrimental to the remuneration of the persons to whom it relates.
          (6) In this section—
          "appropriate authority" means—

          (a) the Secretary of State, in relation to England; and

          (b) the Assembly, in relation to Wales;

          "general medical services contract" means a contract under section 28Q of the 1977 Act (as inserted by section (general medical services contracts))'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

        New Clause 29

          ABOLITION OF PILOT SCHEMES
          '(1) Part 1 of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 (c.46) (power to make pilot schemes for the provision of personal medical and dental services) shall cease to have effect.
          (2) This section extends to England and Wales only.'.—[Mr. Hutton.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

        Clause 161

          PROVISION OF PRIMARY DENTAL SERVICES
          Amendments made: No. 270, in page 78, line 26, leave out
          'it reasonable to do so,'
          and insert
          'necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, exercise its powers so as to'.
          No. 271, in page 78, line 28, leave out
          'For the purposes of this section'.
          No. 272, in page 78, line 30, at end insert
          '(whether within or outside its area)'.
          No. 273, in page 78, line 33, leave out 'section' and insert 'Pare.
          No. 274, in page 78, line 36, leave out 'under this section' and insert
          'relating to the provision of primary dental services under this Part'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

        Clause 163

          GENERAL DENTAL SERVICES CONTRACTS
          Amendments made: No. 275, in page 80, line 29, after 'contract', insert
          'or a general medical services contract'.
          No. 276, in page 81, line 1, leave out from 'employee"' to end of line 3.
          No. 277, in page 82, line 10, at end insert—
          '() the right of patients to choose the persons from whom they are to receive services;'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

        Clause 165

          ARRANGEMENTS UNDER SECTION 28C OF THE 1977 ACT
          Amendments made: No. 278, in page 83, line 32, leave out from 'for' to end of line 43 and insert
          'paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute
          "(b) a medical practitioner who meets the prescribed conditions;
          (ba) a dental practitioner who meets the prescribed conditions;
          1056
          (bb) a health care professional who meets the prescribed conditions;
          (bc) an individual who is providing services—

          (i) under a general medical services contract or general dental services contract;

          (ii) in accordance with section 28C arrangements or section 17C arrangements;

          or has so provided them within such period as may be prescribed;".'.
          No. 279, in page 84, line 3, leave out '(c)(iii)' and insert '(bc)'.
          No. 280, in page 84, line 10, leave out from 'subsection,' to end of line 23 and insert
          'for the definition of "NHS employee" substitute—
          ""NHS employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in the health service in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, is employed by—

          (a) an NHS trust, an NHS foundation trust or (in Northern Ireland) a Health and Social Services Trust;

          (b) a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board;

          (c) an individual who is providing services under a general medical services contract or a general dental services contract;

          (d) a medical practitioner whose name is included in a list kept under the 1978 Act which is equivalent to a list maintained under section 28W below;

          (e) a dental practitioner whose name is included in a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 25(2)(a) of the 1978 Act;

          (f) a medical practitioner whose name is included in a list kept under article 56 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (1972 No. 1256 (N.I.14));

          (g) a dental practitioner whose name is included in a list kept under article 61 of that Order;".'.

          No. 281, in page 84, line 30, after 'arrangements;', insert—
          '(cb) provide for the circumstances in which a person providing primary medical services under section 28C arrangements—

          (i) must or may accept a person as a patient to whom such services are so provided;

          (ii) may decline to accept a person as such a patient;

          (iii) may terminate his responsibility for a patient;

          (cc) make provision as to the right of patients to choose the persons from whom they are to receive services;".'.
          No. 282, in page 84, line 39, at end insert—
          '() In that section, after subsection (3B) (as inserted by subsection (8) above), insert—
          "(3C) The regulations may also include provision requiring a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board, in prescribed circumstances and subject to prescribed conditions, to enter into a general medical services contract or general dental services contract on prescribed terms with any person providing services under section 28C arrangements who so requests.".'.
          No. 283, in page 84, line 39, at end insert—
          '() In that Act, sections 28F (choice of medical practitioner), 28G (choice of dental practitioner) and 28H (immunisation) shall cease to have effect.' —[Mr. Hutton.]

        Clause 166

          PERSONS PERFORMING PRIMARY DENTAL SERVICES
          Amendments made: No. 284, in page 84, line 41, leave out '28P' and insert '28V'.
          No. 285, in page 84, line 41, leave out
          '163' and insert (general medical services contracts)'.
          No. 286, in page 84, line 42, leave out '28Q' and insert '28W'.
          No. 287, in page 84, line 42, after 'primary', insert 'medical and'.
          No. 288, in page 84, line 42, at end insert—
          '() Regulations may provide that a health care professional of a prescribed description may not perform any primary medical service for which a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board is responsible unless he is included in a list maintained under the regulations by a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board.'.
          No. 289, in page 85, line 8, at end insert 'medical or'
          No. 290, in page 86, line 9, after 'State', insert
          'or the National Assembly for Wales'
          No. 291, in page 86, line 10, after 'State', insert
          'or the National Assembly for Wales'—[Mr. Hutton.]

        Clause 167

          ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT
          Amendments made: No. 292, in page 86, line 16, leave out '28Q' and insert '28W'.
          No. 293, in page 86, line 17, leave out '28R' and insert '28X'.
          No. 294, in page 86, line 20, after 'provide', insert 'primary medical services or'.
          No. 295, in page 86, line 21, after 'under', insert
          'a general medical services contract or'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

        Clause 169
          SPECIAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES
          Amendment made: No. 296, in page 86, line 31, leave out subsection (1).—[Mr. Hutton.]
        Clause 170

          CHARGES FOR DENTAL, SERVICES
          Amendments made: No. 297, in page 87, line 40, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 42.
          No. 298, in page 89, line 21, at end insert—
          '(3) In respect of any period after the coming into force of this section but before the coming into force of section (abolition of pilot schemes), section 79(5)(b) of the 1977 Act (as inserted by subsection (1) above) shall have effect as if it included a reference to the supply of dentures and other dental appliances in accordance with a pilot scheme under Part 1 of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 (c.46).'.[Mr. Hutton.]

        Schedule 10

          PART 4: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
          Amendment made: No. 299, in page 134, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 145 and insert—
          1058
          'National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949 (c.93)
          1 (1) The National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949 (which is spent in relation to England and Wales) shall cease to have effect.
          (2) This paragraph extends to England and Wales only.
          Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (c.46)
          2 The Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 has effect subject to the following amendments.
          3 (1) Section 59 is amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (1)—

          (a) after "local pharmaceutical services," insert "primary medical services.";

          (b) after "personal medical services," insert "primary dental services,".

          (3) In subsection (2), after "1977" insert "(in the case of pharmaceutical services)".
          (4) In subsection (2A), omit "section 28C of the 1977 Act,".
          (5) After subsection (2B) insert—
          "(2C) In subsection (1), the references to primary medical services and primary dental services are references to primary medical services and primary dental services provided under Part 1 of the 1977 Act or any corresponding provisions of the law in force in Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man."
          4 In section 63(2)—

          (a) after paragraph (a) insert—

          (aa) the provision or performance of a primary medical service or primary dental service under Part 1 of the 1977 Act and an activity involved in or connected with the provision or performance of such a service;";

          (b) in paragraph (ba), omit "section 28C of the 1977 Act or".

          5 In section 64(3)(b), after "make arrangements" insert "or any service which a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board is under a duty to provide under section 16CA or 16CC of that Act".
          Patents Act 1977 (c.37)
          6 (1) Section 56(4)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 is amended as follows.
          (2) After "the provision of—" insert—
          "(ai) primary medical services or primary dental services under Part 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977, or any corresponding provisions of the law in force in Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man, or".
          (3) In subparagraph (i), after "1977" insert "(in the case of pharmaceutical services)".
          (4) In subparagraph (ii), omit "section 28C of the 1977 Act,".
          National Health Service Act 1977 (c.49)
          7 The 1977 Act has effect subject to the following amendments.
          8 In section 3, at the end insert—
          "(4) For the purposes of the duty in subsection (1), services provided under—

          (a) section 16CA(2) or 16CC(2) below, or

          (b) a general medical services contract or a general dental services contract,

          are to be regarded as provided by the Secretary of State."
          9 In section 15(1)(a), for "general medical services, general dental services" substitute "primary medical services, primary dental services".
          10 In section 16BB(4), at the end insert "(including functions under sections 16CA to 16CC below)".
          11 In section 16BC(1), at the end insert "or sections 16CA to 16CC below".
          12 In section 18A(3)—

          (a) in paragraph (a), omit "general medical, general dental,"; and

          (b) for paragraph (b) substitute—

          "(b)providing or performing primary medical services or primary dental services under this Part,".

          13 (1) Section 26 is amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (2) (as substituted by the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997)—

          (a) in paragraph (a), omit "general medical services, general dental services";

          (b) for paragraph (b) substitute—

          "(b)providing services under a general medical services contract or a general dental services contract or in accordance with section 28C arrangements,".

          (3) In subsection (4)—

          (a) in paragraph (a), omit "general medical services, general dental services";

          (b) for paragraph (aa) substitute—

          "(aa) persons performing services under a general medical services contract or a general dental services contract or in accordance with section 28C arrangements".

          14 In section 28C(l)(a) and (b), (2)(a) and (b) and (4), for "personal", in all places, substitute "primary".
          15 (1) Section 28D is amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (1)—

          (a) in paragraph (a), at the end insert "or NHS foundation trust";

          (b) in paragraph (f), at the end insert "or Local Health Board".

          (3) In subsection (2), in the definition of "qualifying body"

          (a) in paragraph (a), for "(c)" substitute "(ba), (bb), (bc)";

          (b) in paragraph (b), for "personal" substitute "primary".

          16 In section 28I(a), for the words from "personal medical services" to "arrangements" substitute "primary medical services or primary dental services under this Part".
          17 (1) Section 41(1) is amended as follows.
          (2) In paragraph (b), after "medicines" insert "and listed appliances".
          (3) In paragraph (c)—

          (a) after "medicines" insert "and listed appliances";

          (b) for "general dental services" substitute "primary dental services".

          18 In section 43(1), for "general medical services or general dental services" substitute "primary medical services or primary dental services under Part 1 above".
          19 In section 43D(10)—

          (a) omit paragraphs (a) and (b);

          (b) for the words from "paragraphs" to "a services list prepared by" substitute "paragraphs (c) to (e), a supplementary list, a list under section 28W or a list corresponding to a list under section 28W prepared by".

          20 (1) Section 44 is amended as follows.
          (2) In the sidenote, for "local representative committees" substitute "Local Optical Committees and Local Pharmaceutical Committees".
          (3) Omit subsections (ZA1) to (B1).
          (4) In subsection (1)—

          (a) for the words from "a Health Authority" to "their area" substitute "a Local Health Board is satisfied that a committee formed for its area, or for its area and that of one or more other Local Health Boards";

          (b) for "the Health Authority" substitute "the Local Health Board".

          (5) Omit subsections (3)(a) to (d) and (5).
          21 (1) Section 45 is amended as follows.
          (2) In the sidenote, for "local representative committees" substitute "Local Optical Committees and Local Pharmaceutical Committees".
          (3) In subsection (1)—

          (a) for "Health Authorities" substitute "Local Health Boards";

          (b) omit paragraph (b).

          (4) In subsection (1ZA), omit paragraph (b) and the preceding "or".
          (5) In subsection (1A)—

          (a) omit "Strategic Health Authority";

          (b) for "Health Authority" substitute "Local Health Board".

          (6) In subsection (1C), for the words from "an area" to the end substitute "an area under subsection (B2)(b)(ii) of section 44 above shall, in respect of each year, determine the amount of its administrative expenses for that year attributable to the persons providing local pharmaceutical services in the Primary Care Trust's area".
          (7) In subsection (2), for "Health Authority", in both places, substitute "Local Health Board".
          (8) In subsection (3)—

          (a) for "Health Authority", in both places, substitute "Local Health Board";

          (b) omit "general medical services, general dental services,".

          (9) In subsection (4), for the words from "deputy medical practitioners" to "as the case may be" substitute "persons providing local pharmaceutical services".
          22 After section 45 insert—
          "45A Local Medical Committees
          (1) A Primary Care Trust may recognise a committee formed for its area, or for its area and that of one or more other Primary Care Trusts, which it is satisfied is representative of—

          (a) the persons to whom subsection (3) applies; and

          (b) the persons to whom subsection (4) applies.

          (2) A Local Health Board may recognise a committee formed for its area, or for its area and that of one or more other Local Health Boards, which it is satisfied is representative of—

          (a) the persons to whom subsection (3) applies; and

          (b) the persons to whom subsection (4) applies.

          (3) This subsection applies to—

          (a) every medical practitioner who, under a general medical services contract entered into by him, is providing primary medical services in the area for which the committee is formed; and

          (b) every medical practitioner who is providing general ophthalmic services in that area.

          (4) This subsection applies to every other medical practitioner—

          (a) who is performing primary medical services in the area for which the committee is formed—

          (i) pursuant to section 16CC(2)(a) above;

          (ii) in accordance with section 28C arrangements; or

          (iii) under a general medical services contract; and

          (b) who has notified the Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board that he wishes to be represented by the committee (and has not notified it that he wishes to cease to be so represented).

          (5) A committee recognised under this section shall be called the Local Medical Committee for the area for which it is formed.
          (6) Any such committee may delegate any of its functions, with or without restrictions or conditions, to subcommittees composed of members of that committee.
          (7) Regulations may require a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board, in the exercise of its functions relating to primary medical services, to consult any committee recognised by it under this section on such occasions and to such extent as may be prescribed.
          (8) Regulations may require a Strategic Health Authority, in the exercise of any of its functions which relate to section 28C arrangements for the provision of primary medical services, to consult, on such occasions and to such extent as may be prescribed, any committee—

          (a) which is recognised by a Primary Care Trust under this section for the area where the services are (or are to be) provided under those arrangements; and

          (b) which is representative of persons providing or performing those services under those arrangements.

          (9) A committee recognised under this section shall have such other functions as may be prescribed.
          (10) A committee recognised under this section shall in respect of each year determine—

          (a) the amount of its administrative expenses for that year attributable to persons of whom its is representative under subsection (1)(a) or (2)(a); and

          (b) the amount of its administrative expenses for that year attributable to persons of whom it is representative under subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b).

          (11) A Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board may—

          (a) on the request of a committee recognised by it, allot to that committee such sums for defraying the expenses referred to in subsection (10)(a) as it may determine; and

          (b) deduct the amount of such sums from the remuneration of persons of whom it is representative under subsection (1)(a) or (2)(a) under the general medical services contracts, or arrangements under section 38 above, entered into by them with the Trust or Board.

          (12) A committee recognised under this section shall apportion the amount determined by it under subsection (10)(b) among the persons of whom it is representative under subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b); and each such person shall pay in accordance with the committee's directions the amount so apportioned to him.
          (13) References in this section to the administrative expenses of a committee include the travelling and subsistence allowances payable to its members.
          45B Local Dental Committees
          (1) A Primary Care Trust may recognise a committee formed for its area, or for its area and that of one or more other Primary Care Trusts, which it is satisfied is representative of—

          (a) the persons to whom subsection (3) applies; and

          (b) the persons to whom subsection (4) applies.

          (2) A Local Health Board may recognise a committee formed for its area, or for its area and that of one or more other Local Health Boards, which it is satisfied is representative of—

          (a) the persons to whom subsection (3) applies; and

          (b) the persons to whom subsection (4) applies.

          (3) This subsection applies to every dental practitioner who, under a general dental services contract entered into by him, is providing primary dental services in the area for which the committee is formed.
          (4) This subsection applies to every other dental practitioner—

          (a) who is performing primary dental services in the area for which the committee is formed—

          (i) under section 16CA(2) above;

          (ii) in accordance with section 28C arrangements; or

          (iii) under a general dental services contract; and

          1062

          (b) who has notified the Primary Care Trust that he wishes to be represented by the committee (and has not notified it that he wishes to cease to be so represented).

          (5) A committee recognised under this section shall be called the Local Dental Committee for the area for which it is formed.
          (6) Any such committee may delegate any of its functions, with or without restrictions or conditions, to subcommittees composed of members of that committee.
          (7) Regulations may require a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board, in the exercise of its functions relating to primary dental services, to consult any committee recognised by it under this section on such occasions and to such extent as may be prescribed.
          (8) Regulations may require a Strategic Health Authority, in the exercise of any of its functions which relate to section 28C arrangements for the provision of primary dental services, to consult, on such occasions and to such extent as may be prescribed, any committee—

          (a) which is recognised by a Primary Care Trust under this section for the area where the services are (or are to be) provided under those arrangements; and

          (b) which is representative of persons providing or performing those services under those arrangements.

          (9) A committee recognised under this section shall have such other functions as may be prescribed.
          (10) A committee recognised under this section shall in respect of each year determine—

          (a) the amount of its administrative expenses for that year attributable to persons of whom it is representative under subsection (1)(a) or (2)(a); and

          (b) the amount of its administrative expenses for that year attributable to persons of whom it is representative under subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b).

          (11) A Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board may—

          (a) on the request of a committee recognised by it, allot to that committee such sums for defraying the expenses referred to in subsection (10)(a) as it may determine; and

          (b) deduct the amount of such sums from the remuneration of persons of whom it is representative under subsection (1)(a) or (2)(a) under the general dental services contracts entered into by them with the Trust or Board.

          (12) A committee recognised under this section shall apportion the amount determined by it under subsection (10)(b) among the persons of whom it is representative under subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b); and each such person shall pay in accordance with the committee's directions the amount so apportioned to him.
          (13) References in this section to the administrative expenses of a committee include the travelling and subsistence allowances payable to its members."
          23 In section 49N(1)—

          (a) in paragraph (a), for "49F(1)(a) to (e)" substitute "49F(1)";

          (b) in paragraph (c), for the words from the beginning to "a services list" substitute "a list under section 28W above, or any list corresponding to such a list".

          24 Section 53 (immunisation) shall cease to have effect.
          25 (1) Section 54 (as substituted by the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997) is amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (1)—

          (a) in paragraph (a), after "1973 or" insert "(prior to its repeal) section 29 of";

          (b) in paragraph (b), at the end insert "(prior to the coming into force of section 16CC above)";

          (c) after that paragraph insert "or

          1063

          (c) provided or performed primary medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements, arrangements under section 16CC(2)(b) above or under a general medical services contract—

          (i) in prescribed circumstances, or

          (ii) if regulations so provide, in all circumstances,".

          (3) In subsection (2), in the definition of "relevant area"—

          (a) after "Primary Care Trust", in both places, insert ", Local Health Board";

          (b) after "by arrangement" insert "or contract";

          (c) for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute "provided or performed services as specified in subsection (1) above".

          26 (1) Section 72 is amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (5), at the end insert "and
          (d) persons providing primary medical services or primary dental services under a general medical services contract or a general dental services contract or in accordance with section 28C arrangements".
          (3) In subsection (6)(a), for "Part II" substitute "this Act".
          27 In section 77, at the end insert—
          "(4) This section does not apply in relation to the provision of any relevant dental service (within the meaning of section 79 below)."
          28 In section 78(3), for "paragraphs 2 and 5" substitute "paragraph 2".
          29 In section 83(a), for "to 79" substitute "and 78".
          30 In section 83A(1)(a), for the words from "section 77(1)" to "1997" substitute "section 77(1), 78(1) or 79 above".
          31 In section 85(1)—

          (a) insert "or" at the end of paragraph (bbb);

          (b) omit paragraph (e).

          32 (1) Section 98 is amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (1)—

          (a) insert "and" at the end of paragraph (dd);

          (b) omit paragraph (e) and the preceding "and".

          (3) In subsection (4)—

          (a) in paragraph (a), omit the words from ", other than" to the end;

          (b) omit paragraph (b).

          33 In section 99(1)—

          (a) insert "and" at the end of paragraph (bb);

          (b) omit paragraph (f) and the preceding "and".

          34 In section 100(1)—

          (a) insert "and" at the end of paragraph (b);

          (b) omit paragraph (e) and the preceding "and".

          35 In section 103(1)(a)—

          (a) after "in respect or insert "primary medical services or primary dental services provided by any person under Part 1 of this Act or of";

          (b)omit "or in accordance with section 28C arrangements".

          36 In section 105(2)(a), for the words from "as part of" to "arrangements" substitute "in the provision under this Act of primary medical services for that person".
          37 In section 126(4), after "19A(7) above" insert ", or by section 28E(3A), 28N, 28T or 28U above,".
          38 (1) In Section 128(1), at the appropriate places in alphabetical order insert—
          ""general dental services contract" has the meaning given by section 28K above;";
          ""general medical services contract" has the meaning given by section 28Q above;";
          ""primary dental services" means services which are primary dental services for the purposes of Part 1 (see section 16CA);";
          ""primary medical services" means services which are primary medical services for the purposes of Part 1 (see section 16CC)."
          39 In Schedule 8A, in paragraph 1(5), for the words from "personal medical" to the end substitute "primary medical services or primary dental services under any provision of, or made under, this Act."
          40 (1) Schedule 9A is amended as follows.
          (2) In paragraph 6, for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—
          "(a) health care professional of each description prescribed under section 28W above, provided that each such health care professional appointed is included in a list under that section;".
          (3) At the end of paragraph 6 insert—
          "For the purposes of paragraph (a) above, "health care professional" has the same meaning as in section 28W above."
          (4) In paragraph 10—

          (a) after "49N above" insert "or for the purposes of regulations under section 28W above containing provision corresponding to those sections";

          (b) for paragraph (a) substitute—

          "(a) if the practitioner is a health care professional of a description prescribed under section 28W above, one member of the panel must be a health care professional of the same description;

          (aa) if the practitioner is of a description referred to in paragraph 6(c) or (d) above, one member of the panel must be a practitioner of that description; and".

          (5) In paragraph 17(c), at the end insert "or under any provision of regulations under section 28W above corresponding to that provision".
          41 In Schedule 10, in paragraph 3, for "general medical services or personal med. cal services" substitute "or performed services as specified in section 54(1)".
          42 In Schedule 12, in paragraph 1(1)(b), for "accordance with section 28C arrangements or"" substitute "the provision of primary medical services under Part 1 or in accordance with".
          43 In Schedule 12A, insert "or" after paragraphs 1(2)(b), 2(2)(a), 4(2)(aa), 5(2)(a), 6A(2)(b) and 6B(2)(a).
          National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 (c.29)
          44 (1) Section 17D of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 is amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (1)—

          (a) in paragraph (b)(ii), after "arrangements or" insert "primary medical services in accordance with";

          (b) in paragraph (c)(ii), after "arrangements or" insert "primary dental services in accordance with".

          (3) In subsection (2), in the definition of "NHS employee"—

          (a) in paragraph (b)(ii), after "arrangements or" insert "primary medical services in accordance with";

          (b) in paragraph (c)(i), for "36(1)(a)" substitute "28W";

          (c) in paragraph (c)(ii), after "arrangements or" insert "primary dental services in accordance with".

          Medical Act 1983 (c.54)
          45 The Medical Act 1983 is amended as follows.
          46 In section 11(4), in the definition of "medical practice"—

          (a) after "practitioners—" insert—

          "(za) perform primary medical services under Part 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977; or";

          (b) in paragraph (a), omit "Part II of the National Health Service Act 1977,";

          (c) in paragraph (b), omit "section 28C of the 1977 Act,".

          47 In section 12(2)(a), for "general medical services under Part II of the National Health Service Act 1977," substitute "primary medical services under Part 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977 or general medical services under".
          Dentists Act 1984 (c.24)
          48 In section 40(2) of the Dentists Act 1984, after paragraph (a) insert—
          "(aa) by a person providing primary dental services under section 28C of the National Health Service Act 1977 or under a contract under section 28K of that Act, or".
          Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Act 1988 (c.24)
          49 In section 1(6) of the Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Act 1988, in the paragraph 6B inserted into Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (c.70)—

          (a) after paragraph (a) insert—

          "(aa)any particular person who is or was formerly included in, or is an applicant for inclusion in, a list under section 28W of that Act; or

          (ab) any particular person who is or was formerly providing services under a contract under section 28K or section 28Q of that Act; or";

          (b) in paragraph (b), for "such a person" substitute "a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (ab) above".

          Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48)
          50 In section 240(4) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988—

          (a) after "providing—" insert—

          "(za) primary medical services or primary dental services under Part 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977";

          (b) in paragraph (a)(i),after "1977" insert "(in the case of pharmaceutical services)";

          (c) omit paragraph (b)(i).

          Health and Medicines Act 1988 (c.49)
          51 The Health and Medicines Act 1988 has effect subject to the following amendments.
          52 In section 12(1)—

          (a) omit "The Dental Estimates Board shall be renamed as "the Dental Practice Board" and";

          (b) in paragraph (a), omit "for any reference to the Dental Estimates Board there were substituted a reference to the Dental Practice Board and";

          (c) in paragraph (b)—

          (i) omit "the Dental Estimates Board or",

          (ii) for "either or both of those Boards" substitute "that Board", and

          (iii) omit "the Dental Practice Board and".

          53 In section 17(1)—

          (a) omit "29, 36";

          (b) for "39 or 42" substitute "38, 39, 41 or 42".

          National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19)
          54 (1) Section 18 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is amended as follows (for so long as it has effect).
          (2) In subsection (1), for "Health Authority", in each place, substitute "Local Health Board".
          (3) In subsection (3), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—

          "(a) a person or body who has entered into a contract under section 28Q of the principal Act, otherwise than in partnership; or

          (b) two or more individuals practising in partnership who together have entered into such a contract,".

          (4) In subsections (4) and (5), for "Health Authority", in each place, substitute "Local Health Board".
          (5) At the end insert—
          "(9) In this section, references to the "relevant" Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board, in relation to a practice, are to the Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board with which it has entered into a contract under section 28Q of the principal Act."
          Access to Health Records Act 1990 (c.23)
          55 (1) The Access to Health Records Act 1990 is amended as follows.
          (2) In section 1, in subsection (2), for paragraph (a) substitute—

          "(a) in the case of a record made by a health professional performing primary medical services under a general medical services contract made with a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board, the person or body who entered into the contract with the Trust or Board (or, in a case where more than one person so entered into the contract, any such person);

          (aa) in the case of a record made by a health professional performing such services in accordance with arrangements under section 28C of that Act with a Primary Care Trust, Strategic Health Authority or Local Health Board, the person or body which made the arrangements with the Trust, Authority or Board (or, in a case where more than one person so made the arrangements, any such person);".

          (3) In that subsection, in paragraph (b), after "by a health service body" insert (and not falling within paragraph (aa) above)".
          (4) In section 7—

          (a) in subsection (2), omit the words from "(other" to "section 1(2)(a) above)"; and

          (b) omit subsection (3).

          (5) In section 11—
          (a) at the appropriate place, insert—
          "general medical services contract" means a contract under section 28Q of the National Health Service Act 1977;";
          (b) omit the definition of "general practitioner".
          (6) This paragraph extends to England and Wales only.
          Water Industry Act 1991 (c.56)
          56 In Schedule 4A to the Water Industry Act 1991, for paragraph 7 substitute—
          "7. Premises not falling within paragraph 5 or 6 above which are used for the provision of primary medical services or primary dental services under Part 1 of the National Health Service Act 1977."
          Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c.52)
          57 (1) Section 279 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
          (2) In paragraph (a), omit "28C, 29, 35".
          (3) Renumber the existing provision as subsection (1).
          (4) After that provision insert—
          "(2) In this Act "worker" also includes an individual regarded in his capacity as one who works or normally works or seeks to work as a person performing primary medical services or primary dental services—

          (a) in accordance with arrangements made by a Primary Care Trust, Strategic Health Authority or Local Health Board under section 28C of the National Health Service Act 1977; or

          (b) under a contract under section 28K or 28Q of that Act entered into by him with a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board,

          and "employer" in relation to such an individual, regarded in that capacity, means that Trust, Authority or Board".
          Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (c.46)
          58 The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 has effect subject to the following amendments.
          59 In section 2—

          (a) in subsection (1)(c), for the words from "exercising" to the end substitute "not exercising functions only or mainly in Wales";

          (b) in subsection (2)(b), for the words from "exercising" to the end substitute "not exercising functions only or mainly in England".

          60 (1) Section 2A is amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (1)—

          (a) for paragraph (a) substitute—

          "(a) persons (whether individuals or bodies) providing services under a contract entered into by them with a Primary Care Trust under section 28K or 28Q of the National Health Service Act 1977";

          (b) in paragraph (c), for "personal", in both places, substitute "primary".

          (3) In subsection (2)—

          (a) for paragraph (a) substitute—

          "(a) persons (whether individuals or bodies) providing services under a contract entered into by them with a Local Health Board under section 28K or 28Q of the National Health Service Act 1977;";

          (b) in paragraph (c), for "personal", in both places, substitute "primary".

          61 In section 6(5)—

          (a) omit "29, 36";

          (b) for "39 or 42" substitute "38, 39, 41 or 42".

          62 In section 18(1), after "partly" insert "or wholly".
          Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18)
          63 (1) Section 43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—
          "(ba) works or worked as a person performing services under a contract entered into by him with a Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board under section 28K or 28Q of the National Health Service Act 1977,".
          (3) In subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—
          "(aa) in relation to a worker falling within paragraph (ba) of that subsection, the Primary Care Trust or Local Health Board referred to in that paragraph,".
          Education Act 1996 (c.56)
          64 In section 520(1) of the Education Act 1996, for "(1A)" substitute "16CB"
          Health Act 1999 (c.8)
          65 In Schedule 3 to the Health Act 1999, in paragraph 11(2)—

          (a) in subparagraph (c), for the words from "provide" to "under" substitute "perform primary medical services under Part 1 of";

          (b) in subparagraph (d), for the words from "provide" to "under" substitute "perform primary dental services under Part 1 of.

          Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c.36)
          66 In Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in Part 3, before paragraph 44 insert—
          "43A Any person providing primary medical services or primary dental services—

          (a) in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C of the National Health Service Act 1977; or

          (b) under a contract under section 28K or 28Q of that Act;

          in respect of information relating to the provision of those services."
          Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c.15)
          67 The Health and Social Care Act 2001 has effect subject to the following amendments.
          68 Section 18 shall cease to have effect.
          69 In section 28(4), for the words from "personal medical services" to the end substitute "primary medical services or primary dental services under any provision of, or made under, the 1977 Act."
          70 (1) Schedule 1 is amended as follows.
          (2) For paragraphs 11 and 12 substitute—
          "11. Information relaying to a particular person who—

          (a) is or was formerly providing primary medical services or primary dental services under a contract under section 28K or 28Q of the 1977 Act;

          (b) is or was formerly included in, or is an applicant for inclusion in, a list under section 28W of the 1977 Act."

          (3) In paragraph 13, for ", 11 or 12" substitute "or 11".
          71 In Schedule 2, in paragraph 5(2), for paragraphs (c) and (d) substitute—
          "(c) primary medical services provided under Part 1 of the 1977 Act."
          National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 (c.17)
          72 (1) Section 17 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 is amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (1)—

          (a) after paragraph (f) insert—

          "(fa) persons providing primary medical services or primary dental services under Part 1 of the 1977 Act,"; and

          in paragraph (g), omit the words from "or under" to "that Act".

          (3) In subsection (2), for "(1)(g)" substitute "(1)(fa), (g)".'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

        Clause 141

          LIABILITY TO PAY NHS CHARGES
          The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): I beg to move amendment No. 235, in page 61, line 36, after 'injury' insert
          'whether physical or psychological,'.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:Government amendments Nos. 236 and 237.
          Amendment No. 29, in page 63, line 15, at end insert—
          (9A) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
          Government amendment No. 238.
          Amendment No. 30, in clause 144, page 67, line 22, at end insert—
          '(11) No regulations may be made under by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
          Government amendment No. 239.
          Amendment No. 31, in clause 148, page 71, line 22, at end insert—
          '(8) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.

          1069
          Government amendment No. 240.
          Amendment No. 32, in clause 151, page 73, line 22, at end insert—
          '(3A) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
          Amendment No. 33, in clause 153, page 75, line 21, at end insert—
          '(3A) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
          Amendment No. 34, in clause 154, page 76, line 23, at end insert—
          '(4) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
          Amendment No. 35, in clause 155, page 76, line 40, at end insert—
          '(4A) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
          Government amendment No. 241.
          Amendment No. 36, in clause 156, page 77, line 16, at end insert—
          '(1A) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
          Amendment No. 37, in clause 181, page 95, line 35, after 'from', insert
          'regulations under sections 141, 144, 148, 151 or 153 to 156 or'.
          Ms Winterton: This part of the Bill was discussed in some depth in Committee. I hope that I will be able to show that the Government have listened and have responded positively to the concerns raised.
          Government amendments Nos. 235, 236 and 237 amend clause 141 and are intended to put an end to any concerns about the scope of the NHS costs recovery scheme. Our policy intention in relation to the scope of the NHS costs recovery scheme has always been clear. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said when this was discussed in Committee, free-standing diseases, particularly industrial diseases, are not covered by the scheme. It is our intention that both physical and psychological injury are covered. Nevertheless, some Committee members expressed genuine concerns about whether the Bill as then drafted left room for other interpretations, and my right hon. Friend agreed to reconsider the issue. We have decided to put the matter beyond doubt and the amendments seek to achieve that.
          Government amendment No. 235 confirms that psychological injury as well as physical injury is included in the scheme. That would cover, for example, the case of someone who received NHS treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder following a particularly harrowing incident for which they received compensation. The compensator would also be liable for NHS charges relating to the treatment.
          Government amendment NO. 237 deals with questions that arose on the issue of disease itself. It makes it clear that free-standing disease, which would include, for example, asbestosis or mesothelioma, will
          1070
          not be within the scope of the scheme. There will be cases in which someone suffers an injury that leads to the development of a disease as a consequence of the injury. An example might be someone who suffers a broken leg that becomes infected and results in septicaemia. In such cases, if the disease is directly attributable to the original injury, it is clearly right that treatment of it should be included as part of the overall treatment of the injury for costs recovery purposes. The amendment makes that distinction clear.
          Dr. Evan Harris: Committee members asked how that arrangement would work, even in a policy that we did not particularly like. I am grateful that the Government have tabled an amendment to clarify that. The remaining problem is whose decision it is, and on what basis they decide, that the disease in question is attributable to the injury suffered. One can usually tell when an injury is caused by an incident, and that would be covered. It is much harder to say whether a disease is attributable to an injury. Has the Minister given any thought to how that might be decided?
          Ms Winterton: Obviously, such cases would be linked to decisions made about personal injury claims, and there are two ways in which the decision might be forthcoming. One way would be through a court case where that had been established, and secondly, where an insurance company was settling a claim, there would be discussion about that and agreement would be reached. Clearly, if that gave rise to an appeal, the mechanism to deal with it exists.
          Government amendment No. 236 is the first of five minor drafting changes. Government amendment No. 237 specifies that only disease attributable to an injury should be taken into account for the recovery scheme, on the basis that treatment for such a disease is received as a result of the injury. Having used the words "as a result" in that amendment, we have been advised that the same wording should be used in clause 141 (1)(b)(i) and at various other places in this part of the Bill, in place of the original reference to treatment "in respect" of the injury. That ensures clarity and consistency in the test to be used in assessing whether treatment received is within the scope of the scheme. Government amendment No. 236 is the first of those technical changes.
          Opposition amendment No.29 seeks to amend clause 141 by making the regulation-making powers in that clause subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Indeed, all the Opposition amendments—Nos. 29 to 37—try to do the same thing.
          With only one or two exceptions, the regulation-making powers in part 3 are not new. Rather, they mirror—sometimes word for word—powers that already exist in the Road Traffic (NHS) Charges Act 1999. Regulations made under the terms of that Act are all subject to the negative resolution procedure, and I see no reason why regulations made under the Bill, which will largely be concerned with the detailed and technical administration of the scheme, should be treated any differently.
          Mr. Burns: The Minister sees no reason why regulations made under the Bill should be treated any

          1071
          differently. Why does she think the original decision was taken to use the negative, not the affirmative, resolution procedure?
          Ms Winterton: For reasons of consistency, which we believe should continue in the Bill. The regulation-making powers are concerned largely with the administration of the scheme, and we believe that the time of the House would be better spent dealing with them through negative rather than affirmative resolution, especially as all the regulations are set out. I appreciate that the Opposition would prefer regulations to be made by affirmative resolution, but given the amount of time available to the House to discuss such matters, we believe that the negative procedure will be sufficient. Of course, the Opposition are free to pray against those regulations if they wish to do so.
          Government amendment No. 238 is one of a small number of minor technical drafting amendments, like amendment No. 236 which I have already covered, consequential on the wording of amendment No. 237. The intention is simply to ensure that references are consistent throughout this part of the Bill. Government amendment No. 239 is another minor drafting amendment consequential on the wording of amendment No. 237, as is Government amendment No. 240. Government amendment No. 241 is the last of the minor amendments designed to ensure consistency.
          7.45 pm
          I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Government amendments have been tabled in response to concerns raised in Committee and are intended to clarify the position, or are largely technical. I hope that hon. Members will also accept that the Opposition amendments are not only unnecessary, but would take up valuable time of the House, particularly when they repeat what already exists in legislation. I ask the House to accept the Government amendments and reject those of the Opposition.
          Chris Grayling: It is clear from the Minister's last remarks that she does not understand the importance of this part of the Bill to many outside groups, small businesses, GPs and organisations that provide insurance to GPs. If this part were implemented wrongly, it could have a significant effect on the welfare and possibly even the survival of a number of smaller businesses. I shall therefore challenge what the Minister said about the negative and affirmative approach to future statutory instruments, and attempt to convince her that she is wrong about that aspect of the measure.
          It is true that we have received from the Government some clarification of their intentions in the Bill. In Committee we debated a number of provisions that were vague and confusing, and the Minister has gone some way to clarifying the Government's intentions, but in doing so, she has created additional confusion. I shall deal with some elements of the confusion that arises from the changes that she has made.
          It was clear from the comments of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), in Committee that the measure was intended to apply solely to injury. As the hon. Lady rightly said, we raised the issue of long-term chronic
          1072
          conditions and the fact that it was impossible for the insurance industry to plan for those, as such conditions sometimes emerge years after the event. The Government's focus on injury specifically was welcome and helped to clarify their intentions.
          However, I remain uncertain, as do my hon. Friends, about some aspects of what is proposed in the Government's amendments. The Minister spoke about psychological injury. It is appropriate that we should recognise that injury is not always physical and that it is sometimes psychological. The hon. Lady set out a good example in which this aspect of the Bill might be applied—the case of a substantial and distressing public event, following which a large number of people were treated for shock, post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychological conditions that resulted from experiencing or being an eye-witness to the incident.
          In the case of a major sporting event, the impact on the organisers could be substantial. We need only think back to some of the more terrible incidents that we have experienced in this country in recent years, such as the Bradford City fire and the Hillsborough disaster, in which large numbers of people were affected by direct experience of an appalling situation. Sports clubs that must insure against the risks to them could face huge problems. [Interruption.]
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am being distracted by conversations while the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is addressing the Chamber.
          Chris Grayling: In assessing the risk associated with large-scale sporting events or public events of any variety, including rock concerts or open-air classical concerts, the insurance industry will have to take into account the possibility of reimbursing to the national health service the cost of treating people who have suffered shock and other psychological aftermaths as a result of a major incident of the sort that we hope will not occur too often. That will be factored into insurance premiums in future.
          What discussions has the Minister had with the insurance industry about that issue? Has she made any assessment of how the Government could limit the measures? In Committee, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, said that he would cap the payout that an insurance company could have to make in an individual case. Of course, as a large number of payouts could be made in relation to an individual incident, insurance organisations and event organisers could face substantial payouts, as a single incident might affect not only one person but a range of people. Will the Minister clarify that point?
          I should also like clarification in respect of disease acquired from injury. The Minister cited the example of septicaemia. We can all understand how that would feature in a case for personal injury. She will be aware, however, of the very widespread incidence of MRSA, a hospital-acquired infection. She and her colleagues have indicated that health care providers will not be exempt from the provisions. What is the position in respect of infection acquired as A consequence of having an injury, rather than as a direct result of the injury itself? Where will she draw the dividing line, especially in respect of claims against the national health service? Treatment for

          1073
          an injury and an adverse incident of the sort that many people experience when they pick up MRSA in a hospital might be indistinguishable in that context. What about somebody who falls out of a bed in a hospital because they have not been properly protected with barriers at the side of the bed? That happened to an elderly gentleman in my constituency a few weeks ago and he contracted a hospital-acquired infection. How will the distinction be made in law?
          Our amendments need to be seen in the light of the substantial number of unanswered questions in the Bill. We received a number of assurances from the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, that various limitations would be put in place. For example, he said that a maximum amount would be retrievable by the national health service under the Bill. Of course, the Bill does not specify that maximum amount, which will be subject to regulations. Various provisions in clauses 144 and 141 give the Government the freedom to modify the scheme, whether to withdraw eligible circumstances in which payments can be made to the NHS or to add to them. Frankly, I do not accept what the Minister said about the road traffic measure and the negative procedure. I suspect that the argument that we are having tonight about the affirmative and negative procedures also occurred when that measure was debated.
          As was amply demonstrated by the very good piece of work done by the Department for Work and Pensions on the problems that employers are facing because of the rising cost of compulsory employers liability insurance, if the Government get this measure wrong, it will have a significant adverse effect on smaller businesses in particular. Therefore, it is not good enough to send the Government forth from this place with a free hand and the ability to make regulations and push them through with the negative procedure. I know that business groups are less than satisfied with what the Government are doing and do not feel that they understand the consequences of even a limited scheme for the cost of liability insurance in respect of smaller employers who already face a substantial increase in costs as a result of circumstances in recent years. They will pay more at a time when they can ill afford to do so.
          I am grateful to the Minister and her colleague, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, for saying that the Government would wait at least until the Department for Work and Pensions review is completed before implementing the measure. I find it surprising that it was drafted in separation from that process, but it is welcome that they have agreed to delay it. None the less, when the Government come to frame the regulations off the back of that DWP work and the measures set out in the Bill, they should come back to the House and seek its consent. They should not hope that hon. Members will spot the regulations when they have been tabled and pray against them. The issue is too significant for the small businesses of this country. There is no reason why the regulations should not be made a matter of mandatory debate in this House. The issue is important and it is a shame that the Government do not feel it appropriate to tell the House that it will automatically have a chance to debate this issue and to challenge them
          1074
          over it. That is to be regretted. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government may change their mind and that the Minister will accept that the affirmative rather than the negative route is the right one.
          Dr. Evan Harris: I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, does the provision that she has made to distinguish between injury and illness and to provide for illness directly resulting from injury mirror the equivalent road traffic measure? Does she intend it to do so for consistency?
          Secondly, I mentioned that the only problem that I envisaged was working out what illnesses were attributable to an injury, but I have a further question about that issue, which was prompted by the remarks of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). The Minister argues that injury may be "physical or psychological". The amendment does not refer to physical and/or psychological injuries or to physical and psychological injuries, but allows for psychological injuries alone. I imagine that she may have in mind post-traumatic stress disorder, but it is hard to argue that that is not an illness rather than an injury. As an illness, it would not be countered by virtue of Government amendment No. 237, which seeks to introduce into clause 141 a new subsection (4A):
          "'Injury' does not include any disease."
          One might argue that post-traumatic stress disorder is more like a disease or condition than an injury. In the absence of any physical trauma—I think that that is the distinction on which she and her draftsmen are relying, which is logical—it is hard to see how post-traumatic distress disorder and other purely psychological injuries might be considered injuries, as they are more likely to be considered illnesses when push comes to shove, such as in the event of an appeal, as the trauma causing the condition will not exist in that instance. I should be grateful for clarification.
          Ms Rosie Winterton: I take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) about businesses feeling that they have to bear an added weight as a result of the Bill. We need to be clear, however: if an employer did not have proper health and safety measures in place and their negligence resulted in injury to an individual who was subsequently awarded compensation through a personal injury claim, surely it is only right that the employer should pay back to the NHS the costs of the treatment. That principle is embodied in the part of the Bill under discussion and I think that we should all welcome it.
          The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), said that we would not implement the provisions until the Department for Work and Pensions had finished its review of liability insurance and so on. However, the principles are very clear. Given that background, I turn to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. On sporting events, if negligence on the part of an organiser results in personal injury claims, those provisions will apply.

          1075
          8 pm
          On the setting of caps, that will be done by regulations, but our intention is that it will be in line with the current road traffic tariffs—that is, £452 for an out-patient charge and £556 for an in-patient daily rate fee, with a £33,000 cap.
          Chris Grayling: Taking the Minister back to sporting events, one of the bodies that will be affected is the police. If she thinks back to the Hillsborough disaster, the police were ultimately held responsible for operational mistakes made on the ground. Financially speaking, the police face a potentially huge challenge in catering for such an eventuality, given that, tragically, mistakes are sometimes made.
          Ms Winterton: That would follow on from the winning of personal injury claims; the same point was made about the national health service. We think that it is right that the provisions have to apply across the public bodies, not just in the private sector. If a personal injury claim is made and settled, it is only right that the appropriate body pays for the care.
          MRSA would not be covered in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, because there would be a separate intervening cause that was not part of the original injury. Obviously, there are other mechanisms for redress in those circumstances.
          On post-traumatic stress disorder, the scheme will apply only if a person has been able to sue someone for damages. Several of the cases that the hon. Gentleman raised would not concern a personal injury claim; that may well apply to the major sporting events that he talked about.
          The distinction in the Bill does not mirror the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999, which will be repealed when the Bill takes effect. It does not apply solely in relation to those provisions, which focus on injuries caused by the use of a motor vehicle on a road.
          I shall be more than happy to write to hon. Members about any matters that I have been unable to cover. Having given those assurances and further explanations, I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the Government amendments and reject those of the Opposition.
          Amendment agreed to.
          Amendments made: No. 236, in page 61, line 39, leave out 'in respect' and insert 'as a result'.
          No. 237, in page 62, line 28, at end insert—
          '(4A) "Injury" does not include any disease.
          (4B) Nothing in subsection (4A) prevents this Part from applying to—

          (a) treatment received as a result of any disease suffered by the injured person, or

          (b) ambulance services provided as a result of any disease suffered by him,

          if the disease in question is attributable to the injury suffered by the injured person (and accordingly that treatment is received or those services are provided as a result of the injury).'.
          No. 252, in page 62, line 36, leave out from beginning to 'an' and insert 'other treatment provided by'.
          No. 268, in page 62, line 44, leave out from 'section 16CA' to end of line 45 and insert
          16CC, 28C, 28K or 28Q of the 1977 Act (primary medical and dental services), or'.
          No. 269, in page 63, line 4, at end insert—
          '() In relation to any time before sections (provision of primary medical services) and (general medical services contracts) come into force, the references in subsection (5)(d)(i) to sections 16CC and 28Q of the 1977 Act are to be taken as a reference to section 29 of that Act (arrangements for general medical services).'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]

        Clause 144

          INFORMATION CONTAINED IN CERTIFICATES
          Amendment made: No. 238, in page 66, line 22, leave out
          'in respect, or as a result,'
          and insert 'as a result".—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]

        Clause 148
          APPEAL AGAINST A CERTIFICATE OR A WAIVER DECISION
          Amendment made: No. 239, in page 70, line 26, leave out 'in respect' and insert 'as a result'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]
        Clause 151
          PROVISION OF INFORMATION
          Amendment made: No. 240, in page 73, line 13, leave out 'in respect' and insert 'as a result'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]
        Clause 156

          POWER TO APPLY PART 3 TO TREATMENT AT NON-HEALTH SERVICE HOSPITALS
          Amendment made: No. 241, in page 77, line 7, leave out 'in respect' and insert 'as a result'.—[Ms Rosie Winterton.]
          It being seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day.]

        New Clause 23

          REPLACEMENT OF THE WELFARE FOOD SCHEMES:NORTHERN IRELAND
          'An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (c.1) (legislation for Northern Ireland during suspension of devolved government) which contains a statement that it is made only for purposes corresponding to those of section 172 above—

          (a) is not subject to paragraph 2 of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament), but

          (b) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

        Clause 184

          COMMENCEMENT
          Amendments made: No. 313, in page 96, line 22, leave out
          'Chapter 8, sections 109, 111'
          and insert '104, 106, 111(1)'.
          No. 314, in page 96, line 27, leave out '108, 110' and insert '111(1A)'.
          No. 315, in page 96, line 30, leave out 'and 105' and insert
          '105, (Complaints about health care), (Complaints about social services), (Complaints regulations: supplementary), 111(2), (Representations relating to special guardianship support services), paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 and section 182 and Schedule 13 so far as relating to those provisions'.
          No. 231, in page 97, line 5, leave out from second 'to' to end of line and insert
          'sections 158, (Replacement of the Welfare Food Schemes: Northern Ireland) or'—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

        Clause 187

          EXTENT
          Amendment made: No. 232, in page 98, line 1, at end insert—
          '() section (Replacement of the Welfare Food Schemes: Northern Ireland);'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

        Schedule 13

          REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS
          Amendments made: No. 319, in page 152, line 14, at end insert

          'Children Act 1989 (c. 41)

          Section 14G.'.

          No. 300, in page 153, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 on page 157 and insert—

          Reference

          Extent of repeal or revocation

          National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949 (c.93)

          The whole Act.

          Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c.13)

          In Schedule 3, in paragraph 8(1), "the Dental Practice Board or".

          Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (c.46)

          In section 59(2A), "section 28C of the 1977 Act,".

          In section 63(2)(ba), "section 28C of the 1977 Act or".

          House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c.24)

          In Schedule 1, in Part 3, the entry relating to the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Dental Practice Board or member of that Board appointed at an annual salary.

          Race Relations Act 1976 (c.74)

          In Schedule 1A, in Part 2, the entry relating to the Dental Practice Board.

          Patents Act 1977 (c.37)

          In section 56(4)(a)(ii), "section 28C of the 1977 Act,".

          National Health Service Act 1977 (c.49)

          In section 3(3), "medical, dental,".

          Section 5(1A).

          In section 18A(3)(a), "general medical, general dental,".

          In section 26(2)(a) and (4)(a), "general medical services, general dental services".

          1078

          Section 28C(3) and (7).

          In section 28D(2), the definitions of "qualifying dental practitioner" and "qualifying medical practitioner".

          Section 28DA.

          In section 28E— in subsection (2), paragraph (b) and the words following that paragraph; subsection (3)(f), (g) and (j); subsections (5) to (8).

          Sections 28F to 28H.

          Sections 29 to 37.

          Section 43ZA(3)(a) and (b).

          In section 43C(3), in the definition of "Part II services" the words "general medical services, general dental services,".

          In section 43D— in subsection (1), "general medical services, general dental services,"; subsection (10)(a) and (b).

          In section 44— subsections (ZA1) to (B1); subsection (3)(a)to(d); subsection (5).

          In section 45— subsection (1)(b); subsection (1ZA)(b) and the preceding "or"; in subsection (1A), "Strategic Health Authority"; in subsection (3), "general medical services, general dental services";Section 49F(1)(a) and (c).

          In section 49H(1)(a), "or a dental corporation".

          In section 52, "general medical services, general dental services,".

          Section 53.

          Section 56(a) and (b).

          In section 72(5)(a), ", dental practitioners,".

          In section 78— in the side-note, "dental or"; subsections (1A) and (2).

          Section 81(b).

          Section 82(b).

          Section 83(b).

          Section 85(1)(e).

          In section 98— subsection (1)(e) and the preceding "and"; in subsection (4), in paragraph (a), the words from ", other than" to the end, and paragraph (b).

          Section 99(1)(f) and the preceding "and".

          Section 100(1)(e) and the preceding "and".

          Section 102(1)(a)(iii) and (iv) and (2)(b) and (c).

          In section 103(1)(a), "or in accordance with section 28C arrangements".

          In section 126(4), the words from "regulations made under section 32" to "or to" In section 128(1)—

          1079

          the definitions of "dental corporation", "medical list","personal dental services" and "personal medical services"; in the definition of "terms of service", the words "general medical services, general dental services,".

          In Schedule 1— in the title, "and their education in dental health"; in paragraph 1(a), "or dental" and "or for education in dental health".

          In Schedule 12— in the heading preceding paragraph 2, "dental or"; in paragraph 2, sub-paragraphs (3) to (7) and, in sub-paragraph (8), the words from "and, in the case of" to the end; paragraph 3 and the preceding heading; paragraphs 6 and 7.

          In Schedule 12A— paragraph 1(2)(d) and the preceding "or"; paragraph 2(2)(c) and the preceding "or"; paragraph 4(2)(b) and the preceding "or"; paragraph 5(2)(b) and the preceding "or"; paragraph 6A(2)(d) and the preceding "or"; paragraph 6B(2)(c) and the preceding "or".

          National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 (c.29) Section 17A(2)(g).

          Health Services Act 1980 (c.53)

          In Schedule 5, paragraphs 2(3)and 4.

          Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 (c.41) Section 14(1).

          Section 15(a).

          In Schedule 6, paragraph 2.

          Medical Act 1983 (c.54) In section 11(4), in the definition of "medical practice"— in paragraph (a), "Part II of the National Health Service Act 1977,"; in paragraph (b), "section 28C of the 1977 Act,".

          In Schedule 5, paragraph 16(a).

          Dentists Act 1984 (c.24) In section 40(2)(ab), "section 28C of the National Health Service Act 1977 or".

          In Schedule 5, paragraph 8.

          Health and Social Security Act 1984 (c.48) In Schedule 3, paragraph 5.

          Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.1) Section 519A(2)(f).

          Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c.48) Section 240(4)(b)(i).

          Health and Medicines Act 1988 (c.49) In section 2(1)(a)— in sub-paragraph (i), "Part II of the National Health Service

          1080

          Act 1977 or"; in sub-paragraph (ii), "section 28C of the 1977 Act or".

          In section 8(1)— in paragraph (a), "section 29 of the National Health Service Act 1977 or"; in paragraph (b), "section 36 of the National Health Service Act 1977 or".

          In section 12(1)— "The Dental Estimates Board shall be renamed as "the Dental Practice Board" and"; in paragraph (a), "for any reference to the Dental Estimates Board there were substituted a reference to the Dental Practice Board and"; in paragraph (b), "the Dental Estimates Board or" and "the Dental Practice Board and".

          Section 12(2) and (3)(a).

          In section 17— in subsection (1), "29, 36"; subsection (2)(b) and the preceding "and".

          In Schedule 2, paragraphs 4 to 6, 7(1) and (2) and 8(2) and (3).

          National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19) In section 4(2)(g), "the Dental Practice Board or".

          Section 18(7).

          Sections 23 and 24.

          Section 60(7)(f).

          Access to Health Records Act 1990 (c.23) In section 7— in subsection (2), the words from "(other" to "section 1(2)(a) above" subsection (3).

          In section 11, the definition of "general practitioner".

          Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c.52) In section 279(a), "28C, 29, 35".

          Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (c.46) Section 2(1)(f).

          In section 6(5), "29, 36".

          Health Authorities Act 1995 (c.17) In Schedule 1, paragraphs 18 to 26.

          Medical (Professional Performance) Act 1995 (c.51) In the Schedule, paragraph 28.

          Employment Rights Act 1996 (c.18) In section 43K(1)(c)(i), "29, 35".

          Section 218(10)(d).

          National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 (c.46) Part 1.

          Section 23(1).

          Section 24(1).

          Section 25(1).

          Section 32.

          Section 40(1) and (3).

          Schedule 1.

          In Schedule 2, paragraphs 6, 8 to 12, 16 to 19, 24, 25, 71 to 73, 80 and 81.

          Health Act 1999 (c.8) Section

          1081

          6(1).

          Section 9(2) and (3).

          In section 10(1)— in the section 43A inserted into the National Health Service Act 1977, in subsection (1), "general medical services, general dental services,"; in the section 43B so inserted, in subsection (6), the words from "Subject to" to "35(2) above,".

          Section 11(2).

          Section 39(2) and (3).

          In section 61(2), the words from ", or Part 1" to "1997,".

          In Schedule 3, paragraph 11(3).

          In Schedule 4— in paragraph 2, "section 29(4) of the 1977 Act and"; paragraphs 17 and 88.

          National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 (S.I.1999/672) In Schedule 1, in the entry for the National Health Service Act 1977, paragraphs (c) and (e).

          Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c.36) In Schedule 1, in Part 3— paragraph 42; in paragraph 44, "general medical services, general dental services,"; paragraph 45.

          Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c.15) Section 15.

          Sections 17 and 18.

          Section 20(2) to (4).

          Section 22 Section 23(2) and (3).

          Section 26.

          Section 27(5).

          In section 41(1)— in paragraph (a), "(provision of personal medical or dental services)"; paragraph (b) and the preceding "or".

          In Schedule 5, paragraphs 5(4) to (7), 11(2) and (3) and 12(2).

          National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 (c.17) Section 4(1).

          Section 5(2), (3) and (6) In section 17(1)(g), the words from "or under" to "that Act".

          In Schedule 1, paragraph 17.

          In Schedule 2, paragraphs 3 to 10 and 72.

          In Schedule 3, paragraphs 2 to 6, 10 and 15 to 17.

          In Schedule 8, paragraph 2.

          Note The repeals in this Part of this Schedule to the following enactments extend to England and Wales only—

          (a) the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949 (c.93);

          (b) the Access to Health Records Act 1990 (c.23);

          (c) the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 (c.46) and enactments amending that Act.'.

          Order for Third Reading read.-[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
          Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. John Reid.]
          8.6 pm
          The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): As several speakers have said, there is never sufficient time to examine and debate a subject as important as this, but today's has been a long debate that is the culmination of previous long discussions.
          Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
          Dr. Reid: It looks as though the debate is going to be even longer.
          Mr. McLoughlin: The Secretary of State said that there can never be sufficient time to deal with this subject, but the other place will not have a time restraint put on it. Does the right hon. Gentleman not find it rather odd that the elected House is timetabled, yet the unelected House can speak on the Bill for as long as it likes?
          Dr. Reid: Of course the other House is constrained by its own conventions. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was making a threat; I suspect that he was. If so, I remind him that this House—specifically the majority of this House who form the Government—has a mandate from the people of this country, especially when it comes to decentralising power and modernising the national health service.
          Mr. Burns: Not on foundation hospitals.
          Dr. Reid: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that if the Labour Government have one mandate it is to defend and modernise the national health service. Since we have done that successfully for six decades, I do not see any reason why we should change now.
          Dr. Fox: Purely on a technicality, can the Secretary of State tell us which part of the Labour party manifesto mentioned foundation hospitals?
          Dr. Reid: The manifesto contains several references to the defence of the national health service, to putting patients first and to decentralising decision making. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It has not been a particularly good week for foxes, and that has not changed tonight.
          Dr. Stoate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real issue surrounding the Bill is that people deserve a modern health service that is accountable to the people and gives them more flexibility, more control over local services and more choice? That is what this Government are trying to do. The Opposition are trying to get rid of the health service and privatise it, while we want to modernise it and bring it into the 21st century to provide the level of care that people deserve.
          Dr. Reid: Even though I am well used to the articulacy of my hon. Friends, I am sometimes astounded by just how articulate and on the mark their comments can be. I could not have put it better myself.

          1083
          I begin by paying a courteous tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) for all his work, and to my Ministers, especially the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who has performed so admirably today. I say with total modesty that he has carried the weight of the Bill. He is a great asset to me, my team and the Government.
          The Government have a proud record of investing in and developing the national health service. That is not only because politically it is a child of the movement, but because morally it has long been at the centre of our values that no one in this country should be deprived, through lack of finance or station in life. of health care when needed, free at the point of need. Such a national health service, through collective provision, is increasingly not only a moral but a circumstantial imperative. As our health becomes more predictable through advances in genetics—they may not become definitive for some considerable time but they must be taken into account—the NHS becomes more, not less relevant. That is especially true when the health service is compared with private health insurance. Any health insurance actuary who is doing his job will give the minimum coverage to those who need it most. Actuaries are paid to do that. [Interruption.]
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair frowns on electronic devices in the Chamber. I wish hon. Members would ensure that they were turned off before they came into the Chamber.
          Dr. Reid: I was explaining why the NHS is so important to us and why we are intent on ensuring that it will be as effective and well supported in future as it has been in the past.
          We introduced the Bill because the same strong belief in the values that drove the architects of the NHS endure to persuade me, the Government and, I hope, all other Labour Members to support the measure.
          Mr. Burns: Not all of them.
          Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman may point to differences in the Labour party, and I would be the last to deny them, but they are as nothing compared with the yawning chasm between all Labour Members and the hon. Gentleman over the real dividing line: our insistence that everyone in this country has health care when it is needed, free at the point of need. I shall refer to that later.
          The Bill and the changes in it are intended to ensure that the NHS survives and thrives for future generations as it has done for the past six decades—three or four generations. We intend it to serve our children and grandchildren as it served our parents and grandparents: as a national health service free at the point of need, without regard to background or station in life.
          Our challenge, the response to which is enshrined in the Bill, is to ensure that the same values that underpinned the NHS remain in a service that fulfils the rising expectations and ambitions of current and succeeding generations. The Labour party, which forms
          1084
          the Government, can claim to have been a central dynamo over the past century in ensuring that the influence as well as the affluence of working people in this country increased with each generation. We rejoice that one of the effects is that their expectations and ambitions increase with every generation. Our job is not only to provide a socially just system of Government and public service but to develop that system and service for each generation.
          It is the job of those of us who believe in the NHS to ensure that people's desired choice and increased expectations can be fulfilled in the NHS. Otherwise, we will do the NHS a great disservice. As people in this country become better off, they will make choices, fulfil their ambitions and have their expectations met. They will do that because, as their expectations rise, increasing financial affluence allows them to make choices. It is our job to ensure that we develop a national health service in which expectations can be met rather than forcing those who wish to fulfil their ambitions to go outside the NHS.
          Mr. Graham Allen: Will my right hon. Friend consider that a key factor in providing such a health service and such choices might be a period of stability, not least for him and his new, welcome Front-Bench team, thus allowing people a year or possibly two in which the many changes that have been introduced in recent years can bed in, and letting staff and patients use the NHS in the way he outlined?
          Dr. Reid: I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend. We do not agree about everything but I take the sense of his point. However, I cannot say to any organisation—my party, Parliament or the services that serve the people of this country—that it can exist in a world that does not change. As one old philosopher said, the only constant is change. I cannot promise that the NHS will be isolated from the necessity to change. I take my hon. Friend's point that sudden lurches and changes in direction, pulling back and stopping and starting are most debilitating for a service that wants to use the increased capacity that we are providing to the best effect. I was therefore pleased to tell the NHS Confederation last week that, although in a sense the big challenge is that change occurs, the good news is that the direction of change will not shift. In partnership, we want to work out how we can increase the momentum of that change, but I take my hon. Friend's point that we do not want yet another road map, road sign and direction for everyone.
          It is important to recognise that, whatever our differences over introducing change, they are minuscule compared with the big debate about the essential nature of the health care system that future generations will inherit. Not everyone wants us to succeed in the task of modernisation because not everyone shares the values on which the NHS is based. Those values are under attack from the Opposition who want to introduce finance into the relationship between doctor and patient. The Conservative party is capable of reducing the highest moral values to the cash nexus. It has a genius for that, despite the fact that we know from experience how that affects the human condition. For example, the United States has a health system that the

          1085
          Opposition greatly admire, and no less than 40 per cent. of all personal bankruptcies are attributable to people's inability to find the money to pay for their health care.
          Dr. Fox: I hope I can save the Secretary of State time by stopping him peddling the myth that Conservative Members are attracted by the American system. We have gone out of our way to say that we are not attracted by it. But we are very attracted by the social insurance systems of other European countries. Why do the Chancellor and the Secretary of State insist, Don Quixote-like, on chasing monsters that they have imagined?
          Dr. Reid: That is an interesting intervention. I believed that the hon. Gentleman was pledged to a system of patient passports, as he calls them—vouchers that are equal to approximately 60 per cent. of the cost of an NHS operation. That would be given to individuals at the same time as the Conservatives would cut—
          Dr. Fox: Finland. The Netherlands.
          Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman mentions Finland and the Netherlands. I like the British NHS. It has served us well. The idea of eager little Tory Front-Bench spokesmen scuttling around Finland doing a little fishing and trying to pick up an NHS that is better than ours is mind-boggling. However, the Opposition plough ahead with a plan that would mean that patients, including pensioners, have to pay up to £4,000 or £6,000 for a hip operation and £1,000 to £2,000 for a cataract operation. That is their PPP—poor pensioners paying for Tory health policy.
          Dr. Fox: Will the Secretary of State give way?
          Dr. Reid: I shall be more than happy to help the hon. Gentleman dig himself even deeper into the hole.
          Dr. Fox: Our politics have reached a sad state when, rather than defending his own Bill, a Minister goes off at a tangent and starts referring to utterly untrue allegations about what the Opposition have said. What we have said is perfectly clear: we have said that patients will be entitled to free care in the NHS in their own or any other hospitals when that is what they want. Only if they themselves decide to go outside the NHS will they get some of their own tax back to help them—and that is something they are denied by the present Government.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Be fore the Secretary of State responds, I should point out that Third Reading debates are designed for debate of the content of Bills. Perhaps hon. Members on both sides of the House could now do just that.
          Dr. Reid: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
          One thing that the Bill was designed to avoid was any suggestion that patients would have to pay up to, say, £5,000 for a hip replacement—
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would heed my advice.
          Dr. Reid: I thought I was, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you wish me to avoid the subject of the cost—
          1086
          [Interruption.] I must say that Conservative Front Benchers do not seem very eager to espouse their own policies.
          Dr. Evan Harris: One part of the Bill reconfirms the existence of dental charges. Let me ask a serious question. I accept that the Secretary of State is genuinely concerned about lack of wealth being a barrier to access. Has he reflected on a report by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux which shows that charges for health care can deter people from seeking treatment? It seems that about 750,000 people in England and Wales do not obtain their prescriptions because of the cost involved. Does the Secretary of State propose to do something about that problem of access, based on lack of funds? [Interruption.]
          Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend the Minister of State says that £450 million is currently being spent on subsidising prescriptions. We introduced free eye tests for pensioners as well, of course. We have done a number of things, but we are always trying to do more for pensioners.
          A Liberal Democrat laughs. We introduced a guaranteed minimum pension. We introduced a fuel allowance. Three years ago, we introduced—[interruption.]
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
          Dr. Reid: I am only responding to a point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the Secretary of State's dilemma, but I should be grateful if he did not follow these red herrings.
          Dr. Reid: I shall try to avoid what you describe as red herrings on the Opposition Benches, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me return to the principles espoused by the Bill and, indeed, the national health service.
          Chris Grayling: Talk about the Bill!
          Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I talk about the Bill and not about the values and principles behind it. Let me explain this to him. When we bring a Bill to the House, we do not pluck it out of the air; we do not kneel down and adore it because it has been there for 30 years. It is based on a set of principles and a set of values. The hon. Gentleman may consider the words "values" and "principles" entirely alien to his political philosophy, but they are quite important to us. If I share them with the House and he agrees with the principle, no doubt he will find himself in the same Lobby as us.
          The hon. Gentleman will recognise the first principle: that the dividing line between those who support the national health service and those who oppose it lies in the belief that health care should be provided equally to those who need it, free at the point of need. That principle has been approved by the British people for 60 years, and has been supported by them ever since. I understand that changes such as the introduction of foundation trusts are often controversial, and that we must continue the discussions to carry people with us on

          1087
          such radical proposals. I would point out, however, that the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will be able to audit and inspect all hospitals—not just foundation trusts and not only other hospitals, but all hospitals in the public and the private sectors. NHS foundation trusts will operate totally within that principle.
          Chris Grayling: Will the Secretary of State give way?
          Dr. Reid: I want to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman has spent the last 10 minutes shouting "Get on to the Bill"; now he interrupts me when I am doing that.
          Our Bill proposes, in effect, a new form of local public ownership, guaranteeing equally high-quality service to patients that is free at the point of need. It has never surprised me that when we introduce such novel forms of local public ownership we encounter resistance from the Conservatives: that is entirely in keeping with their beliefs. They oppose anything that smacks of communal or public ownership. Whatever differences we have, however, I accept that my own colleagues find that difficult. I will not hide my disappointment that some of them felt the need to join the Conservatives in the Lobbies tonight, but I hope we can continue to talk it through. Because this is a new and radical form of public ownership, there will be problems that we shall have to work out; but I genuinely believe that this is one way in which we can ensure that we revitalise the NHS in a way that is in keeping with its principles, and at the same time allow local decision-making—which is possible and, indeed, necessary—to meet the different needs and expectations of 60 million of our fellow countrymen.
          Mr. Michael Weir: Will the Secretary of State give way?
          Dr. Reid: I will, only because tonight the SNP set a precedent that it said it never would, and came down en bloc to vote—unfortunately—against improvements in the NHS.
          Mr. Weir: It is interesting that the Secretary of State should make that point, because that was not why we voted. It was because of the Barnett consequentials, as he should know.
          The Secretary of State has said a lot about foundation hospitals. Although I do not agree with it, I understand why someone might want foundation hospitals in both Scotland and England, but can the Secretary of State explain why some Scottish Labour Members seem to favour foundation hospitals in England but not back in Scotland? Is that not an inconsistency?
          Dr. Reid: I am sure that those who voted tonight—and some Scots voted against the Bill, including the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and some on our side, as well as Scottish Liberals, although others voted for it—hold the same views whether they vote here or voice their opinions in Scotland.
          Of course we believe in devolution in this House. Part of the deal, which we as a Labour Government put before the people and brought to the House, was the simple proposition that all Members are equal in terms
          1088
          of voting rights and of their opportunities to hold office. Not only is that right in principle; to go in the direction in which the hon. Gentleman wishes to go would bring chaos. There would have to be different voting regulations, and opportunities for ministerial office would have to be different for the Scots, the Welsh and those in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, "Yes". That is three categories. Then there are London Members, because we devolved the executive control of transport. Then there is the north-west of England and the north-east, if they opt for regional government. We would end up with eight classes of MPs. That is a recipe for chaos. We have never accepted that.
          Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Secretary of State give way?
          Dr. Reid: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he has made the effort to come down—even if it was to vote against the national health service.
          Mr. Salmond: As the Secretary of State should be aware, there are huge implications for funding in Scotland if foundation hospitals, via the Barnett formula, go ahead in England; however, he has not answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Weir). How can Scottish Labour Members be in favour of foundation hospitals in England, given that the Labour party policy in Scotland is against them? How can Labour Members in Scotland simultaneously hold the positions of being in favour of them south of the border and against them north of the border?
          Dr. Reid: The answer is the same as the one that I gave earlier. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is not true—there is a thing called devolution. The Labour party is slightly bigger than the hon. Gentleman's own party. We draw our members from a much wider base, whereas his party is confined to one country—as, incidentally, is the Tory party. Indeed, if the Tories are not careful, they will be overtaken by the SNP. For those of us who belong to a party that is truly represented throughout Britain—
          Mr. Mark Francois: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
          Dr. Reid: I am afraid that I genuinely cannot. I have already taken a longtime, and I want to get to some of the meat. We believe in devolution. We believe that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for Britain, and nor is there a one-size-fits-all solution for the national health service. That is why we are decentralising power.
          The second principle is that the value of the national health service is defined around patients, not around the needs of providers. Yes, I have the greatest respect for politicians—for those who provide the decisions, the policy and the money—for those who work in the national health service, for those who lay the bricks and build the buildings, for those who make the tea, and, indeed, for those who make the surgical incisions. But ultimately, this is not about the providers; it is about the patient, and the patient must be the arbiter of everything that we do and the benchmark of our success. Again,

          1089
          that leads to striking difficult balances and making difficult choices, but Labour Members have never been frightened to do that.
          Mr. Allen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
          Dr. Reid: I shall give way one more time.
          Mr. Allen: The whole foundation hospitals episode has been bruising for everybody on the Labour Benches, regardless of which side of the argument they are on. Many of us remember my right hon. Friend's pugnacity as Leader of the House and as chairman of the Labour party, but some of us also remember the skill that he brought to bear in Northern Ireland and in the former Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Will he make every effort to ensure that those who have made honest representations on this issue are still part of the family of people whom he will consult and maintain very close links with as we rebuild the health service?
          Dr. Reid: The answer to that is yes, yes and yes again, because I genuinely believe that the commitment on the Labour Benches to the values of the national health service is such that it overcomes, and should overcome, any differences in terms of exactly how we get that system operating and how we enshrine those values.
          The third point is that the Bill enshrines true security and equity for our people. That was built in as one of the objectives of the early health system, but to be truthful, it has never been delivered in the light of the sheer uniformity of production of service. The truth is that choice, in terms of meeting the ambitions of our people through the decades, will remain theoretical rather than real unless sufficient capacity is injected into the NHS itself. I am not one of those who think that this is a question of choosing between increasing capacity and increasing choice; the truth is that both are necessary. If we do not increase capacity, we cannot give the patients themselves true choice; and if we do not give them true choice, we will not maximise the focus, direction and use of the extra capacity that we are putting into the health service—a point that also relates to the question of fairness
          As has been pointed out, we have listened to the various concerns that have been expressed about the Bill. For instance, we have introduced measures to cap the amount of private work that an NHS foundation trust can do, introduced local accountability and ensured common application of the terms and conditions agreed under "Agenda for Change". So in the teeth of opposition from the Conservatives, we have tried to listen, but above all we have tried to make real progress for the national health service. I believe that NHS foundation trusts will help us to take a further great stride forward for patients. And when we do so—when we make decisions about the systems, processes and structures through which we are trying to enshrine our values—Labour Members will never forget, I hope, that the choice is now clear.
          The real dividing lines are opening up on this great issue of health care. After six decades of post-war consensus, there is now a breach in that consensus. The
          1090
          choice, which is enshrined in this Bill, is between reforming the NHS or breaking it up; between mending it or ending it; between massive investment or savage cuts; between modernisation or privatisation; and between increased spending or increased charging. It is a choice between our promise to provide the systems to run alongside the training of doctors and nurses, the building of skills in hospitals and the provision of teachers and skills, thereby building on the Bill itself; or the Tory pledge card, of which the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is the architect and proud parent. That pledge card outlines their aims: to cut public spending, to sack nurses and doctors, to axe hospitals and to transfer money away from the NHS and into private care.
          When I consider that choice—between a Labour party that believes in health care free at the point of need, and a Tory party that now apparently believes that when someone is ill, the health service should take their money before taking their temperature and feel their wallet before feeling their pulse—all I can say is, "Roll on the general election." Meanwhile, I commend the Bill to the House.
          8.35 pm
          Dr. Fox: To end with an utterly fatuous analysis of the difference between the parties and to create demons that do not exist, thereby frightening the sick and vulnerable, is unworthy even of a Secretary of State thrown into the job unwittingly in a botched reshuffle by a Prime Minister who had the poor sense to put in charge of health care in England someone who does not have to take responsibility for any of his actions in respect of his own constituents in Scotland. I am also saddened that the Secretary of State made his debut on this subject tonight by barely mentioning the Bill at any point in his speech. Instead, he gave us a lecture about some strange and bizarre version of history and his party philosophy. He preferred that to facing his Back-Bench colleagues head on in the difficult debate on foundation hospitals. If the Secretary of State does not have the courage to do so, the Opposition cannot be held to account for it, but it is a great pity.
          We should remind the Secretary of State of a couple of things. When it comes to the post-war consensus on the national health service, which he says has been maintained up to this point by all Governments, it is worth pointing out that in the post-war period since the NHS was created, it has been maintained for 35 years by a Conservative Government and for only 17 by a Labour Government. I would have thought that that speaks for itself.
          The Secretary of State spoke rather patronisingly—and the Minister of State insultingly earlier—to his own Back Benchers, accusing them of going into the Lobby with the Tories tonight. I had better point out that it was a Labour amendment, not one of our amendments, on which the Conservatives chose to go into the Lobby with his hon. Friends. The Secretary of State needs to learn not to insult his own side as often as he seems intent on doing.
          One could not have gleaned it from listening to the Secretary of State, but there are three main elements in the Bill—foundation hospitals, the CHAI and its reform to provide a new system of inspection, and of course the

          1091
          GP contract, which is essential to changes in primary care, though it was not mentioned once in the Secretary of State's Third Reading speech on his own Bill. That speaks volumes about the Government's approach to primary care.
          Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman said that there were three main elements, but he has just mentioned four.
          Dr. Fox: No.
          Dr. Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to elaborate them?
          Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State needs a little lesson, because the GP contract is primary care. I know that he is not au fait with the terminology of his new job yet, but most of us regard general practice as one of the essential parts of primary care. Perhaps the Secretary of State should ask the Minister of State for some advice on the language of the NHS in England.
          Dr. Reid rose—
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All I insist on is that we do not have two Front-Bench Members on their feet at the same time.
          Dr. Fox: I am sure that the Secretary of State will learn in time, and I will not hold it against him.
          Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
          Dr. Fox: No, we are not accepting plea bargaining tonight.
          We need to assess the basic elements one by one. On foundation hospitals, we do not have a problem with the concept. Indeed, we are keen on the model of foundation hospitals in other countries—Sweden, for example. Swedish hospitals have freedom to borrow according to their own plans and in terms of their own investment needs; they have freedom from political interference in setting targets and freedom to set their own pay and conditions. The Secretary of State described us as scuttling around Europe, as if we in Britain had nothing to learn from other countries in Europe, many of which provide better health care than we do in the United Kingdom. If we examine countries such as Germany, we find that they have far better quality care than is received by poorer groups in the United Kingdom. We have much to learn from the social insurance model in other parts of Europe.
          We could have argued today that we were in favour of the move closer to the internal market and the potential proto-legislation that Labour has introduced, because such are the secondary powers in the Bill that an incoming Conservative Government could move much faster towards the sort of model that we would like to see, without having to introduce primary legislation. However, we laid out the reasons why we were unhappy with the Bill as regards foundation hospitals, and why we supported the relevant amendment earlier. I shall elaborate on those reasons.
          Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On the subject of the lessons learned from Europe, is the hon. Gentleman familiar
          1092
          with the processes, currently going through European courts and our courts, that will determine the rights of European Union citizens to access health services in any other European state? Those will have profound implications for the development of the health service. Does the Tory party agree that British citizens should have the right to access services in any other EU state?
          Dr. Fox: I know that to answer that question would be to stray on to the issue of European legislation, and therefore you might not approve, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, if we are to have such rights, they should be genuinely reciprocal. For example, British patients in France should be treated as French patients would be treated in this country—in other words, free at the point of use. At the moment, British patients go to France but have to pay, but the French can come to Britain and be treated free. We should have genuine reciprocal rights, not the loaded dice that we have at present.
          Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
          Dr. Fox: No, I am not going to be tempted further on Europe. We need to make progress on discussing the Bill, because we have only an hour to do so, courtesy of the Government's timetable.
          What do we see when we compare the freedoms of foundation hospitals in other countries with what we will have here? Here, we see borrowing curtailed by the Treasury. In fact, it is worse than that, because any borrowing will be curtailed within a single envelope. Any foundation hospital that is able to access more money will do so at the expense of other hospitals. That is a recipe for what Labour Members have called a two-tier system. The whole point of being able to borrow outside Government limits is to be able to raise expenditure without affecting the resources available to others in the publicly funded sector. However, the Government fail to understand that. The freedoms will be rolled out for only a few hospitals, rather than as a programme for all of them, and that is a recipe for maximum instability in the system.
          On the issue of the regulator, the Minister of State told us that the Government had taken increasing measures throughout the passage of the Bill to guarantee the independence of the regulator. What sort of independence is it when the regulator will be hired by the Secretary of State, fired by the Secretary of State, has his rates of pay set by the Secretary of State, and cannot give agreement to a foundation hospital unless it has first been agreed by the Secretary of State?
          We did not receive sufficient explanation of several areas of the Bill in the debates earlier today. We asked, frequently, about pay and conditions. What freedoms will foundation hospitals have to alter pay and conditions that other hospitals will not have? If foundation hospitals will not have those freedoms, what is the point of the exercise? If they will have those freedoms, they need to be defined at the outset. How will those freedoms impact on the Chancellor's regional pay

          1093
          strategy and on the Prime Minister's pledge to uprate above inflation? How will all those factors affect the pay rates of foundation hospitals?
          Several hon. Members rose—
          Dr. Fox: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).
          Mr. Allen: On freedoms and the ability of hospitals to set their own parameters, I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers also to the freedom of individuals to be charged £5,000 for a hip replacement or £9,000 for a heart bypass under the Conservatives' passport scheme. He mentioned looking to Scandinavia, including Finland, but is that giving another meaning to the phrase "finish the NHS"?
          Dr. Fox: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who will talk a good deal more sense.
          Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend was talking about the role of the independent regulator. We only really understood in Standing Committee that the regulator is going to have to exercise his functions in a way that is consistent with the performance of the duties of the Secretary of State under the 1977 Act. As the Minister admitted in Committee, that means that the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance to the independent regulator on the exercise of all his functions.
          Dr. Fox: I imagine that this is plumb in line with the previous Secretary of State's well known way of running the health service along the lines of earned autonomy, which meant, "You can do whatever you want, as long as it's what I want". This is the same doctrine, and it is now being extended to the independent regulator, who could not possibly be regarded as independent in any normal sense.
          Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
          Dr. Fox: I am certainly not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is wasting his time as much as he is wasting mine. I can tell him things, but I cannot understand them for him.
          One of the most contentious areas of our debate today, and throughout the passage of the Bill, has been the question of governance.
          Mr. Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not one of the normal courtesies of the House for a Front Bencher to respond when an intervention is made?
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, and I have to say that there comes a point at which attempts to intervene simply interrupt the debate in a quite irrational way.
          Dr. Fox: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially from someone who has taken no part in the passage of the Bill up to this point.
          1094
          It is interesting that the question of governance caused the most trouble on the Government's Back Benches. We got no answer to many of our questions on this issue. What is the logic of having an electoral system for the providers, but not for the commissioners, of care? Several Labour Back Benchers asked today how this provision would impact on their constituencies. People will have no ability to change the basis on which services are configured, because that configuration will be dependent on the allocation of resources. To establish electoral formats for the providers will therefore make no difference whatever.
          The Secretary of State says that this is all about public ownership, but I always thought that the national health service was in public ownership, so why we have to redo it is quite beyond me. What are the great constituencies going to be? In relation to the regional and national hospitals, we are still waiting for an answer on who the voters are going to be, what the constituencies are going to be, and what the cost is going to be. Not once have Ministers denied our indicative figure of up to £250,000 per trust per year, simply to run the system. The Government say that they are decentralising and cutting red tape and bureaucracy, but they are creating a whole new tier of bureaucracy and red tape, in which hospital managers will be more concerned with running elections than with running hospitals. This is a disaster in the making.
          The Secretary of State talked about what the Government were doing on capping private health care. That was one of the most profoundly dishonest parts of the passage of the Bill, because the Government have changed the provisions in the Bill on capping private income from "must" to "may". They state that the power is to be exercised
          "with a view to securing that … proportion of the total income",
          but they have done nothing finally to cap it.
          On CHAI, we have argued since the first Government Bill when they came to office in 1997 that there should be a single regulator across all parts of health care, regulating on the basis of the patient's experience and not according to who the provider is. The Government have belatedly caught up with us on this issue, and we welcome that.
          Part of the Bill that has changed since Second Reading is the section relating to the GP contract, and this makes a profound difference to the Bill as a whole. I should perhaps declare an interest as a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners. Following substantial negotiations between the BMA and the NHS Confederation, and the overwhelming vote—an absolute majority—by GPs that this is what they want, it is clear that this is the model of health care that we will take forward. It is unfortunate that we did not have more time to discuss these matters in the House of Commons, but we shall certainly have plenty of time to consider them in detail in the House of Lords.
          The Prime Minister said that the Bill was of historic importance. It is historic—it is an historic waste of opportunity. The Government will have to come back and remedy it, because it is deeply flawed and was made up as they went along. It therefore gets the worst of both worlds—it has the worst possible financial framework, and that fault is augmented by Whitehall control. It truly is a wasted opportunity that the Government will live to regret.

          1095
          8.50 pm
          Kate Hoey: I am pleased to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spent eight hours in the Chamber on Second Reading and all of today without being able to express my views, despite having two trusts with three stars in my constituency. I would like to put on record my reasons for opposing the setting-up of foundation trusts and not backing Third Reading, despite the fact that I support certain aspects of the Bill.
          I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not choose to answer some of the many serious criticisms made by many hon. Members about foundation hospitals. I would like to remind the House that, according to the Secretary of State, the fundamental reason for establishing foundation hospitals is to improve the care of patients. Since Second Reading, I have spent a lot of time talking to my hospitals, local people and the PCT, and have yet to meet anyone who can come up with a single reason as to why a foundation hospital trust will achieve concrete improvements to patient services. It is important that we look at all the proposals in the Bill that could have been carried out simply by amending existing measures. We talk about democratisation of governance, and want local authorities to get involved, but that could have been done by amendment.
          Trying to achieve a supposed democracy by involving local people will be a nightmare, and will cost far too much. I cannot justify the spending of thousands of pounds by hospitals in my constituency. Kings College hospital and Guy's and St. Thomas's hospitals will all compete for the same membership, with the exception of people who go for treatment at national centres at St. Thomas's and Guy's, not to mention the huge numbers of MPs who are always popping over to St. Thomas's. Presumably they will all be able to pay their money and become members of trusts. I cannot justify the spending of that money to establish an electoral process that will stand up to legal scrutiny—it is just nonsense.
          No one in my constituency accepts the need for that kind of artificial democracy, as the hospitals already offer patients forums. St. Thomas's, in particular, reaches out to people in the area with pensioners forums—pensioners go to the hospital to discuss their needs, such as home helps and many other things. There is no need for this supposed democracy, which will not make the slightest difference, because the money is held by the PCTs, which are undemocratic. The whole thing is therefore nonsense.
          Hospitals will supposedly be able to borrow more than they can at the moment, but they will have to pay it back. I am worried about what will happen if they run into difficulties. At the moment, if they decide to sell an asset, they have to offer it first to other hospitals and keep it within the NHS but, under the new arrangements, as soon as they get into trouble there will be asset stripping. I shall be brief, as other hon. Members wish to speak. I am all in favour of taking power away from Whitehall and giving it to local hospitals, but we do not need to create foundation hospitals to do so. All the problems that hospitals experience with bureaucracy and paper-chasing could be solved, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, by the Secretary of State simply saying that things are not going be done that way. This is a complete distraction
          1096
          and diversion, and it comes just as hospitals are beginning to see the benefits of the money that the Government have put in. It takes a long time for the benefits to come through but that is beginning to happen. However, we are completely diverting everyone in the trusts and setting them to work on establishing foundation hospitals.
          Officials from the Department of Health are on the telephone and sending e-mails almost every day to the trusts, asking what people there think that they should do about foundation hospitals. The Department cannot answer a single question about the practicalities of how the system will work. Resources will be taken away from those in our health service and hospitals who should be working to improve matters for patients. The proposal is a diversion and a distraction. It was not in the manifesto, and I feel no compunction whatsoever about opposing my Government today.
          8.55 pm
          Dr. Evan Harris: Second Reading was held some time ago and was kicked off by the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). It is appropriate to pay tribute to his work on the Bill, flawed though the proposals are. There is no doubt that he was a very able Minister and Secretary of State. It is unfortunate that personal circumstances should have prevented him from seeing the Bill through to this stage.
          I wish the new Secretary of State well. I recognise that, despite the qualifications held by me and the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), he is the only proper doctor among the three of us. I tell that to my constituents on a regular basis. However, when questions are raised on specific policies, I hope that he will resist the temptation that his predecessor could not always resist—that is, to impugn the motives of others and to launch half-hearted and supposedly humorous personal attacks on those who do not agree with him.
          Liberal Democrat Members, and even sometimes Conservative Members, ask reasonable questions that deserve to be answered, on Second or Third Reading. It is unfortunate when every question about the Government's policy draws as a response an attack on the policies of Opposition parties. That may be tempting but, if there is a time and place for such a response, it must come after questions about Government policy have been addressed.
          The Secretary of State said several times that he is committed to an NHS that is universal and comprehensive, free at the point of delivery and in which treatment is based on clinical need, not the ability to pay. I do not doubt his sincerity about wanting to support an NHS like that, as that is the NHS that I support. However, I recognise that the NHS that we have at the moment—even before it is subject to the policies of any other party—is not universal or comprehensive.
          We have to accept that rationing exists in the NHS, and recognise that the best thing that we can do is hope to limit rationing by putting in the necessary resources. I voted for the Government to do that. They have done it—belatedly, but they have done it. In addition, we must make sure that what rationing there is is made explicit. In that way, people will know the consequences of voting for tax cuts and for cutting resources for the NHS.
          I do not doubt that the Secretary of State wants the NHS to be free at the point of delivery. However, he must recognise that it is not always free at the point of delivery.

          1097
          In dental care, for example, 84 per cent. of people, even including those of pensionable age, are not exempt from contributing to NHS dental charges, which can amount to as much as 80 per cent. of a maximum of £366. Also, hundreds of thousands of people, even those with chronic diseases, are prevented from getting their prescriptions because of prescription charging. For them, the NHS is not free at the point of delivery. The Government should have greater aspirations even than those contained in the Bill, as they would see it, to establish an NHS that is truly free at the point of delivery.
          The Secretary of State would also argue that treatment should be based on clinical need and not the ability to pay. I hope that he recognises that the amount of NHS capacity reserved for paying patients means that, at a time when capacity is limited, there are thousands of people whose clinical need is greater than that of those in the pay beds. However, those NHS beds are occupied by people who have jumped the queue because they can pay. As the Select Committee said, the Government should do something about pay beds.
          The Bill has five parts. One part, which has received less attention than it deserves, contains the proposals for the quality inspection regime—the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, and its sister body covering social care inspection. The Bill is a disaster for the independence of both bodies, which will become the Government's creatures, charged by the Government to implement Government policy. The Bill even contains a clause that states that the commission "shall have regard" to Government policy. The target regime and the so-called standards regime will clearly be seen to be political. The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will be far less independent even than the Commission for Health Improvement. I do not think that the NHS will have confidence in it.
          Another part of the Bill deals with the recovery of charges from employers where they are liable. Even that has had to be postponed because the Department for Work and Pensions requires a review of its impact on small businesses.
          The GP contract may be good for GPs; I do not blame them for voting for it. At best, however, it will mean no change for patients and, at worst, it will be worse for them. The contract provides neither more GPs nor more GP time; it merely allows GPs to opt out of providing holistic care on a one-stop-shop basis.
          My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), to whom I pay tribute, has drawn attention to the great deficiencies in the welfare food scheme. Many of the provisions should not and will not survive the Bill's passage through the House of Lords.
          The Government majority of only 35 on the foundation hospitals proposals shows that their policy is wounded as the Bill limps to the Lords. The policy is unloved by staff; the unions and professional staff oppose it. It is unloved by patient groups; they know that the priority should not be to set hospital against hospital. We oppose it. Many of the Government's Back Benchers oppose it, including at least six former Ministers. The policy is loved only by the Tories, but not so much that they could not vote against it. The House of Lords should put the policy out of its misery so that
          1098
          the NHS can concentrate on providing the freedoms required to empower commissioners and to put patients' needs first. We should have an inspectorate free from political control.
          For all those reasons, we shall oppose Third Reading and we urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to join us in so doing.
          9.1 pm
          Dr. Stoate: I realise that time is short but as I am the only practising GP in the House, I feel qualified to make one or two points that may, I hope, help hon. Members.
          My constituents believe passionately in the NHS. They believe in a service free at the point of use and available to all, regardless of their circumstances. The only alternative to a national health service is some sort of privatised service, based on social insurance or a private insurance scheme, neither of which would cut much ice with people in this country.
          People tell me that one of the current problems is that the service is too often geared to the needs of the providers and not enough to the needs of the users. They want more choice, more flexibility and more say in how their services are run.
          There has been a huge, long debate on foundation hospitals, but it boils down to a simple concept, which is not rocket science and does not involve destroying the health service or huge upheaval. The proposals would do two things: first, they would give more democracy to the health service by setting up boards of governors whereby local people can have an important say in the way that the health service is run.
          David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
          Dr. Stoate: I am very short of time.
          People on the board of governors can say how the hospital is run. People would also have the opportunity to decide for themselves how services are provided, dependent on local needs, priorities and circumstances. Surely, that is the way to go. It is merely opening up the health service, to provide more flexibility, more choice and more democracy.
          It is difficult to understand what all the fuss is about. The proposals are a way of improving the health service to deliver the health care that we need in the next century. The NHS is 60 years old, and it is ripe for modernisation. We need a service that is more responsive to users and less geared to the needs of providers.
          I realise that there is little time to develop the debate, but those points are important. The new GP contract will also be of huge benefit to patients because it will allow GPs to provide a much more responsive service and to meet as many needs as possible in a health service of which we should all be proud. I hope to be part of it as it develops.
          9.3 pm
          Mr. Lansley: As the Bill goes off to another place, I urge those in that place to reform it so that primary care trusts and commissioning are at the heart of local ownership, that if there is to be an independent regulator, he should—

          1099
          It being eight hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the question already proposed from the Chair.
          Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
          The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 57.

          Division No. 284]

          [9.04 pm

          AYES

          Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

          Cranston, Ross

          Ainger, Nick

          Crausby, David

          Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

          Cruddas, Jon

          Alexander, Douglas

          Cummings, John

          Allen, Graham

          Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

          Anderson, Janet (Rossendale&

          (Copeland)

          Darwen)

          Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

          Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

          Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

          Bailey, Adrian

          Darling, rh Alistair

          Banks, Tony

          Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

          Barren, rh Kevin

          David, Wayne

          Beard, Nigel

          Davidson, Ian

          Beckett, rh Margaret

          Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

          Begg, Miss Anne

          Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

          Benn, Hilary

          Dawson, Hilton

          Bennett, Andrew

          Denham, rh John

          Benton, Joe (Bootle)

          Donohoe, Brian H.

          Belts, Clive

          Doran, Frank

          Blackman, Liz

          Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

          Blears, Ms Hazel

          Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

          Blizzard, Bob

          Edwards, Huw

          Blunkett, rh David

          Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

          Boateng, rh Paul

          Farrelly, Paul

          Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

          Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

          Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

          Fitzpatrick, Jim

          Bradshaw, Ben

          Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

          Brennan, Kevin

          Flint, Caroline

          Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

          Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

          E)

          Follett, Barbara

          Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

          Foster, rh Derek

          Browne, Desmond

          Foster, Michael (Worcester)

          Bryant, Chris

          Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

          Buck, Ms Karen

          &Rye)

          Burden, Richard

          Foulkes, rh George

          Burgon, Colin

          Francis, Dr. Hywel

          Burnham, Andy

          Gapes, Mike (llford S)

          Caborn, rh Richard

          Gardiner, Barry

          Cairns, David

          Gerrard, Neil

          Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

          Gilroy, Linda

          Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

          Godsiff, Roger

          Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

          Goggins, Paul

          Caplin, Ivor

          Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

          Casale, Roger

          Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

          Caton, Martin

          Grogan, John

          Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

          Hain, rh Peter

          Challen, Colin

          Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

          Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

          Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

          Chaytor, David

          Hanson, David

          Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

          Harman, rh Ms Harriet

          Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

          Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

          Pentlands)

          Healey, John

          Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

          Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

          Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

          Hendrick, Mark

          Chryston)

          Hepburn, Stephen

          Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

          Heppell, John

          Coaker, Vernon

          Hermon, Lady

          Coffey, Ms Ann

          Hesford, Stephen

          Cohen, Harry

          Hill, Keith (Streatham)

          Colman, Tony

          Hodge, Margaret

          Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

          Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

          Cooper, Yvette

          Hoon, rh Geoffrey

          Corston, Jean

          Hope, Phil (Corby)

          Cousins, Jim

          Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

          1100

          Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

          Michael, rh Alun

          Sefton E)

          Milburn, rh Alan

          Howells, Dr. Kim

          Miliband, David

          Hoyle, Lindsay

          Miller, Andrew

          Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

          Moffatt, Laura

          Urmston)

          Mole, Chris

          Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

          Moonie, Dr. Lewis

          Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

          Moran, Margaret

          Hutton, rh John

          Morley, Elliot

          Iddon, Dr. Brian

          Morris, rh Estelle

          Ingram, rh Adam

          Mountford, Kali

          Irranca-Davies, Huw

          Mullin, Chris

          Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

          Munn, Ms Meg

          Jamieson, David

          Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

          Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

          Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

          Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

          Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

          Hatfield)

          Naysmith, Dr. Doug

          Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

          Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

          Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

          O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

          Jowell, rh Tessa

          O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

          Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

          O'Hara, Edward

          Kaufman, rh Gerald

          O'Neill, Martin

          Keeble, Ms Sally

          Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

          Keen, Alan (Feltham)

          Palmer, Dr. Nick

          Keen, Ann (Brentford)

          Pearson, Ian

          Kemp, Fraser

          Perham, Linda

          Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

          Pickthall, Colin

          Khabra, Piara S.

          Pike, Peter (Burnley)

          Kidney, David

          Plaskitt, James

          King, Andy (Rugby)

          Pollard, Kerry

          King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

          Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

          Bow)

          Pound, Stephen

          Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

          Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

          Kumar, Dr. Ashok

          E)

          Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

          Prescott, rh John

          Lammy, David

          Primarolo, rh Dawn

          Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

          Prosser, Gwyn

          Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

          Purchase, Ken

          Lazarowicz, Mark

          Purnell, James

          Lepper, David

          Quinn, Lawrie

          Leslie, Christopher

          Rammell, Bill

          Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

          Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

          Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

          Raynsford, rh Nick

          Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

          Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

          Linton, Martin

          Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

          Love, Andrew

          Bellshill)

          Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

          Robertson, John (Glasgow

          McAvoy, Thomas

          Anniesland)

          McCabe, Stephen

          Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

          McCartney, rh Ian

          NW)

          McDonagh, Siobhain

          Roche, Mrs Barbara

          MacDonald, Calum

          Rooney, Terry

          MacDougall, John

          Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

          McFall, John

          Ruane, Chris

          McGuire, Mrs Anne

          Ruddock, Joan

          McKechin, Ann

          Russell, Ms Christine (City of

          McKenna, Rosemary

          Chester)

          McNamara, Kevin

          Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

          McNulty, Tony

          Salter, Martin

          MacShane, Denis

          Sarwar, Mohammad

          Mactaggart, Fiona

          Sawford, Phil

          McWalter, Tony

          Shaw, Jonathan

          McWilliam, John

          Sheerman, Barry

          Mahmood, Khalid

          Sheridan, Jim

          Mallaber, Judy

          Simon, Siôn (B' ham Erdington)

          Mandelson, rh Peter

          Singh, Marsha

          Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

          Skinner, Dennis

          Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

          Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

          Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

          Smith, Angela (Basildon)

          Marshall, David (Glasgow

          Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

          Shettleston)

          Finsbury)

          Marshall, Jim Leicester S)

          Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

          Martlew, Eric

          Smith, John (Glamorgan)

          Meacher, rh Michael

          Soley, Clive

          Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

          Southworth, Helen

          Merron, Gillian

          Spellar, rh John

          1101

          Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

          Ward, Claire

          Steinberg, Gerry

          Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

          Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

          Watts, David

          Stinchcombe, Paul

          White, Brian

          Stoate, Dr. Howard

          Whitehead, Dr. Alan

          Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

          Wicks, Malcolm

          Stringer, Graham

          Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

          Sutcliffe, Gerry

          Williams, Betty (Conwy)

          Tami, Mark (Alyn)

          Wilson, Brian

          Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

          WinnicK, David

          Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

          Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

          Taylor, David (NW Leics)

          C)

          Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

          Woodward, Shaun

          Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

          Woolas, Phil

          Timms, Stephen

          Worthington, Tony

          Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

          Wray, James (Glasgow

          Touhig, Don (lslwyn)

          Bailleston)

          Trickett, Jon

          Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

          Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

          Yarmouth)

          Turner, Neil (Wigan)

          Wright, David (Telford)

          Twigg, Derek (Halton)

          Wright, Tony (Cannock)

          Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

          Wyatt, Derek

          Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

          Tellers for the Ayes:

          Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

          Charlotte Atkins and

          Vis, Dr. Rudi

          Paul Clark

          NOES

          Allan, Richard

          Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

          Beith, rh A. J.

          Öpik, Lembit

          Breed, Colin

          Paisley, Rev. Ian

          Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

          Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

          Burnett, John

          Dinefwr)

          Burnside, David

          Pugh, Dr. John

          Burstow, Paul

          Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

          Cable, Dr. Vincent

          Rendel, David

          Calton, Mrs Patsy

          Robertson, Angus (Moray)

          Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

          Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

          Cotter, Brian

          Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

          Davey, Edward (Kingston)

          Russell, Bob (Colchester)

          Dodds, Nigel

          Salmond, Alex

          Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

          Sanders, Adrian

          Doughty, Sue

          Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

          Ewing, Annabelle

          Stunell Andrew

          Foster, Don (Bath)

          Taylor, David M(NW Leics)

          George, Andrew (St. Ives)

          Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

          Gidley, Sandra

          Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

          Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

          Thurso, John

          Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

          Tonge, Dr. Jenny

          Abingdon)

          Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

          Harvey, Nick

          Webb, Steve (Northavon)

          Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

          Weir, Michael

          Keetch, Paul

          Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

          Kirkwood, Sir Archy

          Williams, Roger (Brecon)

          Lamb, Norman

          Willis, Phil

          Laws, David (Yeovil)

          Younger-Ross, Richard

          Llwyd, Elfyn

          Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

          Tellers for the Noes:

          Atcham)

          Tom Brake and

          Moore, Michael

          Sir Robert Smith

          Question accordingly agreed to.
          Bill read the Third time, and passed.

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
        That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Railways and Transport Safety Bill and the Licensing Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Heppell.]
        Question agreed to.

        RAILWAYS AND TRANSPORT SAFETY BILL(PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
        That the following provisions shall apply to the Railways and Transport Safety Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 28th January 2003—

        Consideration of Lords Message
        1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

        Subsequent stages
        2. Any further message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
        3. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Heppell]
        Question agreed to.

        Railways and Transport Safety Bill
        Lords amendments considered.

        After Clause 27
        Lords amendment: No. 1, to insert a new clause— Exercise of powers by civilians.
        9.18 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9 and 10, and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, and Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
        Mr. McNulty: The amendments are the result of productive and substantive debate in the other place—[Interruption.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members who are not staying in the Chamber for the debate to leave quickly and quietly?
        Mr. McNulty: It might be useful if I go through the amendments in some detail, although not necessarily at length.
        Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 3 will essentially give the British Transport police the powers to deploy community support officers and investigation, detention and escort officers. The provisions will bring the British Transport police fully in line with Home Office police regarding such civilian officers.
        Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 8 were tabled in response to recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in another place. They will provide that any changes to the upper and lower limits on the number of people on the British Transport Police authority would be subject to the negative procedure, and that the affirmative procedure would be used the first time that the Health and Safety Executive rail levy was introduced.
        Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12 add to existing police powers to test for alcohol use on the roads by allowing them to administer a test for impairment and for the presence of drugs by means of a sample of saliva or sweat. Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 introduce equivalent police powers for the aviation and maritime sector. That is all that the amendments do, and I commend them to the House. They were discussed, to varying degrees, in the other place, and the Government made the commitment to table amendments in lieu of those suggested by the Lords if necessary.
        The only difficulty we have is with Lords amendment No. 10 and the Government offer a replacement in lieu. When the issue was discussed in another place, we made it clear that we could not accept Lords amendment No. 10, for a variety of reasons. In essence, it deals with the regulation of motor vehicles on the Ridgeway. Many
        1104
        local Members and some local authorities have tried to get some order in the use of motor vehicles on the Ridgeway. I want to say, apropos of nothing at all, that I had great fun when I was about 16, spending a week walking from one end of the Ridgeway to the other, eating horrible powdered meals in the evening—I was too young for the pub—and putting up tents.
        Mr. Don Foster: I am sure that entire House is delighted to know that the Minister experienced the great delights of the nearly 1,000-year-old Ridgeway. One hopes he is about to say that he, too, is disturbed by the large number of motorised vehicles that now use it. However, will he acknowledge that Government amendment (a) uses the word "may" instead of "shall"? The House will worry whether the Government have a clear intention to act on the problem, or whether their amendment is merely a sop to another place. Will the Minister assure us that they intend to take action?
        Mr. McNulty: I would never appear at the Dispatch Box and offer sops to anyone—the official Opposition, the minor Opposition or Members of the other place. We intend to take action, save for two features. We want to discover whether the Countryside Agency's management plan produces results within the next 12 months. Over that time, we want to work far more closely with local authorities, which are at various stages of their management schemes, while working with the Countryside Agency. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the Countryside Agency's management plan and the work of local authorities do not produce results within 12 months, the Government are committed to consider promoting such a ban along the length of the Ridgeway.
        Andrew Bennett: Will my hon. Friend remind the House how long the Countryside Agency has been dealing with the problem? It has been pretty pathetic.
        Mr. McNulty: It is not for me to comment on the efficacy or otherwise of particular agencies. The Department for Transport is working closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I will say as starkly as I can that the Countryside Agency is on notice for 12 months. The matter is of serious concern to many local authorities up and down the Ridgeway and to many hon. Members who represent parts of the Ridgeway or who believe it to be a splendid element of our heritage. If the agency does not deliver, the Government are committed to consider promoting a ban along the length of the Ridgeway rather than relying on the partial local traffic regulation orders.
        Mr. Tim Collins: Let me first offer the Minister my congratulations on his recent promotion.
        On the difference between Lords amendment No. 10 and the alternative that the Minister proposes, in addition to the significant alteration mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the wording has also been changed. Rather than specifying national trails, the amendment in lieu specifies long distance routes. The Minister has related his remarks to the Ridgeway, which is at the heart of the matter, but it is

        1105
        not the only area affected by either of those amendments. Will he clarify the difference between national trails and long distance routes?
        Mr. McNulty: As I understand it—and if the position is other than this, I will get back to the hon. Gentleman—long distance means national trails of significant length, such as the Ridgeway. Unless I am mistaken, I do not think that there is much else in the country that would be captured by that definition, but I will check that.
        Dr. Andrew Murrison: Can the Minister say whether the measure, which seems sensible, is compatible with the general drift of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, in particular the creation of "byways open to all traffic"? It seems that the general thrust of the Bill is rather different from that of the Act.
        Mr. McNulty: That is the sort of issue that we want to explore further with the Countryside Agency in the context of its management plan, rather than going from the present position, which everyone accepts is less than satisfactory, to a position where all sorts of legalistic difficulties arise, not least for the reason suggested by the hon. Gentleman. We believe it is worth taking some time to see whether the Countryside Agency plan beds in, but hon. Members should be assured that if it does not, we will address the matter.
        Mr. Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. It may save debate later. I, for one, am grateful for the assurance that he has given, but may I suggest that he needs to go a little further? He said that if the Countryside Agency did not deliver, the Government would commit to consider a ban. The House would be grateful if the Minister could give a slightly stronger assurance that, provided things do not go wrong, there is a clear commitment to introduce a ban if the Countryside Agency does not get its act together in the 12-month period.
        Mr. McNulty: That is what I am doing. I chose my words carefully, in lieu of the hon. Gentleman's proviso about things going wrong. If there is no satisfactory resolution of the matter within 12 months of the Countryside Agency's plan bedding in, and working with local authorities, some of which are far more advanced than others in taking these matters seriously, the Government will consider acting in the way that I suggested. Of course that is conditional. I have learned in this trade, for want of a better phrase, as from others, that I am not a mind-reader or a futurologist, and we need to attach some conditions.
        I take seriously the concerns suggested by the movers in the other place and have taken to heart much of what they said. If the agency and local authorities can deal with the matter, it is right and proper that they should do so, but the Government will take a strong interest in their ability and their actions, and will act in the fullness of time, if necessary. In that context, rather than accept Lords amendment No. 10, we offer the Government amendment in lieu. In the spirit of good will and consensus—
        Mr. Collins: I sensed that the Minister was bringing his remarks to a conclusion. I hope he will forgive me if
        1106
        I take him back briefly to the group of amendments that he touched on earlier, relating to the new provisions enabling the police to try to assess whether drivers and others are impaired by the use of drugs. He will know that one of the keys to that is the extent to which police officers are trained in sufficient numbers to conduct the high quality impairment tests that have been learned by a number of police officers from overseas experience.
        Can the hon. Gentleman say a word or two about the extent to which the Government are committed to expanding the pool of police officers who have that training, and whether the Government may consider introducing targets for chief constables to increase the number of their officers who have passed those tests?
        Mr. McNulty: With the smooth passage of the Bill, as we hope it will be, it follows that the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers—Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 in part or in whole—require greater training and a widening of the pool of officers, otherwise those powers are not helpful. Whether targets are associated with them, with or without the endorsement of the chief constable, is a matter for others far better placed to deal with that than I. On the resource and training issue, those matters should follow. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
        I commend the new clause that we propose in lieu of Lords amendment No. 10, which is the only minor matter on which we disagree. I have given the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) the assurances that he sought. I also commend to the House amendments Nos. 1 through 9, to use a crude Americanism, and amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Collins: I should like to begin by congratulating the Minister once again on his recent promotion.
        I reiterate that the Bill remains largely uncontroversial. It left this House as a very good Bill and it is coming back from the other place as an even better one. As the Minister perfectly reasonably pointed out, the vast majority of the amendments that we are considering have been tabled by the Government in response to representations made in the other place by members of other parties. In particular, I hope that he will join me in paying tribute to Lord Dixon-Smith, whose wish to improve the law in relation to drug-impaired people in charge of vehicles took shape in a private Member's Bill and then in amendments to this Bill. I am glad to say that the Government took away those amendments, improved them and made them technically feasible, and have now tabled them in a form that I suspect will command the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
        The Minister was good enough to tell me in response to an intervention that the Government recognise the need to step up the training of police officers who will be expected to implement the new provisions inserted into the Road Traffic Act 1988. As he will know, if the amendments are agreed to, they will affect the entirety of that Act, so it will be necessary for the police to undertake a considerable amount of training. He may be amused to know that, following my recent visit to Kendall police station in my constituency, there is in the

        1107
        archives of the esteemed journal, the Westmorland Gazette, a photograph of yours truly performing some of the impairment tests. I was able to demonstrate to the satisfaction at least of myself, the photographer and the police officer who were present that I was able to place my finger on my nose while standing on one foot without toppling over. That seemed to reassure at least some of those present that I was not, at least at that moment, impaired by the use of drugs, illegal or otherwise.
        I hope that the Minister will take away from our proceedings a strong indication that, as in the other place, there is a clear understanding in this House of the fact that drug-driving is as dangerous as drink-driving. Regrettably, it is a rapidly growing phenomenon in our society. Just as it is welcome that the incidence of drink-driving is falling, it is deeply worry that drug-driving is increasing.
        In addition to ensuring that the police are adequately trained in respect of the high-quality impairment tests that I believe have been pioneered in the United States, which no doubt could be improved in this country, I hope that the Minister will also take away from this debate the very strong wish—this is certainly the feeling on the Opposition Benches, but I am sure that it is shared much more widely—that the Government should, as a matter of priority, continue to press ahead with research to see whether it is possible to produce a machine that can provide as quick and clear an indication of whether someone is under the influence of drugs as the breathalyser does in respect of alcohol. For some time, that idea has been something of a holy grail for law enforcement agencies around the world. It is extremely difficult to produce technology that can provide an absolutely clear result, even in testing for a single known drug.
        The concept of a broad-spectrum machine that can test for a variety of different substances is, for the moment, extremely difficult. Given technological advances, however, its development might not be so difficult for ever. It would be helpful if the Minister could take that message away and say whether the Government are committing research to such issues, perhaps not purely on a national basis, as there may be a case for such work to be done on a European basis or an even wider international one.
        We welcome amendment No. 4 and associated amendments. They do not go quite as far as was originally intended in the private Member's Bill introduced by Lord Dixon-Smith, but they go a great deal further than the current law. When we initially discussed the Bill in this House, the common view among all the party spokesmen was that we should not allow the fact that we were taking forward a railway safety Bill to send out a signal that we were anything other than deeply concerned about road safety. In the light of that fact, we should commend the other place and congratulate it on the way in which the Bill has been improved there.
        The other place has done its traditional job of seeking to probe the Government's intentions in a number of respects. It also succeeded in clarifying exactly what the Government mean by various provisions. In that context, I very much welcome Lords amendment No. 1, which would extend to the British Transport police the provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 that enable the
        1108
        recruitment and use of community support officers and investigation, detention and escort officers. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm in writing that the amendment would make the British Transport police indistinguishable, in terms of their powers and functions, from a regular Home Office police force. One of the original purposes of the Bill was to regularise the handling of the British Transport police to ensure that they were equal to Home Office police forces in terms of status, standing, powers and resources. Will the Minister confirm that the amendment would have that effect?
        As the Minister said, the only point on which there may be a difference between us—certainly, there is a difference between what the other place has added to the Bill and the alternative wording that he is commending to the Commons—relates to his proposal to replace what could be described as new clause 108, inserted by the other place, with Government amendment (a). The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) rightly pointed out that the most significant change relates to replacing the word "shall" with the word "may". The Minister was able to give us some assurances on that. His comments were extremely welcome and were phrased with his characteristic candour and openness; they were a pleasure to hear.
        The Minister talked about the Bill's phraseology in relation to national trails and long-distance routes. I hope that he will forgive me if I press him a little further on that. There is no doubt, as he said, and as became clear in the deliberations in the other place, that the principal concern stems from those who are keen to preserve the Ridgeway, which is a very beautiful and important part of the English countryside. Many hon. Members represent, to a greater or lesser extent, beautiful parts of the English countryside. Some of those areas are already part of the national trails network. The area of the Yorkshire dales that forms part of Cumbria and is in my constituency is due to become part of the national trails network in the next couple of years. So far, that has not been proposed for the Lake District, which is also largely in my constituency.
        I hope that the Minister recognises that concern about the use of what the Lords amendment describes as
        "non-essential mechanically propelled vehicles"
        is not confined to those people who enjoy or live near to the Ridgeway, nor is it confined purely to people who use national trails or long-distance routes. I hope that the Minister will take away from our deliberations a clear message that, although the Government have made a welcome concession to those who are worried about the use of inappropriate mechanically propelled vehicles in some contexts, there would be an even wider welcome were they to indicate that that is part of a process of reviewing the entirety of the appropriateness of access of certain vehicles to certain parts of the countryside. In many parts of the countryside, routes that were designed only for pedestrians, or, at most, horses, and often involve ecologically fragile and valuable areas, are regularly churned up, not only by four-wheel-drive vehicles but by motorbikes and other inappropriate vehicles. I hope that the Government's amendment will send a signal not only to those who are worried about the Ridgeway but others that they intend to revert to the issue and perhaps devise a national

        1109
        framework for potential legislation. The matter was considered during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It was not possible to legislate on it then, but I hope that the Government will examine the matter in detail.
        Mr. McNulty: I am told that "long-distance route" is the legal definition of national trails, which clearly include the Ridgeway. As I intended to make clear, the Ridgeway is the only long-distance route with significant rights of way for motorised vehicles. The assurance that I gave earlier would therefore cover specific anxieties about the Ridgeway. However, I believe that the same law would prevail if greater rights of way and greater access by motorised vehicles impinged on any other national trail or long-distance route.
        Mr. Collins: That is an exceptionally helpful clarification, which those who study our proceedings will read with interest. However, the Minister will acknowledge that his point simply reinforces mine: national trails are enormously significant routes but they are not the only important routes in the countryside. It would be helpful if the Government undertook to consider, in the context of national parks, whether some of the restrictions that they will examine—the Minister suggested earlier that they would seriously consider restrictions for national trails—should apply elsewhere.
        There is another difference between the wording of the Lords amendment and that of the Government amendment in lieu. The original amendment refers to a permanent order, and states:
        "The Secretary of State shall within one year from the coming into force of this enactment make a permanent Traffic Regulation Order".
        However, Government amendment (a) contains no reference to permanence. It provides for what the Secretary of State might do, but does not refer to permanence. I should be grateful for an explanation of why it is not necessary to retain the word "permanent".
        Will the Minister also consider whether it is wholly appropriate for such matters to be left purely to the Secretary of State's discretion? The amendment provides that the new clause will apply when the Secretary of State thinks that members of the public cannot safely and conveniently enjoy the amenities because of use of a long-distance route by vehicular traffic. When the matter was considered in the other place, Lord McIntosh, who spoke on behalf of the Government, suggested that the wording, for which another place subsequently voted and which has effectively become new clause 108, was defective. He believed that it might fall foul of the provisions of the European convention on human rights, because the wording made no provision for a right of appeal.
        That is an interesting and possibly valid point. However, if it is valid, its logic should apply to amendment (a). If the Bill needs to refer to appeal rights to ensure that it is covered by the constraints of the European convention on human rights, it would be
        1110
        helpful if the Minister could seek some guidance and offer an explanation. Clearly, we want to ensure that the final form of the Bill fully complies with our international obligations and that parts of it will not become subject to court action.
        It was curious that a Minister in another place believed it necessary to include a specific right of appeal in the Bill, given that the principle was not applied throughout the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Perhaps the Government have revised their view, but clarification would be helpful.
        9.45 pm
        Andrew Bennett: It seems that this can be enforced by a traffic order. Is it not possible to appeal against a traffic order?
        Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman is right, but, as he will know, the original wording of the amendment—which was then new clause 108—also referred to a traffic regulation order, as defined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. My point is this: if a Minister in another place said that that was defective because it did not refer specifically to a right of appeal, how can the present wording be more satisfactory, given that it does not do so either?
        The new schedule consequent on the Government amendments includes an interesting reference, which has been mentioned to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). Incidentally, my hon. Friend apologises for not leading for the Opposition tonight, as she did with admirable aplomb in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. That is because she was attending the Yorkshire Show, which for a Member representing a rural seat in the fine county of Yorkshire was a huge priority today. She did, however, do me a great service today by pointing out that there was considerable debate in Committee about the wording imported into the Government's new schedule. New section 6 (7) says:
        "A constable may administer a preliminary test"—
        that is, a preliminary test relating to drink and drugs—
        "only if he is in uniform."
        I can see that the Minister is thinking back to happy times in Committee.
        Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman certainly missed out on the delights of the Committee's deliberations on this matter. As he was not present then, perhaps he will tell us now whether he thinks a policeman in uniform would be required to wear a helmet. I assure him that that was the subject of much debate in Committee.
        Mr. Collins: I am advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York, who had the enormous pleasure of attending every Committee sitting and hearing every speech made by the hon. Gentleman, that he was responsible for considerable debate about the presence or otherwise of a helmet. I am also advised by her not to allow myself to be—in her immortal words—"sucked into" that particular issue. I gather that it was a subject of some interest in Committee, and I look forward to rereading those sections of the debate.

        1111
        The issue in regard to the new schedule is whether the words
        "A constable may administer a preliminary test by virtue of any of subsections (2) to (4) only if he is in uniform"
        continue to make sense. We all understand that it is desirable for a police officer performing a test of this nature to be in uniform; the question is why it should be a prerequisite. Surely there may be circumstances in which it is not possible for a police officer to change out of plain clothes into a uniform, and he may not want the current physical condition of a suspect to alter during the time that it will take him to go back to the police station to change.
        Although the Minister was no more present in Committee than I was, I am sure that he has been briefed thoroughly by his officials. He will no doubt know that a number of outside organisations have expressed interest in the possibility of new tests involving mouth swabs. It might be established, through the application of various scientific techniques to samples of saliva, whether someone was over the drink or drugs limit. Perhaps, either later tonight or in correspondence, the Minister could clarify whether new section 6C in the new schedule indicates that the Government have revised the view that they expressed in Committee on the practicality and early availability of mouth swab tests on which criminal proceedings could satisfactorily rely.
        The amendments before us today are in large part the product of a Government who have for once listened. It is incumbent on Opposition Members to place on the record those unusual but none the less welcome occasions when the Government listen to representations. We should congratulate them and point out that in doing so, they have improved what was already good legislation. Although we continue to have some slight feeling that the original wording relating to national trails had much to commend it, we recognise that even on that matter, the Government have sought to address some important concerns. So I hope that before long, this Bill will become an Act—having at all stages enjoyed clear cross-party support—and that we in this House can together express the hope that those who will subsequently enforce its provisions can do so in the knowledge that they have the full support of all of the parties.
        Mr. Don Foster: I begin by congratulating the Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on his new post, and on the excellent way in which he introduced what is almost the final stage of our deliberations. I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that this is a very important Bill, the vast majority of whose measures have fortunately enjoyed cross-party support. The Minister was absolutely right to refer to the important role played by the other place, and to the productive and substantive debate that took place there. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is absolutely right to say that although the Bill was extremely good when it left this place, it has been improved even further as a result of those deliberations.
        Liberal Democrats welcome the amendments from the other place, and we are also conscious that the Bill has been improved not only by them, but by the fact that the Government have been given the opportunity to provide greater clarification of certain issues. For
        1112
        example, the whole House will welcome the fact that the debate in the other place clarified the question of the confidentiality of information given by witnesses to the rail accident investigation branch, about which there were some concerns. Great progress has been made as a result of those deliberations. Although the deliberations on the primacy of the rail accident investigation branch at the scene of an accident were not the subject of an amendment in the other place, they, too, were very helpful. However, further clarification is needed on that issue.
        I am also grateful to Baroness Scott, who introduced amendment No. 10—on national trails, or long-distance routes, as the Minister rightly describes them—in the other place. The Minister will be well aware that she enjoyed support throughout the other place for her proposal. Even though the Government will not accept her specific wording, she will be delighted to discover that the alternative amendment and the clear assurances given by the Minister tonight address the concerns that she and many others in the other place raised.
        Because I have not personally experienced walking the Ridgeway, I took the trouble to look it up on a website. It is quite interesting. It is Britain's oldest road, 137 km or 85 miles long,
        "much of it following the ancient chalk ridge route used by prehistoric man".
        The website also says:
        "The Ridgeway offers the chance to get away from the bustle of life in this busy part of England."
        The reality, however, emerged from the contribution to the Lords debate of Viscount Astor, a frequent walker of the Ridgeway, who said:
        "I declare an interest as I have done previously. I walk the Ridgeway most weekends. There is a voluntary code on the Ridgeway that bans cars and motorbikes at weekends. On Sunday morning, however, I was passed by 43 motorbikes all in a row."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 2003; Vol. 650, c. 1034.]
        That is hardly an example of getting away from the bustle of life as he had hoped.
        I am delighted that the Minister made it clear that the Countryside Agency is to be given a 12-month period to establish whether it can sort the matter out. In the event that it cannot—I am sure the whole House hopes that it can—it is clear, subject to the obvious caveats, that the Government intend to take action.
        Mr. Collins: Since the hon. Gentleman refers to the speech of my noble Friend Viscount Astor, I also invite him to comment on the fact that not one of the riders of the 43 motor bikes had a proper licence. Does that not suggest that there is further reason for the Government to act to restrict those who, sadly, seem determined to act irresponsibly in a beautiful part of our countryside?
        Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If he has studied the Lords debate as assiduously as I have, he will know that the non-licensing of those vehicles was a matter of great concern, not least in respect of how they managed to get there in the first place. At some stage they would have had to travel on roads for which carrying a licence is an absolute requirement. Even if legislation is passed, we hope that, either through the Countryside Agency or in subsequent provisions, enforcement will be tackled as well.

        1113
        Several other amendments tabled in another place and accepted by the Government today—some were actually introduced by them—are welcome in bringing greater clarification to the Bill. However, when the Minister delivers his winding-up speech, will he explain more fully the purpose behind proposed new section 6B, on preliminary impairment tests? There has been some speculation in the media that it will tie in not only with drugs and alcohol testing but with the Government's new thinking on the requirements for older people who want to continue to drive motor vehicles. I hope that the Minister will briefly comment on that particular point.
        The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to the holy grail—a test for drugs abuse equivalent to the breathalyser for alcohol abuse in driving vehicles. I draw his attention—and, more particularly, the Minister's—to the successful use in Sweden and America of the pupilometer, which might well prove to be, if not the holy grail itself, a useful precursor of a better system in due course. Have the Government given much thought to using that device?
        Several of the amendments before us are about road safety issues. The whole House will be aware that many anxieties were expressed during the passage of the Bill that it was unduly concerned with the issue of safety on modes of transport other than the road. I am sure that many people are delighted that, as a result of amendments here and in the other place, the issue of road safety began to come to the fore. Some of us were disappointed that the Government were not willing to live up to the commitment that they made in 1996, before they came to power, to lower the drug and alcohol limits. Nevertheless, we have seen some improvements.
        Perhaps the Minister will also comment on the Government's intention to introduce a road safety Bill in the near future. Notwithstanding the primacy in the Bill of the need to make some improvements in rail safety, almost all hon. Members would agree that our railways are already very safe indeed. Although since 1997 there have been some 17,000 deaths on the road, there have been fewer than 150 deaths on our railway. It is important to remember the high level of safety that already exists on our railways.
        We have some important amendments before us. They amend an already good Bill that has cross-party support, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said. I am sure that tonight it will continue to receive that support for the additional amendments and for the assurance that we have been given on amendment No. 10 from the other place by the Minister tonight.
        10 pm
        Mr. McNulty: I welcome the tone as well as the substance of the debate. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that the Bill has had cross-party support throughout, and I hope that it will reach Royal Assent with that consensus intact. I am sorry that I missed the Committee proceedings, because they sound delightful—unlike some of the Committees that I served on at the same time.
        I am more than happy to associate myself with the remarks by the hon. Members for Bath and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) about the
        1114
        individuals who played a good game in the other place. They include our own Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Berkeley, Lord Bradshaw of the Liberal Democrats, and Lord Dixon-Smith, Baroness Scott and Viscount Astor for the Conservatives. They all had roles to play in the amendments that we have accepted fully or with modifications.
        Some issues remain outstanding, but I hope that they can be dealt with via correspondence and are not deal breakers that will hold up the Bill in the other place. As Hansard records, Lord McIntosh said in the other place that the original amendment No. 10 on national trails would fall foul of the European convention on human rights, because it would mean introducing a traffic regulation order without the right to a public inquiry and the chance to lodge objections, but not necessarily for reasons to do with the right of appeal. It is the chance to lodge objections that is missing. The Government amendment would allow the normal TRO process to be followed, so that it would comply with—I should not say "get round"—the ECHR, by allowing a public inquiry if necessary. I am assured that the Government amendment would also allow a permanent traffic regulation order, because that is contained in the body of prior legislation—whereas much of the amendment passed in the other place refers to, but does not make itself part of, previous legislation. The permanent route is something that the Secretary of State can decide.
        Tony Baldry: I do not think that a single person in Oxfordshire believes that the issue of the Ridgeway will be resolved by voluntary agreement. The real concern is that a year will pass, nothing will happen and the matter will be kicked into touch. May I urge the Minister to start thinking about drafting legislation to address the issue, because that would concentrate people's minds. People in Oxfordshire feel very strongly about the issue.
        Mr. McNulty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Spurred on by the amendment in the other place, we now have the legislative hook to ensure that if those who can do something about the issue—the Countryside Agency and the local authorities—do not do so in the next 12 months, we can and shall. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the report of the assurance that I gave earlier very carefully. Nowhere does kicking into touch figure in this process. I accept the real concerns expressed in the other place.
        I do not want to go over old ground in terms of areas that are outwith the amendments before us. I am sure that you would admonish me if I chose to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can reassure the hon. Member for Bath that section 6B is not against older people. Its purpose is to detect the more instantaneous impairment brought about by drink and drug abuse, rather than ailments brought on by disability or age.
        I am told by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) that I should not go down the swabs route, even though that subject was terribly

        1115
        interesting in Committee and is sure to run and run. Much of the technology involved, including the pupilometer that was mentioned earlier, is in its early stages and will have to be looked at in the context of making the drug impairment measures work properly.
        I have greatly appreciated the nature and tenor of the debate. This was a good Bill to begin with, and—as both the hon. Gentlemen have said—given our minor adjustments and the assurances made on amendment No. 10, it will leave here an even better Bill. I commend it to their lordships and hope that they will dispatch it on Thursday.
        Lords amendment agreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9 agreed to.
        Lords amendment No. 10 disagreed to.
        Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 10 agreed to.
        Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.

        Licensing Bill [Lords]
        Lords message considered.
        Licensing Bill [Lords]
          Schedule 1

            PROVISION OF REGULATED ENTERTAINMENT
            Lords amendment: No. 62C.
            10.7 pm
            The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
            Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 62D to 62J and Lords amendment 62L in lieu of the words left out of the Bill by amendment No. 62.
            Mr. Caborn: I know that many Opposition Members will be extremely relieved that the fat lady is here to sing to us tonight. One thing that is certain is that she does not need a licence to sing in a royal palace. Thank goodness, too, that we can put paid to some of the daft ideas that have been buzzing round. It was suggested on the Floor of the House and in Committee that we would put postmen in jail if they whistled on their morning rounds, or that revellers would be thrown into the cells for singing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant. Those are some of the daft stories that have been going round during the passage of the Bill.
            I want to take the opportunity to clear up a fundamental misunderstanding about the Bill. Indeed, far from spelling the end of live entertainment, as many have claimed during its passage, it will make it cheaper and easier to get a licence when one is needed, so it should be a great support for live music.
            The Bill will reduce six licensing regimes to one, to achieve four objectives—the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and, most importantly, the protection of children from harm. I believe that it is a sound piece of legislation, which all parts of the House have been praying for, not just because it modernises licensing but because it removes a considerable amount of red tape. The days of small venues being charged thousands of pounds in some areas for a licence to stage a performance by three Somerset folk singers will soon be over. I hope therefore that 8 July 2003 will be remembered as the day on which live music was given the shot in the arm that it badly needs.
            Turning to the amendments, we are introducing a further package of measures in addition to the concession we made in the Chamber on 24 June to lighten the load on venue operators and organisers and to provide the opportunity to open up the market to a wide range of performance. That package consists of four elements. First, some amendments provide a significant concession on unamplified music, which I will explain in more detail later. Secondly, the Government have given a firm undertaking to review the existing descriptions of entertainment in the Bill six to 12 months after the end of the transition period. If it proves that the Bill has had an unintended, disproportionate and negative effect on the provision of live music, we will use the powers already in the Bill to

            1117
            modify the position through secondary legislation. Thirdly, we have provided an exemption for morris dancing and dancing of a similar nature from the Bill's requirements on the provision of regulated entertainment.
            Mr. Malcolm Moss: Unfortunately, the Minister did not represent the Government in Committee, as he has come lately to the brief. Why, after 60 or 70 hours of debate in Committee and on Report, when we went on and on about morris dancers and the need to remove them from licensing provisions, have the Government at the eleventh hour accepted the wisdom of what we are saying?
            Andrew Bennett: The hon. Gentleman should be pleased.
            Mr. Moss: It is not a question of being pleased. I prefaced my remarks by asking why could the Government not see the logic of the argument on day one instead of at the eleventh hour.
            Mr. Caborn: That is the last time that I shall give way because, as I develop my argument, I will answer that question, and thus avoid wasting the time of the House.
            As I said, we have provided an exemption for morris dancing and dancing of a similar nature from the Bill's provisions on regulated entertainment. Furthermore, although the review that I have just mentioned will cover all types of regulated entertainment, it will place particular emphasis on other forms of traditional entertainment. If there is a case for further liberalisation, we will respond to it.
            Finally, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will convene a forum, comprising representatives of performers, venue operators, local authorities and others, who will have the task of maximising the take-up of reforms in the Bill. Before I go any further, let me mention the exemption for morris dancing and dancing of a similar nature. The Government would have preferred not to introduce such an amendment, but it was clear—[Interruption.] I am just giving the explanation that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) wanted, so I urge him to listen before intervening again.
            We believe that there would have been few circumstances in which traditional morris dancing would have been licensable under the Bill. However, traditional dancers were frightened by people who ought to know better into believing that their hobby was in jeopardy, and that fear was voiced another place. The amendment does no significant damage to the structure and scheme of the Bill, and if it offers reassurance, there is nothing wrong in that. However, we believe that there were very few occasions on which morris dancing would have required a licence.
            To return to the main legislative element of the package, there have been calls in both Houses and elsewhere for the Government to introduce a de minimis measure to protect unamplified music in small pubs. When the Bill was last before the Commons, our position was that it already provided such protection.
            1118
            Spontaneous performances would not be licensable and, of course, in response to calls in the House, we have exempted incidental live music.
            10.15 pm
            Nevertheless, today's amendments go one step further. Their effect will be to suspend conditions attached to a licence that have been imposed by a licensing authority in respect of unamplified live music in any premises with a capacity of no more than 200 where it is performed between the hours of 8 am and midnight. To protect local residents and control those few inevitably unscrupulous or irresponsible operators, the licence will remain reviewable.
            I believe that that removes all concerns that have been raised about low-level unamplified music—such as folk guitarists, for example—in small premises. This amendment is not confined to public houses and it will benefit small folk clubs and village and community halls alike.
            Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested in these welcome amendments. Will the exemption cover a traditional jazz band that is not amplified, or even an unamplified jazz big band? Will a limit be imposed?
            Mr. Caborn: If the instruments that are being played are not amplified, the answer is yes. However, if amplified music is being played on a bass guitar, for example, the answer is no: such an event would have to be licensed.
            I know that some people have raised the issue of instruments that require amplification in order to be heard—an electric bass guitar, for example, or an electric piano—and so cannot benefit from the concession. The answer that I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) is relevant to that matter.
            A number of important points need to be made. First, the Bill's baseline is that it makes it easier and cheaper to put on any kind of regulated entertainment. We have exempted incidental live music, whether amplified or not—a very powerful concession indeed. We intend to retain the concession made here on 24 June, lightening the load on amplified music in small pubs. We will also work with our partners to maximise the take-up of the reforms on offer.
            All being well, this Bill will be passed this evening. It is now down to all concerned—performers, venue operators, publicans, licensing authorities, the police, and a whole host of others, not least the Government—to go out and make it work. We are totally determined to get the most out of these fundamental liberalisations, and I commend the amendment to the House.
            Mr. Moss: In the past few minutes, we have had the revelation of all revelations, in the sense that the Minister has admitted that the Government have finally accepted that, in the context of morris dancing—which offends no one and which causes no problem or complaint—the existing regime is not broke and there is no need to fix it.
            The same applies to the two-in-a-bar rule, however. To our knowledge, no one has ever complained to the police or local authorities that that rule was causing any

            1119
            difficulty. By the same logic, why are the Government bringing in regulations and legislation to ban two people playing in a bar? Why do they want to replace the present regime with one that allows no one to play in a bar, unless a licence is obtained from the local authority?
            The Government have been dragged kicking and screaming throughout the passage of this Bill. It is a bit rich for the Minister to say, at the eleventh hour, that the Government want everyone to work together to make the legislation work. There is good will on this side of the House, but it extends only to working with proposals that are sensible and pragmatic. Why should the Opposition put our shoulders to a plough which it is obvious, from day one, will not work? The Bill is firmly opposed by thousands of people at all levels of the entertainment business.
            The question that must be asked, again and again, is: why?
            Why are we doing this? Why are the Government doing this? Why did they not listen 60 or 70 hours ago to the representations that were being made to them? [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members saying that we got there in the end. We could have saved ourselves an awful lot of work and trouble in Committee and saved ourselves an incredible number of hours of debate on the issue, yet the Government have come, at this late hour, to tell us that because the situation is causing no difficulties, they will give the concession. We knew that the situation was causing no difficulties, as did the people involved. We are perplexed in the extreme as to why the Government could not see that earlier.
            As I said, the Minister has come late to this concession. We cannot blame him for not sorting things out at an earlier stage. Indeed, perhaps we should thank him for seeing the light clearly over the past few weeks and at least doing something. We did not divide on the amendment in the other place, because we lost our own amendment. However, when one talks to people in the music and entertainment business or to people—the local authorities—who will experience the difficulty of implementing the new legislation, one finds that no one understands what is being proposed in the amendment; nor did the Minister go to great lengths to explain it this evening. To use the words of the Foreign Secretary, the amendment is complete Horlicks. It can mean whatever one cares to interpret it to mean, so when it gets to the courts it will provide the lawyers with a large amount of money and kudos. It is badly written and makes no sense to the people who will have to interpret it. It takes us no further forward, as I shall explain later.
            Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Opposition, along with musicians of all kinds, have campaigned for one thing only: fair regulation according to risk. No one disputes that live performance needs regulation. The Opposition and those involved accepted that from the start. Rightly however, they and tens of thousands of musicians and music lovers are asking why, if the Bill allows bars, or any place, to provide big-screen sport and powerful sound systems automatically at any time—
            Andrew Bennett: Not again.
            Mr. Moss: We have been over the matter for 70 hours-plus and the logic of the argument is on our side. We
            1120
            shall continue to argue the case because we know that we are right, the Minister knows that we are right and every sane person in the country knows that we are right.
            I repeat: if the Bill allows bars, or any place, automatically to provide big-screen sport and powerful sound systems at any time, why must providing even the mildest of live music be a criminal offence unless licensed? Even now, with the Bill about to become law, the Government have yet to provide a credible explanation, as I said a moment ago.
            In the last few days, the Government seem to have shifted the goal posts yet again, to justify the unjustifiable. They are making out that live music carries such a risk of crime and disorder that licensing is the only means of dealing with it. It is worth repeating that the police recommended that the Bill should cover televised sporting events shown in bars. They said that such events are
            "quite frequently a source of disorder",
            but the Government chose not to implement that recommendation.
            The Minister recently circulated a letter in response to a question posed last week by a Liberal Member. The same question had been put by me and others in Committee and on Report and related to the fact that the Minister had twice said that the police, in the form of the Association of Chief Police Officers, had not made representations to the Government on televised sport.
            Mr. Caborn: I wish to quote, for the record, what the president of ACPO said in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, because it is very important:
            "We understand the legitimate interests and concerns of the other stakeholders. However, we believe that the amendment that restricts the conditions that can be imposed on live music in premises with a capacity limit of less than 200 to 'public safety and disorder' meets the policing requirements. It would still allow us to respond to problems of crime and disorder in a community yet still allow small events and live music to prosper. Furthermore, provision of unamplified music rarely gives rise to policing concerns. To further the interests of genuinely low level activity—for example, traditional folk music—the Association could lend its support to amendments that suspend all licensing conditions on unamplified music in small pubs. This support is conditional on there being effective review procedures in place, so that the police could take action against a small proportion of venue operators who might exploit such liberalisation.
            Many other events are used to attract customers to licensed premises be they widescreen televisions, pool competitions, quiz nights or themed food evenings. Often there are various venues with similar events, thus diluting their impact, whereas live amplified music can generate a leisure magnet, even in smaller venues … Chris Fox, President".
            Mr. Moss: I suppose that the House ought to be grateful to the Minister for reading out that letter, but I was dealing with wide-screen sporting events. He went further than that and read a letter that obviously embraced other issues as well.
            In the letter to the Liberal Member that was also circulated to me, the Government are disingenuous in the sense that they admit that they made mistake in not saying that ACPO had made representations about television broadcasts. Of course the letter goes on to say—this is where the disingenuity comes in—that the

            1121
            police have not asked that television broadcasts per se should be licensed, for example, in premises where alcohol is not consumed. How many of those big-screen sporting events take place outside pubs? Most of them take place on premises that are licensed for alcohol sales, and the police still maintain to us—no doubt, they did so to the Government some six months ago—that they feel that a problem is associated with such situations.
            On Thursday 13 June last year, the Morning Advertiser—a licensed trade paper—reported on the World cup celebrations and said:
            "In the seaside town of Worthing, Sussex, police had to fire pepper spray into the faces of rowdy fans after violence erupted outside the Checkers pub when officers tried to arrest a man for a public order offence."
            Where is the evidence of such disorder arising from the two-in-a-bar rule, or at private performances where people seek to raise funds for good causes, or at private folk and jazz clubs, all of which are exempt under the current rules? The police have not provided any such evidence, nor have the Government, yet the fine mesh of the new law will ensnare them.
            Musicians are surely justified in believing that the Government are making them a scapegoat for problems that have nothing to do with live music. They are also justified in wondering how the Government believe that introducing entertainment licensing controls on live performances where none previously applied, or have not applied for a very long time, will benefit live music at the grass roots.
            Last week, in another place, Ministers quoted the same letter from Chris Fox, president of the ACPO, as the Minister has quoted from tonight. Again, the emphasis is that
            "Live music always acts as a magnet in whatever community it is being played."
            The Opposition dispute that—some live music, yes, but not all live music. Surely it is up to the Government and the police to target those situations where the problem arises, rather than introducing a catch-all, blanket law that applies to all scenarios.
            Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he welcomes, or opposes, the concessions that the Government have made?
            10.30 pm
            Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until about 11.15 pm to find that out. I hope that he enjoys the debate in the meantime.
            Of course, the morris dancing exemption is to be welcomed. It means that an event in which an unamplified pianist accompanies morris or similar dancing would be exempt. A solo performance by the same pianist without the dancers, however, would be illegal in any place if not licensed, unless it was a public place, a place of religious worship or at a garden fête, not for private gain.
            In lieu of the small events exemption, the Government have made further concessions for unamplified live music, which is the substance of the amendment that we are considering this evening. Perhaps we should be
            1122
            grateful for these crumbs from the Government's table. It is crucial to recognise, however, that this is not an exemption from licensing. The provision of both unamplified and amplified live music in venues with a permitted capacity of 200 or fewer remains illegal unless licensed. It is the potential for licence conditions that is restricted, subject to review if there are problems or complaints sufficient to trigger a review of the premises licence.
            The Government's revised amendment is, as I have said previously, rather difficult to interpret. Whichever way one looks at it, it appears both bizarre and contradictory. First, it means that performances of unamplified or amplified live music in places primarily used for the consumption of alcohol qualify for a round-the-clock exemption from noise conditions. Secondly, venues not used primarily for the sale of alcohol are subject to all conditions, including noise, between midnight and 8 am. Jukebox music is exempt due to the incidental exemption. Drinking establishments, particularly city centre bars and pubs, are the very premises already known to cause residents the most problems if they open late, which is due largely to noisy people outside the premises but also to noise breaking out from within. They, however, are to be exempt from noise conditions when live music is performed, subject to review, round the clock.
            If a small venue is not used primarily for the supply of alcohol—for example, a restaurant, a library or someone's garden—all conditions are disapplied between 8 am and midnight. That is the wording in the amendment. If it provides live unamplified or amplified music at any time after midnight up to 8 am, however, all conditions including noise would apply. That does not make any sense. Restaurants are the very places where featured live music uses low-level amplification. Such places are not associated with the antisocial behaviour that occurs in the vicinity of city-centre bars. Surely if the Government had any genuine concern for local residents' potential exposure to unwanted noise, they would impose the midnight to 8 am curfew on both amplified and unamplified live music or, better still, insist on noise conditions if either amplified or unamplified music is to be provided between midnight and 8 am.
            Dr. Rudi Vis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
            Mr. Moss: No, I must press on.
            By a strange irony, today, the Government's appeal will be heard against the European Court of Human Rights ruling that Heathrow's residents are entitled to noise protection by restriction of night flights. In this case, the European Court of Human Rights has previously upheld the residents' argument that they are entitled to that protection under article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to private and family life. The Government argue that the economic benefits of night flights outweigh the residents' rights to a quiet night's sleep. I wonder whether that position is in any way related to the issue that we are debating today.
            Dr. Vis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
            Mr. Moss: No, I must continue.

            1123
            On public safety, the Government have justified their position with claims about the inadequacy of public safety and fire safety legislation where entertainment is provided even on the smallest scale. Yet they have not produced any evidence from a qualified authority setting out how that legislation is so deficient that entertainment licensing is the only means to ensure public safety.
            By contrast, the Arts Council, with the Musicians Union, has provided at least two detailed reports by a lawyer with health and safety expertise, and a statement from a former Home Office entertainment safety expert, that suggest that existing legislation is indeed adequate to allow an exemption for small-scale performances.
            Senior officials at the local authority unit of the Health and Safety Executive confirmed only last week that risks such as those arising from trailing cables should be covered in work places irrespective of licensing. Officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which is the Department responsible for the new fire safety laws that are due to come into force next year—well within the transition period of the Bill—also said that licence conditions should not be necessary under those laws.
            The broadcast entertainment exemption is, again, highly relevant. In the same issue of the Morning Advertiser that I quoted earlier, the front page carried a report stating:
            "In Bristol last Friday during the England game, customers were evacuated from a Walkabout pub when part of the ceiling collapsed. Five people were treated for injuries caused by falling plasterwork."
            The incident was also reported in the Bristol Evening Post on Saturday 8 June 2002. Presumably, the Government took all that into account when making their pronouncements on public safety.
            We come next to noise. There is no evidence that live music causes a significant noise problem, and no noise complaint data discriminate between complaints caused by amplified and unamplified music. The Noise Abatement Society says that noisy people outside cause the overwhelming majority of noise complaints associated with pubs and clubs. Additionally, strong powers are available to local authorities and the police to deal with noise emanating from within bars and pubs, although it is probably true that there are inadequate resources with which to implement those powers.
            Throughout the debate, the Government have conspicuously avoided mentioning noise data and comment provided by the Musicians Unions, the Noise Abatement Society, the United Kingdom Noise Association, residents associations in Soho and Covent Garden and the Institute of Alcohol Studies. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has instead referred to a document by the Institute of Acoustics, although it initially did not even identify its title, to suggest that live music was top of the list of sources of complaint.
            Andrew Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When we debate Lords amendments, is there not a requirement for hon. Members to address their speeches to the amendments rather than repeating their
            1124
            Second Reading speeches for the fifth time, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) appears to be doing?
            Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I ask the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) to restrict his remarks to the amendments under discussion.
            Mr. Moss: I take your stricture seriously, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall attempt to refer to amplified and unamplified music in every other sentence of my concluding remarks. Perhaps that will keep me well in order.
            Dr. Vis: The hon. Gentleman's comments suggest that he has canvassed an audience that he thinks could go either way. Have a significant number of people come to him to oppose, or agree with, the Bill?
            Mr. Moss: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman delayed asking that question until the final throws of the dice on the Bill. I assure him that hundreds of thousands of people, especially members of the Musicians Union and those who are associated with live music, have continuously made representations, not only to Opposition parties but to the Government, to say that the two-in-a-bar rule causes no problems. However, the Bill will remove that rule and effectively replace it with a none-in-a-bar rule. Although the amendment contains a minor concession on unamplified music, if the hon. Gentleman knew anything about music in this day and age, he would know that about 90 per cent. of it requires some form of amplification. The irony of the amendment is that it would be okay for a pub to have a huge brass band, with a row of trumpets and trombones, but one guitarist plugged into a small amplifier would need a licence. Where is the logic in that?
            Mr. Caborn: There would not be a brass band in a small pub because the customers would not get in.
            Mr. Moss: It might be a big pub. [Interruption.] The Minister can interject to clarify whether the analogy is correct, but it seems that he does not want to contest it because he knows that it is true.
            Promoters who want to make a business out of live music should find the new regime simpler and cheaper. We admit that. The Musicians Union also welcomes it. However, whether live music will prosper as it should in bars, pubs and restaurants remains to be seen. Pragmatically, the industry must make the best of the new law, but that does not mean that it has to accept it without criticism. It is illogical to expect the music industry to condone laws that render unlicensed solo unamplified performances illegal while bars can pack them in with big screens and powerful sound systems. It is disproportionate by any standards.
            The Government have a duty, agreed by international treaty, to ensure that everyone can participate freely in the cultural life of the community. If they want the music industry to collaborate on implementing the new laws,

            1125
            they should do far more than simply set up a live music forum. They must produce a set of proactive proposals of their own.
            Nick Harvey: The amendments represent a small step in the right direction, and for that reason must be welcomed. The Government have made what they would like the world to view as three concessions in relation to small events exemptions. The first is that any small pub with an entertainment licence can put on music at any time permitted by that licence. Any licensing conditions that relate to noise or the protection of children will not have effect. There remain curious questions on the logic of the Government waiving two of the licensing objectives and not the other two, but at least it is progress in the right direction.
            The second concession, which is new, is that any small licensed premises, not just a pub, that puts on unamplified music will have no conditions on its licence that relate either to noise or children, or to safety or law and order, between 8 am and midnight. I do not entirely understand why the Government have chosen to distinguish for the first time between amplified and unamplified music. It is hard in principle to appreciate why unamplified music presents so much less of a problem than amplified music.
            The two conditions that are waived in one case and not in the other are safety and law and order. I do not understand why a bigger law and order issue is presented by the performance of live music depending on whether amplification is used. The only argument that I have heard on why a safety distinction can be drawn between the two is that a cable might trail from the amplification equipment. That is apparently of no concern if the performance is in a church because it is exempt, so the good Christian folk can trip on the cable and die. It is of no consequence if it is used in a school performance of something that is on the curriculum, so children can trip and die. The paramount safety issue causes a distinction to be drawn between the two conditions for performances in small premises. It is curious and illogical, but as I said at the outset, there has been a small step in the right direction, which we welcome.
            10.45 pm
            On the so-called exemption that is being offered for unamplified music, I want to probe the Minister on the relationship between the first two concessions. The small pub with a licence can put on music at any time. The unamplified music exemption for small venues operates only between 8 am and midnight. I would like the Minister to confirm that if a small pub puts on a performance of unamplified music and goes beyond midnight, although it can no longer avail itself of the second exemption, it can nevertheless avail itself of the first. I have studied the matter patiently and slowly and believe that to be the case, but I would appreciate the Minister's confirmation that that is so. The first exemption states that it applies when the second does not, so outwith the hours of 8 am and midnight, the second does not apply, and I presume, therefore, that the first can. That is important and needs nailing down.
            1126
            The only reason that I can see why there could be any difference between the two in terms of law and order or safety is that, as was said in respect of the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) about the brass band, there is essentially no such thing as unamplified music in a pub. Even under the two-in-a-bar rule, it is almost unheard of for a jazz duo not to use modest amplification. Without it, they could not make themselves heard above the general background hubbub in a pub. Even if they could be heard, it would be impossible for them to inject into their performance any sort of range. They would have to sing forte the whole time and virtually scream, getting a sore throat very quickly.
            Mr. Hopkins: Some of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making are fair and logical, but a six-piece jazz band playing unamplified in a pub, as I have done, would make a perfectly good noise and be perfectly audible, even with conversation going on at the same time. There is no problem.
            Nick Harvey: I have no doubt that the noise would be good, particularly if the hon. Gentleman was performing, but the advice that I have received from acoustic experts is that to make themselves heard over the general hubbub in a pub, performers would have to sing forte the whole time and would make themselves hoarse pretty quickly. In practice, that occurs infrequently, which may be the reason why there is a difference in implications for law and order and for safety. The second case simply does not happen.
            I shall deal now with the small venue that is not a pub, whose primary purpose is not the sale of alcohol. Perhaps we are talking about a restaurant, an art gallery, a stately home, a country house, a library or someone's garden. Such premises can avail themselves of the exemption for unamplified music between 8 am and midnight, but if for any reason they want to go on beyond midnight with the performance, they are suddenly subject to the full weight of the licensing measures. Despite the fact that those concern licensed premises, it all comes down on their head. Right next door, a pub can have an amplified band performing and carry on into the wee small hours. I readily acknowledge that this is a small point, but there is a curious logical loophole, and I do not understand how the Government begin to justify it.
            The third exemption that has been granted relates to morris dancing. It is welcome but has come, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, very late in the day. It refers not just to morris dancing, but to dancing "of a similar nature". Lawyers will have endless fun discussing what that might mean.
            Mr. Adrian Sanders rose—
            Nick Harvey: I give way to my hon. Friend, as he might like to give us a foretaste of some of the cases that might arise.
            Mr. Sanders: I am the first to admit to being somewhat confused about the definition. What activity is similar to morris dancing? Could it be exotic dancing? If so, does that not contradict the whole point of the Bill? Or is the distinguishing factor a requirement that

            1127
            dancers should have beards? In that case, most exotic dancers would not be covered by the Bill. I would like some clarification.
            Nick Harvey: I am sure that exotic dancers will be fine if they have some bells on their legs. The Government may have decided deliberately to leave the provision ambiguous in the hope that it is never tested too far in court.
            The very modest concessions that have been made, such as they are, are welcome. They are riddled with logical inconsistencies that it is probably better for us simply to gloss over. Some of them might come back to haunt the Government, but they are making very modest progress in the right direction, so they should be supported.
            Mr. Bob Blizzard: I spoke on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report about the matter that we are considering. I did not speak on the first occasion when Lords amendments came back to this House, as I was not in the country at the time.
            I wish to make two preliminary observations. First, I think that the Musicians Union, whose basic case I have supported, has over-egged that case and has not been particularly well advised in presenting it to the Government. Secondly, I spoke this evening with a Conservative member of a Conservative-controlled council who is alarmed about the idea of a small premises exemption being set at the limit of 200 people. That council could not support that figure, as it would let almost everything that goes on in a pub or anywhere other than a big venue in its authority area take place unlicensed, so we must be very careful about the amendment.
            I welcome the further concessions that my right hon. Friend the Minister has announced. It is important to distinguish between unamplified and amplified music, because of the basic fact that amplified music can be turned up as loud as the knob on the amplifier permits, so there could be problems for residents. I think that midnight is a reasonable limit. If we are licensing entertainment beyond midnight, it is reasonable to curtail that entertainment and the volume of the noise.
            I take issue with the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) about jazz. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) that a jazz band can make itself heard in most circumstances without amplification in the sort of premises that we are talking about.
            None the less, I think that it is important to return to the essential point—how we deal with events that were previously allowed under the two-in-a-bar rule. The important point was that, under that rule, there was a certain exemption. Small events could proceed without being caught in the net of local authority licensing. It is that net that the musicians and others who support them are concerned about, especially where there has been no history of complaints about such events.
            I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, in working up in conjunction with right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the guidance that will be given to local authorities, to pay very careful attention to these issues. I fear that some
            1128
            local authorities, once they are given this responsibility, will react disproportionately to objections to applications, even though there may be no history of complaints. That is particularly relevant in rural areas, where there are not many centres of entertainment, and where a small number of objectors can assume great proportional significance to an elected member representing that area—a councillor, perhaps—who is energised by 30 complaints because he needs only 300,000 votes to get elected. In an urban area, 30 complaints may be viewed proportionately.
            I ask my right hon. Friend to exercise particular vigilance and care in devising the guidance that goes out to local authorities. The provisions of the Bill in its final stages are broadly right, but we need to ensure that local authorities do not act disproportionately and do not make a meal of giving a licence to an entertainment that frankly does not cause a problem. If we can do that, we will have a good licensing regime that strikes the right balance between allowing the kind of entertainment that we would wish to allow without complaint and protecting residents. I urge my right hon. Friend to take that route.
            Tony Baldry: I shall be extremely brief in order to give the Minister an opportunity to respond. I have to say, however, that it is pretty limited to have only an hour to debate Lords amendments, which means in effect that only one Back Bencher from each side of the House is able to speak.
            I welcome the Minister's concession on morris dancing. We should welcome it when Ministers make concessions—otherwise, where is the incentive or encouragement for them to do so? Although late in the day, his concession is very welcome.
            Last Sunday was town mayor Sunday in Banbury, and we had a cock-horse festival with morris dancers from all over the country, including Yorkshire, Cornwall, Oxfordshire and Derbyshire. The Minister presented the Bill as a liberalisation, but he must understand that many people see it as a restriction. I am fortunate, because as a barrister I can construe its complicated provisions, but huge numbers of people—including morris dancers, people who run village halls and people who run parish councils—are worried about its impact. It is beholden on the Government to work out how they promulgate it fairly and straightforwardly so that people are not alarmed and understand how it will affect them.
            As an average Back-Bench Member of Parliament with 50 parishes, a huge number of village halls, large numbers of churches and a significant number of morris dancers in his constituency, I ask the Minister—[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members think that it is a matter for amusement—it may be the lateness of the hour—but their constituents will want to understand how the Bill will affect them. The Government are introducing a complicated piece of legislation: we have heard this evening about the wide variety of exemptions and qualifications. I shall be delighted if it provides lots of work for lawyers, but I do not see why it should be a cause for mirth among Labour Members. I am simply suggesting that it would be extremely helpful for all such groups—whether they be morris dancers, traditional dancers or parish councils—

            1129
            if the Government could think seriously about how they promulgate the legislation to ensure that people can easily understand it.
            11 pm
            Mr. Caborn: Let me begin by answering the case of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). As he knows, I did not take the Bill through Committee, thank goodness! Nevertheless, some of the outlandish claims, such as the possible imprisonment of people who sing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant, or the necessity of licensing a postman who whistles on his round, will cause concern. I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must be clear about the guidance that we give and translate the Bill into guidance that is not only read and understood but accepted by the British public. When the measure becomes operational, I hope that considerable liberalisation will take place.
            Let me make a serious point to Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). In my first contribution to proceedings on the Bill, I said that we were worried about public safety and crime and disorder. That is central to the measure and we are not prepared to take chances with public safety. We have consulted the police. People may or may not agree with them, but we have taken the advice of not only the police but others in authority. We cannot underestimate public safety and crime and disorder. I know that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire disagrees with some of what the police have said, but we take the clear view that we shall legislate with their advice in mind.
            My comments also apply to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). We have singled out public safety and crime and disorder to ensure that accidents will not happen because the measure has been weak on those matters. I hope that there is some consensus about that.
            Let me deal with the two-in-a-bar argument from the Musicians Union. Before we published the White Paper, the union told us that it needed a level playing field for live music, with permission to hold music events that involved any number in pubs and restaurants at low cost. We have delivered what the Musicians Union requested.
            I want the hon. Member for North Devon to listen carefully because I am going to try to explain the matter in words that eminent civil servants have given me. As hon. Members will acknowledge, the concession for unamplified music is much broader than that for amplified music. The time limit is a control that is in the interests of local residents and communities. It will help minimise any public nuisance that might arise through a much broader concession. After all, if people want unamplified music to go on later, it can do so if the relevant premises licence authorises that.
            Conditions that relate to public nuisance will be in place from midnight onwards. Hon. Members should bear it in mind that unamplified concessions apply to any premises that are licensed for music. That means any place, including an open space. A time limit is simply sensible. The amplification concession relates essentially to pubs and the nuisance implications are
            1130
            reduced. However, there is potential for closure by the police and the possibility of a review. Unamplified music does not pose the same threat of nuisance to the surrounding area as amplified music. We believe that we have accepted a sensible amendment.
            The comments of the hon. Member for North Devon about the possibility of unamplified brass band music epitomises to some extent the stupidity that has been deployed in arguments on the Bill. Anybody who sat in a small pub with a large brass band playing would probably have a case for claiming for industrial deafness.
            I take on board the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made. We want to ensure that the measure is proportionate. Our advice to local authorities and other licensing authorities is to act proportionately. I hope that I can thus allay any fears about a local authority acting in a disproportionate manner.
            I believe that we have brought some sense to the words "dancing of a similar nature". It was the colleagues of the hon. Member for North Devon in another place who asked us to word the amendment in this way. I do not know whether they have belly dancers or exotic dancers in Torquay, but that is what the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the House of Lords said. [Interruption.] We do not capitulate; we listen to people. We engaged in a sensible debate and negotiation, we reflected, and we brought back some very sensible amendments.
            Andrew Bennett: The concession on morris dancing and traditional dance is very worthwhile, but may I press my right hon. Friend to consider extending the interpretation of traditional dance to cover traditional performance? Pace-eggers, soulers and similar groups go around pubs. What they do can hardly be called a dance, but it is a performance that ought to be covered by this concession.
            Mr. Caborn: As I said earlier, we have conceded that. We believe that many such activities do not need to be licensed in any case. That was the position that we took, but we were asked to reflect on it and we have done so. We have brought back sensible amendments: some may not be necessary, but if they reassure Members of both Houses and the general public they will have served a useful purpose.
            Lords amendment agreed to.
            Lords amendments Nos. 62D to 62J to Commons Amendment No. 62B agreed to.
            It being more than one hour after the commencement of proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [24 June].
            Lords amendment No. 62L in lieu of words left out of the Bill by Commons amendment No. 62 agreed to.

        DELEGATED LEGISLATION
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

        INCOME TAX
        That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) Order 2003 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th June.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
        Question agreed to.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
        That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mauritius) Order 2003 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th June.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
        Question agreed to.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

        LONDON GOVERNMENT
        That the draft Greater London Authority Elections (Election Addresses) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approveds—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
        Question agreed to.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

        NORTHERN IRELAND
        That the draft Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
        Question agreed to.

        ANIMALS
        Ordered,
        That the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1482), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

        SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
        Motion made,
        That—
        (1) at the sittings on Monday 14th, Tuesday 15th, Wednesday 16th and Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported; and
        (2) at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
        Hon. Members: Object.

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
        Motion made,
        That at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
        Hon. Members: Object.

        PETITION

          Social Care Funding
          11.8 pm
          Dr. Evan Harris: I want to present a petition calling for an end to cuts in social services provision that have been forced on Oxfordshire county council by the underfunding of successive Governments. It is from Mr. Kevin Preen, a man with learning disabilities, and his organisation My Life, My Choice, a local self-advocacy organisation run by and for people with learning disabilities in Oxfordshire; from Mrs. Wendy Preece, the parent of a child with complex disabilities; and from members of the organisation Force, a group of local parents, carers and supporters who have been campaigning actively to preserve and develop services for disabled children and their families in Oxfordshire, along with other campaigners in Oxfordshire.
          Those service users, carers and campaigners have collected over 20,000 names. This is one of the largest ever petitions from a single county.
          The petition states:
          Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Honourable House of Commons will ask Her Gracious Majesty's Government to respond to our grave concerns by setting up a review of social care funding to make social care a higher priority; to ensure that adequate respite care is available by right for those who need it; and to guarantee a minimum level of provision so as to promote more widely and inclusively the health and well-being of service users and carers within their local communities.
          And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
          To lie upon the Table.

        Motability
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
        11.10 pm
        Ian Stewart: I shall begin by declaring a deep and personal interest in the subject that I intend to raise this evening—a point to which I shall return if time permits.
        I am pleased to have secured this debate, in this the European year of disabled people, to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the introduction of the Motability scheme in 1978. It allows me to pay tribute to the work of one of my illustrious predecessors as MP for Eccles, Lewis Carter-Jones, who championed disability issues and helped to craft legislation that would provide a wide range of services for disabled people. The Minister will be relieved to learn that I am not raising a complex constituency case. I can honestly say that, in my six years in Parliament, I have had only a couple of complaints about the Motability scheme, and those have been resolved.
        No doubt there are measures that could be undertaken to improve the Motability scheme, but tonight I want to applaud the work of those involved in its establishment. I hope that as policy makers, we will draw some general lessons from the bold steps that our predecessors took at a time when the economic climate was exceptionally tough; after all, the UK was then enduring the strictures of the International Monetary Fund's squeeze on spending. However, to set the introduction of Motability in context, we should go back to the introduction of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970—a Back-Bench measure that was piloted through the House of Commons by a man who would become the world's first Minister for the disabled in 1974: Alf Morris, now Lord Morris of Manchester. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) joins me in paying tribute to his constituency predecessor, who is renowned nationally and internationally for the work that he has done for people with disabilities.
        Lord Morris has demonstrated total dedication and the vital skill of balancing a commitment to principle with the ability to negotiate, encouraging and cajoling in equal measure to deliver real benefits for disabled people. The 1970 Act introduced a range of measures covering identification, information, social services, housing, education, access to the built environment and parking concessions. As the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation pointed out in its 25th anniversary review of the Act, it helped to create a demand for those things that the Act itself did not provide:
        "self determination, choice, full civil rights and the money to exercise those rights."
        So when Harold Wilson returned to power in 1974, he created the new post of Minister for the disabled, and between 1974 and 1979 four new benefits for the disabled were introduced, including the motability allowance, which is now part of the disability living allowance.
        Lord Morris recalled that a lady caller to Greater Manchester Radio's Alan Beswick show thanked him for giving her the "infidelity allowance". Leaving aside
        1134
        just how much that one may cost any Government, the lady was grateful for the additional money that any form of invalidity allowance would give her, and she also had the freedom to spend it as she chose.
        Before 1976, help with mobility was given only to people who could drive, so if someone was too disabled or too young to drive, no special assistance was provided. Social inclusion was a distant dream then. The motability allowance was introduced in 1976 and its value was doubled within a year. People in receipt of motability allowance were also exempt from vehicle excise duty. Those combined measures offered disabled people a real choice about how to meet their mobility needs, but it soon became clear that disabled people without other resources would not be able to purchase a car.
        The search was on for a new way to help disabled people get on the road. I stress that Motability would not have got off the ground without the finance provided by the motability allowance. That was the powerhouse for the new scheme. We then saw the development of a genuine "social partnership"—with the Government, the voluntary sector, banks and businesses coming together to establish Motability and its finance arm, Motability Finance Ltd. The whole House, including the then shadow Secretary of State, Patrick Jenkin, welcomed the initiative in a truly non-partisan way.
        I should like to pay tribute to the political input of Labour Ministers of the time: Jim Callaghan, the Prime Minister; David Ennals; Alf Morris; and, of course, Denis Healey. With other Ministers—a Cabinet Committee for the disabled was established—they set the conditions for the birth of this important service. Sir Peter Large made an important contribution from the voluntary sector. Civil servants and others were seconded to establish the service, and the Chancellor Denis Healey bravely relaxed the corset on the banks' permitted credit limit by £100 million. That was crucial to providing the necessary finance. I also want to pay tribute to the late Lord Goodman, Lord Sterling, the current Motability chair, and Sir John Quinton for their role in getting the money delivered.
        Evidence of the success of the scheme is highlighted by the following statistics. In 1976–77, help under the private car allowance cost about £2 million, or £25 million at today's prices. Our Labour Government now spend £3.9 billion on motability allowance alone with, I believe, about 2 million recipients. More than 1.5 million cars were provided in Motability's first 25 years. Disabled people can now, like the rest of us, use their cars to shop, visit family and friends and go to work—the ordinary things in life.
        Since 1997, the Government have introduced a number of measures, about which the Minister may say more, to help disabled people. Labour has established the Disability Rights Commission, extended coverage of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and introduced the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. Again in passing, I would like to commend the work of Springwood, a very special school in my constituency, whose official opening I was pleased to attend last month. The Government have also improved benefit provision for the disabled, including an extension of motability payments to children aged three and four.

        1135
        Against that background, I was astonished to learn that no other country in the world has followed our lead on motability allowance and Motability. I believe there are 37 million disabled people in the EU and 600 million worldwide. Surely there must be greater scope for us to promote our success abroad and offer our expertise to other countries. Motability makes the best use of money available because it is a bulk purchaser, and Motability cars form the biggest second-hand market in the UK. I know that the economic circumstances in Europe and elsewhere may not appear to be at their most favourable but, as I pointed out earlier, motability allowance and Motability were introduced in the UK at a time of severe economic stringency. However, the political will existed to tackle intractable problems and change social priorities. Political will is, as ever, the key to achievement.
        I wish Motability continued success in meeting the motoring needs of disabled people. I have already paid tribute to its chair of governors, Lord Sterling, and wish also to commend its director, Noel Muddiman, and its entire staff. I hope that in the next 25 years we will see the rolling out of finance for Motability and similar organisations set up in many other countries.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) wishes to make a contribution based on her personal experience, but disability does not affect only disabled people. It touches almost every person in the country, because we all have friends and family who have disabilities. I wish to mention two important women in my life in that regard. One was my mother, Helen Stewart, who having had five heart attacks over 30 or so years, started to show signs of the onset of Alzheimer's. The pressure of caring for my mother fell on my younger sister, Margaret, and it was a great relief when, with the help of Motability, a car was bought that allowed my mother some quality of life in her remaining years. For that, I am grateful to Motability.
        The second important woman is my mother-in-law, Joyce Holding, who is seriously ill, but who is challenging the world and living life to the full as best she can. Joyce Holding is proud of this Government and the local social services in Salford, our city, because in her time of need, they have delivered the services that she desperately needs and that, to be frank, we as a family need on her behalf. Within a matter of days, Joyce received the appropriate benefits to which she is entitled, and she received her blue badge, which allows the family to take her wherever she wishes to go, when she feels able. Without being over-emotional, I repeat that disability is an issue that affects our whole society—each and every one of us.
        I wish Motability a happy 25th birthday and I hope that it goes from strength to strength.
        11.24 pm
        Miss Anne Begg: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) for allowing me to contribute to his Adjournment debate. I applied for a similar Adjournment debate, but he got in first and was lucky enough to secure this debate tonight. I also wish to thank Mr. Speaker, who kindly hosted a reception to celebrate the 25 years of Motability in his chambers two weeks ago. It was a nice gesture that was much appreciated by the people involved.
        1136
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles has said, I have to declare an interest. It does not appear in the Register of Members' Interests; it is a very personal one. I got my first Motability car in 1978 or 1979. It does not take a great arithmetical genius to realise that I must have had one of the first such cars. It was a 950cc Ford Fiesta, which in those days people could get for nothing on a three-year leaseback. If they wanted something slightly more souped-up, they had to pay a small deposit.
        I think that there were only three manufacturers involved in Motability in the early days. Ford was certainly one, and I think that Rover was another. I cannot remember the third. Choice was very limited, but the important thing was that these were real cars. For a disabled person to have access to a real car was quite revolutionary. Before that, the only vehicles that disabled people had access to were the infamous trikes, the light blue three-wheeled cars which were, in fact, positively dangerous. They were death traps. They chuntered along at a very low speed and were really quite embarrassing to be seen in—luckily, I did not have one. They stigmatised disabled people because they made them stand out.
        I was a young teacher when I got my first Motability car, and I was soon to live 16 miles away from my place of work. I can only imagine how difficult that would have been if I had only had access to a trike. In all, I had three cars under the Motability scheme through the leaseback system, whereby the mobility allowance was surrendered and I got the car and all its maintenance thrown in. I also had two cars under the hire purchase scheme: it was important for me to be able to keep my cars longer as I became more disabled, because I had to spend more money on adapting them more elaborately.
        The Motability scheme has evolved over the years. It is now possible to get second-hand cars and powered wheelchairs through the scheme. But the key, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said, was the mobility allowance, which came in in 1976, round about the same time as I qualified for it. I was perhaps one of the babies of the mobility allowance generation. The greatest tribute that I have to pay is to the great visionary Alf Morris. It was his vision, determination and tenacity in persuading people that this was the way forward that achieved something quite revolutionary. If my hon. Friend the Minister can achieve even part of that in his time at the Department for Work and Pensions, he will have achieved a great deal. I cannot emphasise too strongly how much admiration I have for Alf Morris, and for the work that he did. He changed my life, and the lives of millions of others. We owe him a great debt, and I am delighted to have been able to repay that debt by being able to say this tonight.
        11.28 pm
        The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on securing this important and timely debate. He has an enviable reputation as a champion of disabled people, and it is fitting that he should have secured this opportunity for the House to mark the 25th anniversary of Motability. It is also fitting that the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) should have been heard today. If ever there was an embodiment of the celebration of capability, she is it.

        1137
        I understand that yesterday the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) apologised for the fact that he was not the Foreign Secretary. Today it is my turn; I apologise for the fact that I am not the Minister with responsibility for disabled people. That distinction belongs to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). She is devastated that she cannot be here this evening but, unfortunately, she is unwell. My hon. Friends will know that she battled on against the symptoms of flu all evening in the hope that she could respond to this debate, but she succumbed at about 10 pm, when wisdom overcame her ambition to be here. If my hon. Friends recognise some of her passion and knowledge in the words of my speech, they will understand why.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles has reminded the House, Motability has its origins in the radical changes in mobility provision for disabled people that took place in the 1970s. Its formation was due to the determination of the late Lord David Ennals, and of Lord Morris of Manchester, who was then Minister with responsibility for disabled people. Indeed, as we have been reminded, he was the first such Minister. The then Prime Minister and Chancellor, Lord Callaghan and Lord Healey, must also get an honourable mention—the former for his staunch political support, the latter for relaxing what was described as "the corset", which limited liquidity in the banking system for lending. With the input of many others, too numerous to mention, they showed that a determination to improve opportunities for mobility for disabled people can be translated into effective action.
        As we have been reminded, in January 1976, the Government introduced the mobility allowance that provided cash help with mobility at the rate of £4 a week for all those between five and pensionable age who had a disability severely affecting mobility, whether or not they were able to drive a car. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South could tell us just us how much could be done with £4 a week at that time. It was, however, clear from the outset that the mobility allowance alone would not be sufficient to enable disabled people without any other resources to obtain a car. The solution was found in the form of a leasing scheme on preferential terms that would bring the acquisition of a car within the reach of most people receiving the allowance, but would also be backed up by charitable help for those for whom the allowance and their own resources still left a suitable car out of reach.
        Given that brief, the late Lord Goodman and Mr. Jeffrey, now Lord, Sterling combined their considerable business expertise to devise the charity now known as Motability, and a leasing scheme to be operated by Motability Finance Ltd., a special company working exclusively for Motability and formed by a consortium of the major clearing banks. The formation of Motability was announced in Parliament on 6 December 1977 by the late Lord Ennals and was welcomed by Mr. Patrick, now Lord, Jenkin on behalf
        1138
        of the Opposition. The all-party support expressed at the outset has remained fundamental to Motability ever since.
        The late Lord Goodman, founder of Motability, described the scheme as
        "a splendid example of a mixed economy".
        It has also been said that that Motability could be considered as an early example of public-private partnership. Whatever description we choose, it is important to realise that once a need became apparent and the right people came together, there was a determination to meet that need and offer disabled people the same choice of freedom and independence in personal mobility that other people took for granted. That is to be applauded and is an example to us all of what can be achieved if there is a will.
        Motability was indeed born out of a spirit of partnership and co-operation between public, private and voluntary sectors, and it is a partnership that has survived the test of time. That was very much in evidence only two weeks ago, when parliamentarians joined patrons, governors, members of Motability and representatives of disability organisations at a reception kindly hosted by Mr. Speaker in celebration of Motability's 25th anniversary year. Together, those groups have worked tirelessly to make Motability the success it undoubtedly is. On that occasion, I recollect, Lord Morris was keen to identify those who have made Motability possible and whose commitment and enthusiasm has continued over the years. However, I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing my deep personal gratitude and admiration for all that Lord Morris achieved. It was his initiative as Minister for disabled people that led to the creation of Motability. I know and, indeed, heard on that night, that he has remained passionate in his support for the work that Motability has undertaken ever since.
        The first Motability car was supplied in 1978—I have no idea whether it was the one driven by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, but she must certainly have received one of the first. Since then, the scheme has gone from strength to strength. During the past 25 years, over 1.5 million cars have been provided to disabled people and their families. Motability now has four different schemes to help disabled people obtain a car using either contract hire or hire purchase agreements. There is also a scheme for the purchase of powered wheelchairs and pavement scooters. Currently, almost 400,000 people and their families benefit from the scheme that allows them to transfer all or part of their higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance or war pensioners' mobility supplement to Motability.
        In honour of Motability's 25th anniversary, Her Majesty the Queen, as chief patron of the charity, presented the keys to six new vehicles to Motability customers at the royal mews on 25 June 2003. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was there, and she was especially impressed by a lively little girl called Gemma. My hon. Friend told all of us in the Department that she had greatly enjoyed talking to Gemma.

        1139
        I am told that the vehicles on show were also interesting. They included a highly adapted van that will allow its owner to drive directly from a wheelchair, while ensuring that he remains fully independent and able to enjoy the freedom and mobility that other young people of his age take for granted. There was also a new wheelchair-accessible vehicle that will enable Gemma to travel comfortably with her family while remaining seated in her wheelchair. Provision of both those vehicles was made possible by the Government's specialised vehicles fund, to which I will refer later.
        The keys presented on that very special day will enable families to enjoy days out together and allow individuals to access work and pursue their leisure interests. They will be used by their owners to undertake voluntary work in the community. They are keys to inclusion, and they illustrate that this scheme is making a very real difference to the lives of many disabled people and their families.
        Of course, no scheme is without its critics, and Motability has not been complacent in addressing the concerns raised by its customers. This year, there has been a major restructuring of the scheme, aimed at improving customer service and providing greater flexibility in terms of lease agreements and mileage allowances.
        Nor can Motability remain immune from the effects of market forces that operate within the business world. Over the past few years, Motability has had to face the dual challenge of the weakness of the used-car market and the uncertainties and rising prices of the insurance market. In this climate, the charity has worked hard to continue to provide a choice of vehicles for its customers, while striving to keep costs down wherever possible.
        Motability is keen to remain in the forefront of advances in technology. At Wrightington mobility centre, Motability has contributed to the design and development of a static assessment rig. The work has also been funded by the Motability tenth anniversary trust. As well as at Wrightington, these rigs have also been supplied to all the other members of the forum of mobility centres.
        The rigs use world-leading technology to allow driving assessments to be carried out. This type of assessment can help restore the confidence to drive of those faced with disability later in life as the result of illness or accident. It allows their capabilities to be established, rather than highlighting what they cannot do. It helps to identify what adaptations would help them to drive, and it can be instrumental in restoring the driving licence to those who, perhaps after a stroke, have had to relinquish it.
        1140
        This year, the Government will be contributing more than £7 million towards the specialised vehicles funds that I mentioned earlier, to assist severely disabled people who need something more than a standard production vehicle to maintain their mobility. These funds are administered by Motability on behalf of the Government, and are complementary to the Motability scheme.
        Last year, Motability was able to help more than 800 people in this way, with highly specialised adaptations. I know, from my experience of talking to those who have received grants towards adapted vehicles, how highly they value the technical expertise and professionalism shown by the staff of Motability in assessing their needs and in tailoring the vehicles to their requirements. Some of the adaptations made to allow people to drive from their wheelchairs are at the cutting edge of technology, and open up the possibility of driving to people who, in years past, could not hope to aspire to that.
        Motability prides itself on keeping up to date with the considerable technological advances in the field of motor manufacturing and it strives hard to promote the needs of disabled drivers and passengers in this forum. It works with car manufactures to make them more aware of disabled people's needs, and encourages them to reflect those needs in new designs. It has already achieved some successes in that area, and I expect that more will be done as new generations of vehicles come on stream.
        Motability is itself an independent charity and works hard to secure support and funding to help applicants who need financial support towards advance payments on vehicles, driving lessons or specialist adaptations. I know that that work is supported by motor manufacturers and many other groups, which work tirelessly to support Motability.
        In conclusion, I should like to take this opportunity to thank Lord Sterling, the chairman of Motability, and all the other governors of Motability, for all that they do. I express my gratitude to Noel Muddiman, the director of Motability, and the staff of Motability and Motability Operations without whose behind-the-scenes contributions the work of Motability could not be undertaken.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles has already told the House, there is no parallel to this unique scheme in any other country of the world—
        The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
        Adjourned at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Manufacturing Industry (North Wales)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
9.30 am
Ian Lucas: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for what I hope will be an interesting and informative debate on this important subject.
North Wales, particularly north-east Wales, is a manufacturing area. In my constituency, 28 per cent. of the work force is employed in manufacturing industry, around twice the national average. That has been so for many years, but conceals the enormous change that has taken place in manufacturing industry in Wrexham during that period. The traditional coal and steel industries have been replaced by a different sort of industry, based less on the exploitation of existing resources and more on the development of skills serving consumer markets in the United Kingdom and beyond. We are entering a period of huge change in manufacturing, one that is different in kind but similar in scale to that in the 1980s and, to a lesser extent, the 1990s. It is very important that we prepare ourselves for that challenge now.
One of Wrexham's premier companies in the past 20 years has been Hoya (Lens) UK Ltd. Its story of inward investment from Japan and servicing of UK and European markets is typical of the recovery of manufacturing in Wrexham in the past 20 years. However, last week, despite recording a profit of £1.75 million in the past year, it announced the closure of one of its two Wrexham factories and the loss of 240 jobs. It is instructive to look at that example and to learn for the future of manufacturing in Wales.
Hoya, which I have visited on many occasions, supplies spectacle lenses to opticians in the UK and Europe. It does so in small, individual packs specific to particular customers. It is a source of astonishment to me that the company judges that such a job can be done more economically in Thailand than in Wrexham, but I must accept that that is so. Having visited the company, I am well aware of the high level of investment, the high-tech equipment and the excellent staff relations that have existed in the company for many years. There is nothing more that the Wrexham work force could have done to make the company more efficient and competitive.
That is an example of the globalised economy at its most ruthless. Competitiveness is all and low labour costs, often aided by poorer working conditions abroad, pose great threats. What can we as politicians do about that? When Wrexham's traditional industries shut down in the past, both Labour and Conservative Governments have intervened. I recall a discussion with a former managing director of Hoya who praised the work of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks
180WH
(Mr. Hague) who, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, did a great deal to bring a second factory to Wrexham for the Hoya company.
At that time, Wrexham benefited from assisted area status and grant aid helped in bringing those businesses to Wrexham. From 1983 to today, unemployment has fallen from 20 per cent. to less than 3 per cent. Industry has also benefited from the stable macro-economic framework in Britain since 1997; one of low interest rates and low inflation. The effect of those things is often underestimated by business and taken far too much for granted.
Following a very early start to what will be a packed morning, I have just attended the all-party group on small business at which Mr. Dennis Turner, the chief economist of HSBC, gave an entertaining and informative discussion about the macro-economic situation. He greatly praised the Chancellor, and his predecessor, for setting the boundaries for that stable economic framework.
Wrexham is a victim of its own success. It no longer has assisted area status because of the strides it has taken to reduce unemployment and its success in bringing companies to the town. It pains me to say this, but a certain complacency has entered Government thinking on manufacturing. The positives, which I fully accept are in place, are not enough. We must do more.
In Wrexham, the plain fact of the matter is that multinational companies are leaving. In the past six months, Owens Corning, a US company, left to go to central Europe, resulting in the loss of 230 jobs. There have been job losses at the multinational companies of Tetrapak and Intellicoat. Now, Hoya has closed part of its operation. Manufacturing industry is choosing to go elsewhere.
Lembit Öpik: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Is he aware that there is a similar problem in Montgomeryshire? In Llanidloes, KTH, which was a successful die-cast manufacturer, has been forced to close on account of the problems of its parent company, which is also choosing to relocate to other parts of central Europe. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that infrastructure development can help, but that it must have the support of Government?
Ian Lucas: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I intend to discuss infrastructure development.
What do we need to do to support manufacturing industry in north Wales and ensure that the present difficulties are overcome? The short answer is that the Government must do everything they can. First, we must maintain the stable economy that we have today. Low interest rates, low inflation and, above all, stability are the key things. We must not take them for granted. No business can plan for the future unless that stability, which is so hard-won, is maintained.
Secondly, we must encourage investment to increase competitiveness. As someone who ran his own small business, I remember that investing was the most difficult decision to make. The easiest cut to make is in investment, because machines do not talk back; it is much easier to get rid of a machine than to dismiss an employee, but it is a temptation that must be resisted.

181WH
The best way for any company to compete in today's economy is to invest in plant and machinery and in the work force. The Government should be extremely active in offering financial incentives to invest, particularly in research and development.
Thirdly, we must make our region one that has such a high level of knowledge and skills that it would make no sense for multinational companies to forgo access to that skills base in favour of a low-tech alternative. There are examples in the area of such good practice. The optics model at St. Asaph and Bangor university shows us the way forward and we must build on it.
Fourthly, we must build a first-class infrastructure, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said. In the past year, the Welsh Assembly Government have built half a transport link to the Wrexham industrial estate, which is, I think, the biggest industrial estate in north-east Wales and where Hoya and Owens Corning are located. However, the Welsh Assembly Government have set back completion of the project for a further five years. What kind of message does that send out to multinational companies in an intensely competitive world? The answer is that they feel that they would get better support elsewhere.
I also appeal to the Welsh Assembly Government to change their attitude to the A5-A483 road development, which is due in England but not in Wales. That crucial link to the midlands and south Wales must be improved for the benefit of the north Wales economy. The failure on the roads has been exacerbated by the UK Government's failure to establish decent rail links to Wrexham and north-east Wales. Our area is currently in desperate need of a transport policy.
We still await broadband links for smaller businesses on the Wrexham industrial estate That fundamental defect must be sorted out between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Assembly Government as a matter of urgency. Again, other areas both within the UK and beyond are competing with us and taking jobs away because we cannot offer a vital business service in the modern world.
Finally, I shall come out—if that is the right phrase—on the climate change levy. Having visited companies throughout my two years in Parliament, I know that the climate change levy is having a substantial effect on the competitiveness of UK manufacturing. I speak as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee and I hope that my environmental credentials are strong. I am in favour of an environmental tax to reduce harmful carbon emissions, but it makes no sense to limit such a tax to the United Kingdom. The upshot is that certain companies—there is one in my constituency—are considering crossing the channel, where they will not have to pay a tax and can pollute our world and our country.
Virtually every manufacturing company that I visit in Wrexham has raised the issue. They are not old-fashioned, dark satanic mills-type companies; they are highly competitive, modern, high-tech companies that consider that they have done all they can to reduce their energy bills. The current structure of the tax is not conducive to their business because it makes them less competitive. The levy has been in place for more than
182WH
two years, and I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to discuss with the Treasury the institution of an immediate review of its effects. The exemption system currently operates by exempting the most polluting industries from the tax. Smaller businesses, which in the past did not take the steps that they should have done to secure exemptions, are subject to prejudice. The matter is urgent and must be examined immediately.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that companies that invest heavily in machinery and plant are actually adversely affected by the climate change levy because they cannot turn it into a fiscally neutral tax? Other companies that perhaps employ more people and have invested less can get the money back on national insurance.
Ian Lucas: One of the unintended consequences of the operation of the levy is that it benefits service industries over and above manufacturing industries. That is one of the least satisfactory aspects of the tax, particularly when one takes into account the difficulties that manufacturing industry has had over the past few years.
Last week's Hoya decision was completely unsatisfactory. The work force, which was extremely loyal, was badly treated by the company. There was no consultation before the announcement that the jobs would go. The jobs are highly skilled and are filled by people who have worked for the same company for many years. I spoke to a constituent last Friday who had worked for the company for 10 years and had no idea whatsoever that there was any prospect of her job going.
Within the past year, the company has received the Queen's award for export—I was pleased to attend the ceremony six months ago—and the work force is deeply disappointed by the steps that the company has taken. It is about time that companies voluntarily informed their work forces of such situations and consulted properly before taking such decisions. Companies should also have the courtesy to discuss matters with agencies such as the Welsh Development Agency, which has been so supportive of them for many years through finance and advice. They need to give us the opportunity to deal with the difficulties that they may have.
If that opportunity is presented to us at the appropriate time, it is possible that things may need to be done. If we are presented with a fait accompli, nothing can be done to assist those companies. If employers will not consult voluntarily, we must impose obligations upon them to treat their work force with respect.
Will my hon. Friend also consider the terms under which grants are made to companies investing in the UK? I understand that equipment paid for by grants from the WDA is now winging its way to Thailand for Hoya to use in competition with British industry. That is an absolute disgrace, and cannot be right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I also think—this will be less agreeable to Opposition Members—that we need to revisit our attitude to Europe and the euro. The lack of clarity on the euro issue over recent months, and perhaps years, has not helped industry locally. It is ironic that one of the most successful manufacturing projects in Wales, and probably the UK, is one where we have worked most closely with our European partners.

183WH
In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), Airbus employs about 400 workers, and is a hugely successful commercial venture, based on the closest co-operation between Government and an industry in the UK, and with other European Governments and businesses. As a result, we are wiping the floor with our competitors. We must tell our constituents that Europe can be a hugely successful project. It is not a matter of bent or straight bananas; it is about jobs. Whether people and their families have a decent standard of living depends on industries being able to compete. We exist in a world of intense competition. The ability to compete depends on the Government having a clear sense of direction so that industries know where they stand and can make firm, long-term investment decisions.
We must ask ourselves whether those industries want Britain to be at the heart of Europe or on the outside. We all know the honest answer to that question. I hope that, now, there will be a clearer commitment to using closer European economic links as a bulwark against the destructive forces of globalisation.
Wrexham suffered a huge setback during the past 10 days with the announcement of the Hoya job losses, but it has in the past shown great resilience and an ability to recover. It did so when its coal industry and steel industry closed down in the 1980s. At that time, it was difficult to see that the way forward was an era of inward investment and assembly jobs imported from abroad. That policy was successfully followed for several years, but the era of inward investment, particularly in a world where the economy is not strong, is coming to a close.
In north Wales, we need to begin to build, on the Airbus model, a modern, high-tech, visionary economy for manufacturing, which builds its own research base, develops skills locally and makes north Wales a place with which no other part of the world can compete. That is the only way in which north Wales will have a long-term future in manufacturing in a globalised economy. It is a huge challenge for the area, analogous to the one faced in the 1980s. I have confidence that local industry, working more closely with universities, colleges and the resilient work force in the area, can develop the type of economy and industry that will lead to north Wales becoming again the manufacturing powerhouse that it has been in different eras in the past.
9.49 am
Hywel Williams: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing this highly significant debate. As we know, manufacturing in Wales is extremely important in comparison with manufacturing in the UK in general and the south-east of England in particular. Manufacturing provides 30 per cent. of the gross domestic product in Wales, and has a fundamental role as a generator in the Welsh economy.
I do not say this in a partisan way, but I am rather disappointed that so few representatives of the north Wales group of Labour MPs are here. That is unfortunate. Members on both sides will recognise and welcome the recent fall in unemployment, and I give credit for that where it is due. In my constituency and neighbouring ones—such as Conwy and Ynys Môn–there is a stubborn rump of long-term unemployment, but there has been a welcome fall, to which I shall refer later.
184WH
We appear to have a tale of two manufacturing economies in north Wales. Manufacturing in the east is doing rather well; on the whole, I accept the points that the hon. Member for Wrexham made about Hoya. The A380 super jumbo jet has had its wings built in the constituency of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), at the biggest manufacturing facility to open in Britain during the past 10 years. That will bring 1,700 new jobs, 1,200 of them at Broughton where a £350 million plant is being opened. That is all well and good, and I welcome it tremendously. However, I am less happy that there is so little trickle-down to my constituency in north-west Wales. People travel the length of north Wales to take up jobs in facilities such as Broughton, but the trickle-down is generally fairly small.
Historically, north-west Wales has done less well than the north-east, and the reasons are well known; the historical reliance on primary extraction, the decline in the slate industry, the high levels of service industry employment and the high levels of economic inactivity, especially among older workers. Hon. Members who attended the recent Welsh Grand Committee were dismayed at the figures revealed there, which showed that the lowering of economic inactivity in the areas outside objective 1 areas is four times higher than inside objective 1. Clearly, objective 1 is not working in that regard.
In the north-west, we have higher levels of self-employment and a very fragile local economy, with low availability of venture capital. Reports in the past year have shown that 2 per cent. of new venture capital is invested in Wales. I have no idea how much of that makes its way to my constituency, but I think that it is probably a very small amount.
I referred earlier to the fall in unemployment, but is that figure masked by out-migration? We know that out-migration, a natural process, happens. People from my constituency move, perhaps to Cardiff, London and other metropolitan centres. My gut feeling is that out-migration from my area is greater than that from other areas. Is that taken into account when measuring unemployment, and in economic planning?
Before I go further, I shall refer to objective 1 plans and the current wisdom, which says that, at the accession of the new states to the European Union, there will be a lowering of the average gross domestic product. That will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Wales to qualify for objective 1 in the next round. My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) has informed me that—on current forecasts of GDP in the Wales objective 1 area— when the new accession countries come in, our level will be only 78 per cent. of the European average. Despite all the investment and efforts that have been made, we will only be marginally above the level at which we would qualify for objective 1, even with all the supposedly poorer countries coming into the European Union. There are probably areas in the accession states that are much better off than north-west Wales and, perhaps, north Wales as a whole. They are certainly much more prosperous than the objective 1 area in Wales.
In limited terms, objective 1 has been a success. For example, Gwynedd county council's scheme to encourage employment in small businesses has been a runaway success and is oversubscribed many times. It is

185WH
important that we understand why that scheme has been a success. The crucial factors are a minimum of red tape—there is a very simple one-page application form—a minimum of fuss, quick decisions and a maximum fit to the needs of the local economy, which has a high level of self-employment. Clearly, the scheme fits with the requirements of businesses.
On Friday, I met Professor Jones-Evans at the University of Wales in Bangor. He told me about the new £10 million business education centre, which is targeted specifically at the needs of developing local business capacity and working with the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education in Wrexham. I hope that there will be greater co-operation between those two institutions in the future, perhaps in establishing a north Wales university.
The crucial point about the business centre is that it targets its education services at the local business community and sells those services to students from abroad in a very innovative way. It reminds me to some extent of the situation in Galway in the west of Ireland, which also supposedly has a marginal economy and where another main language is spoken. Galway is doing rather well. I understand that the reason it is doing rather well is that there has been a great deal of investment in road, rail and air links. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Albert Owen) is not here, because I am sure that he would have intervened on me and pointed out the real need for an air link for north-west Wales, possibly from Valley. Of course, we have an airport in Caernarfon that is modest in size, but road, rail and air links are important, as they have been in Galway.
Investment in the higher education sector has also been very important to Galway. It has a very good university and a large media sector. The circumstances in the Caernarfon and Bangor area are similar.Galway also relies on endogenous growth, to use the Chancellor's favourite term, whic is growth from the inside. People from outside have invested, but the reliance on endogenous growth has been a key factor. We heard from the hon. Member for Wrexham the sad tale of Hoya's investment.
I shall now concentrate on manufacturing and ask the Minister to elaborate on some of the issues arising from a reply of the Secretary of State for Wales on 1 May. If the Minister finds it difficult to reply this morning, I should be grateful for a written response. I wish to ask first about research and development tax credits, which are a central plank of the Government's policy. How many manufacturing firms in north Wales are taking advantage of those tax credits? If the figures are not clear at present, will she say how many firms are expected to take advantage of the research and development tax credits and what the Government are doing to minimise the red tape associated with them?
Last night, we had a very lively debate on the working families tax credit. Unfortunately, the prospects for that tax credit are rather similar to those for the research and development tax credit. There is certainly great potential benefit, but the tax credit is complicated. It is unclear how to apply for it and who should apply, and
186WH
there is a great deal of red tape. There are, in effect, disincentives. I hope that the Minister will refer to the tax credits in her reply.
I should also like to ask the Minister about regional centres for manufacturing excellence, which also form a central plank of the Government's policy. I understand that, so far, they have been located in the south-east, the east midlands, the south-west, the north-east, the west midlands, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside; at least, that is the list that I have been given. I should be grateful if the Minister said whether any regional centres for manufacturing excellence are to be established in Wales, particularly in north and north-west Wales.
Furthermore, the Department of Trade and Industry reports that the Government's response to the review under Sir Gareth Roberts, which is aimed at ensuring a strong supply of skilled scientists and engineers, is to say that the minimum PhD stipend needs to be increased to £12,000 in 2005 and £13,000 in 2006. There will be an additional investment of £100 million by 2005–06 under that strategy, and the Government will also invest in research careers by increasing funds for PhD training, career development of post-doc researchers and, over a five-year period, establishing 1,000 new academic fellowships. Those will be crucial to the development of manufacturing industry. Again, I do not know whether the Minister has any figures for Wales, but I should be interested to know how many of those post-does are to go to Wales and how much of that money is being invested there.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware of the current practice in Ireland? In Ireland, lists are prepared of PhD students who qualify from Irish universities and where they reside worldwide. Large manufacturing and high-tech concerns are then approached, and asked, "Look, we have a number of PhDs available, so come and set up shop in Ireland." That has been successful. Does my hon. Friend think that we could emulate it in Wales?
Hywel Williams: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have as many resources spread across the world as any country of our size; in fact, being a Welsh nationalist, I would contend that we perhaps have rather more. We have the people, but we need the networks, the ability and the will to make use of those networks.
In a reply, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that:
"The role of the Minister of State for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions has been strengthened—effectively creating a Minister with responsibility for manufacturing."—[Official Report, 23 July 2003; Vol. 389, c. 948W.]
Perhaps the Minister could say what meetings and relations that Minister has with the Wales Office, and what is to be produced. How does the Minister see that developing?
To focus on a less happy development in north Wales, and north-west Wales in particular, the hon. Member for Wrexham referred to the difficulties at Hoya. Such difficulties have to some extent been replicated in the disputes at Friction Dynamex in my constituency, which is not a high-tech company; in some ways it is associated with the metal-bashing industries of the 1960s and the motor industry. To quote the recent reply from the Secretary of State for Wales:

187WH
"While some traditional manufacturers are moving to Asia and the Far East, many new jobs are being created in Wales in hi-tech sectors."—[Official Report, 1 May 2003; Vol. 404. c. 478W.]
Although the hon. Member for Wrexham referred to high-tech jobs, there is, in addition, a great danger in Friction Dynamex that some of the more traditional jobs will disappear.
I shall end with the story of the strike and lockout at Friction Dynamex, the most significant events to take place in manufacturing in my constituency for many years. I do not need to go into the history of the strike, save to say that it arose because an outside investor, using a good measure of state aid, bought a plant that was in difficulty. He then sought to squeeze what value he could out of both the physical and the human capital in a classic asset-stripping operation. He eventually provoked a strike over the terms and conditions that he imposed—longer hours, lower wages and so on—and, after eight weeks, he locked the workers out. They have now been out for two and a half years.
People who pass on the road between Caernarfon and Bangor will see them picketing, 24 hours a day, six days a week; thankfully, they rest on a Sunday. They have won their case in the industrial tribunal and have received great sympathy and much material help, not only from their local community but from others in Wales, elsewhere in the UK and throughout the world. They have done all that they can to settle the dispute. However, they are still out and there is no prospect of a settlement until November at least when the employers' appeal against the tribunal decision is heard. By then, it will be two and a half years after they were locked out after a strike that was provoked by what can only be described as a very bad employer.
I was on the Committee that considered the Employment Act 2002. I listened day after day to Ministers talking about the quick, informal settlement of disputes without recourse to tribunals or to the courts; that was the Government saying that they did not want to go down the formal route. The Friction Dynamex dispute has shown that quick settlement is a rather pious hope. It has demonstrated the calibre of the workers that Mr. Smith tried to sack—people of principle, dignity and determination—and the fact that the Government's talk of quick settlements is unrealistic. That is crucial to manufacturing industry in general, to manufacturing industry in North Wales and to the strikers at Friction Dynamex.
The hopes are pious because of the fundamentally skewed situation in industrial relations, caused by the eight-week rule, which is as significant as the Taff Vale decision many years ago. The terms of discussion between workers and employers have been skewed and workers have been very much weakened. I am not optimistic about the reply, but may I ask the Minister what plans the Government have to change the eight-week rule to ensure that the Friction Dynamex situation never happens again and that a relationship of respect and of equal power, status and worth is established between workers and employers? Lastly, I commend my early day motion 1506 to that effect to all hon. Members.
10.8 am
Mark Tami: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for securing the debate. As a number of colleagues have
188WH
mentioned, last Friday the Prime Minister opened the new Airbus facility in Broughton, where the wings for the new A380 will be built. It will be the world's largest airliner and is receiving a large number of orders. It will certainly not be a jumbo jet, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) has said; that is a Boeing aircraft. The design of the 747 is over 30 years old, whereas Airbus is producing the aircraft that the world's airlines want today.
The facility that the Prime Minister opened received over £1 million a day of investment at the height of its construction. It currently employs just over 5,000 people, and another 1,200 are being recruited. Another important point is that there will be 274 apprentices on site, with a further 80 starting in September. When Broughton gears up to reflect those numbers, it will be the largest manufacturing plant in Britain. Airbus is a world leader in wing technology, and we can be very proud of such a great success story. It is an example of value-added manufacturing, but the key point is that we have the intellectual property that made it all possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham talked about jobs being exported, and there is always a danger that companies will up sticks and move the work or, in some cases, the plant if one does not have the necessary intellectual property.
There is also the Filton site in Bristol. Indeed, more than 84,000 jobs in this country are directly and indirectly reliant on Airbus. In the main, they are skilled, well-paid jobs; the sort of jobs that we all want to come to Wales and the rest of Britain. However, I do not want people to think that Flintshire is just about Airbus, because we have several other important manufacturers. Corus still employs more than 500 people at Shotton, although that is obviously down from a high of almost 14,000. We also lost jobs with the end of the ZT line.
Equally, however, there was some good news at Shotton, which is rare in today's steel industry. A new company called Building Solutions has been set up to manufacture purpose-built, lower-cost housing that can be quickly put up. It is also looking to secure orders for service personnel quarters, where there are opportunities because the state of such quarters is extremely poor. There is also a need, particularly in some inner cities, for social housing that can be built quickly to house public sector workers and the nurses whom the Government are clearly recruiting. Obviously, there was not the same need under the previous Government, who did not recruit such numbers.
There are other large manufacturers beside Corus, although people may not have heard of them. There is ConvaTec, which manufactures medical products and employs more than 800 people in Flintshire. There are many others, including the Toyota engine plant, Shotton Paper, Raytheon and Faurecia, which makes products for the car industry such as seats and bumpers. In fact, there are more than 100 manufacturers at the Deeside industrial park, and, together, they employ more people than Airbus. That is a key point, because it is important that all our eggs are not in one basket. That was perhaps a problem in the past.
As a whole, Flintshire accounts for 25 per cent. of north Wales GDP. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said that 28 per cent. of people in Wrexham

189WH
relied on manufacturing for their employment, but the figure in Flintshire is 43 per cent. Indeed, 20,500—or more than 10 per cent.—of the 200,000 people employed in manufacturing in Wales live in Flintshire. The challenge is to keep those jobs and to build on our success, and we must learn the lessons of the past.
I mentioned the Corus plant, which still holds the record for the highest number of job losses on a single day at a single plant. In some ways, I do not want to lose that record, because I do not want anyone else to suffer such terrible losses. Unemployment was forced up to 27 per cent; one can still see the effects now, even though unemployment is at a low level thanks to the Government's policies, which are very welcome. The high street in Shotton, for example, is still suffering from what happened in the early 1980s. The area was also very dependent on the textiles industry, but that has gone altogether.
Also, in manufacturing, job losses or plant closures may happen that one cannot see coming. Corning was a classic example of that; 600 good-quality jobs were lost in the optical fibre industry. The plant was investing and gearing up, and doing all the right things, but world demand for optical fibres virtually collapsed overnight. Because of the drop in demand, there was enough optical fibre on the shelves to meet world needs for the next six years. It was unforeseen, but 600 jobs were lost. We must always be aware of the possibility, which is why it is so important to renew and build on areas where we can hope to grow.
Another danger is caused by the failure to innovate and to look to the future. Many manufacturers that are doing quite well will just carry on doing well, but the danger is always that unless they invest for the future a time will come when they will be outstripped by their competitors or find that their products are no longer required.
We need to invest in industry, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said, we need also to invest in people. In that respect, we—Britain as a whole, but especially Wales—always let ourselves down. Airbus has 274 apprentices at the moment, with another 80 coming on stream. The company can be proud of the fact that it recognises the importance of training. It costs between£25,000 and £37,000 each to train the apprentices, and the company retains more than 90 per cent. of them. The company recognises that it is investing in its apprentices, and it has to guarantee them a job so that they stay with the company.
The problem is that that commitment is not being repeated in other industries. I think that Airbus is the largest employer of apprentices in Britain; it certainly has more apprentices than the rest of Wales put together. That probably says more about the rest of Wales than it does about Airbus, because companies and employers would rather poach staff than go train their own workers. In my old life, when I worked for a trade union, people would say to me, "Why should we train staff when others are doing it? We need pay them only slightly more and we will get those workers." If
190WH
everyone did that, we would have a major problem; when we see big growth in the economy or in a manufacturing sector, that is what happens.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman has hit on an important issue. Should not the Government actively intervene to create real, modern and proper apprenticeships? The hon. Gentleman is right about poaching. Economics being what it is, companies prefer to take on qualified people rather than train new staff. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is now time to intervene forcefully in that area?
Mark Tami: Yes, I do. Indeed, I would support a training levy. That may have gone out of fashion, but I have become convinced over the years that employers who stay out of training are being unfair to those who do train. Those who train put a lot of work and money into it, while others just sit by. I believe that employers of a certain size should he obliged to train a number of people. We would then have a level playing field; it would be the same for everyone.
At the moment, many employers save themselves large sums of money by not training people. That is a dreadful message, because if no one trains, the time will come when we do not have enough trained employees. As the economy grows, the demand for trained people will grow, but if we do not train it will leave us with a gaping problem.
There will always be a churn effect—I do not like that phrase—in manufacturing. Clearly, if one is being churned, it is not much fun. We have to accept that factories will close for one reason or another. They may have failed to meet the new challenges, or technology may have moved on.
Chris Ruane: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate—[Interruption.] I congratulate my other hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Wrexham, on securing the debate. I apologise for being late; I was at a Wales Office ministerial team meeting. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just a question of training, but of transport? When training 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, one must take into account the fact that they cannot drive. We need to look at train, bus and coach transportation, and shared car journeys, to the big factories such as Airbus in north Wales.
Mark Tami: Yes, I agree. That is an extremely important point. I welcome the improvements that have been made to the A55, and it is a matter of working in partnership with the local authorities and the WDA to put a package together. We are fortunate in north-east Wales because of our transport links. Certain industries will always be attracted there.
Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that public transport links in Flintshire are substantially better than those in Wrexham? That may account for the discrepancy between the figures of 43 per cent. and 28 per cent. of the work force employed in manufacturing, a discrepancy that I hope to overtake in due course.
Mark Tami: I thought that my hon. Friend would make that point; perhaps I should not have strayed into

191WH
that area. He makes a fair point. Geography has been kind to my constituency, but we have to build on that. People who work at Airbus live as far away as Anglesey, and England as well, although not as many of those who work at Airbus come from England as some hon. Members often claim. Even so, many people in Alyn and Deeside work at Ellesmere Port for Vauxhall, and in the Chester business park. That is a fact of life; there is not a wall between Wales and the north-west. If there were, we would be the loser. We rely on the north-west, and the north-west relies on us. It is an important relationship upon which we need to build.
Equally, where we have successes such as Airbus, we have to attract supplier companies around it. That makes sense for Airbus and those supplier companies. The WDA and Flintshire county council are trying to encourage people to do that, and it makes good business sense to do so.
We are well positioned in north Wales to retain and grow our manufacturing base, but we have to look to the next generation. Even at Airbus—where we can say that there should be work for 20 or 30 years, which we cannot say of many manufactures—we have to look to the next generation of wings, which will be carbon-based. We can be sure that the Germans and others will be looking for that work. We have to look to the future to ensure that we keep our lead, and the work stays with us. It is key that we work in partnership with the Government and the Assembly to secure that, so that we can ensure a bright future for manufacturing in north-east Wales.
10.24 am
Mr. Roger Williams: May I correctly identify the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) as the hon. Member who obtained the debate, and congratulate him on introducing it? I understand the problems that he is facing in his constituency with Hoya and its decision to pull out and relocate its activity to Thailand.
All hon. Members, in some way or another, will have experienced redundancies caused by important employers in their constituency. Our sympathy goes out to those people who have lost jobs and invested much of their lives in obtaining skills to work in the industry concerned. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham is doing as much as he can with the available agencies to ensure that those people have job opportunities, and perhaps the opportunity to retrain for other jobs in the area.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned the churn in manufacturing industry. I believe, as does he, that that is an unfortunate metaphor, but everyone is conscious that some industries develop, evolve and become more successful, while others, because the product on which they are based is not in demand in the economy, find themselves on a downward, rather than an upward, track.
The real concern is that manufacturing in the whole UK is on a downward, not an upward, track. Jobs have been lost in manufacturing over the years, and that seems to be continuing at the moment. Before the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) gets too excited and says that I am stealing his lines, I lay the blame for some of that on the events of the 1980s, when a Conservative Administration gave the impression that
192WH
Britain could exist without a manufacturing industry; they suggested that service industries were the future for Britain, while the dirty type of industry based on manufacturing was not a key to our future success.
Hywel Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the statement made by Lord Healey at that time. He said that from listening to the Conservative Government, one might think that we could all get by by selling hamburgers to each other.
Mr. Roger Williams: I was not aware of that particular quotation. One actually has to manufacture hamburgers, although I am not sure that that is a key issue. I am certainly aware of the strange concept then that everyone could make a living by repairing each other's cars.
Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman made a point about dirty manufacturing, which is still an issue today, especially for younger people. They have an image that, in manufacturing, there is smoke everywhere and oil all over the place. In fact, the vast majority of manufacturing, especially high-tech manufacturing, takes place in a clean working environment. Manufacturing has an image problem, particularly when it comes to attracting younger people to work in the industry.
Mr. Roger Williams: I was coming to that point; when a generation of young people was put off, there was no future in manufacturing. It was not a job that the more capable and active people would aspire to enter. It has been very difficult to turn that round in a generation. People who wanted to be involved in the workplace and on the factory floor were one thing; almost more important were those who might become leaders in industry. The fact that they were given the impression that manufacturing would not be a key economic driver in this country led many people with skills and energy to enter industries other than manufacturing. I may return to that point later.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, it seemed that foreign investors had more confidence in the manufacturing capability of this country than indigenous business leaders had. That led to considerable foreign investment. Although we welcomed that at the time, in retrospect we might look back and see that many of the activities introduced were based on assembling products rather than designing and carrying out the research that is so necessary to remain at the forefront of a competitive economy. I guess that those investors decided to come to this country because it was a base in the European Union that had low labour unit rates, so they could manufacture more competitively in this country than elsewhere in the EU. However, as the EU expands and globalisation takes over, those people are seeing opportunities to bear down on their costs again. The experiences of the hon. Member for Wrexham over the past couple of months bear that out.
The need for research and development is all the more keen when we remember that a third of all the products on shop shelves at the moment will be replaced in three years' time. Consumer fashion is a fast-moving animal and new products must be designed to respond to

193WH
consumer choices. If manufacturing units have not got the necessary research and development capabilities, such things are often lost to this country.
Whether there is an economic environment conducive to manufacturing depends on the Westminster Government, and on the Assembly. If we are to have a welcoming attitude to manufacturing in Wales, it is essential that Westminster and the Assembly work well together. We have gone through a time of Government reorganisation, but I ask the Minister to ensure that she and her Department maintain a close connection with the Wales Office. Only when connections are working well will Wales, and particularly north Wales, succeed in manufacturing.
The CBI consulted its members on how politicians were regarded by industry; I am afraid that we did not come out of that very well. Leaders in industry think that politicians do not understand how commerce and competition work. The CBI suggested a number of ways in which to improve relationships with the National Assembly, including political parties signing up to a minimum of six structured visits to businesses a year by each of their Assembly Members. I am sure that that would not be a bad idea for Members of Parliament as well, particularly for those who have not been involved in industry and commerce. The CBI goes on to say that Assembly Ministers should re-introduce twice-yearly meetings between the main business organisations and the Assembly Cabinet.
Businesses find the continual consultation, as part of the political process, difficult. Not only have they got to spend a considerable amount of their resources acting as unpaid tax collectors for central Government—in terms of VAT, PAYE and, for people who are self-employed and involved in small businesses, self-assessment—but they are now required to be part of the political process by taking part in consultations all the time.
A number of the academics who take an interest in such matters are concerned that the entrepreneur is being squeezed out of the process because rather than committing all his time and energy to—and being driven by—the business that he is trying to create and maintain, he is being drawn into extensive consultation that does not deliver an awful lot for his company.
Professor Dylan Jones-Evans, who is professor of entrepreneurship at the university of Wales, Bangor, stated:
"A lot of the policies in the public sector are being strangled by the fact that you have to talk to everybody under the sun to ensure you don't offend anyone. That's not the way to run an economy. There are all these consultations going on—the Assembly consults on something every week—but you have to ask, who are they consulting? Usually it's the interest groups, who are geared up to answering. Businesses don't usually have the time to respond. It's the same crew that turns up to meetings."
We must address that problem and give young people—who will create the businesses of the future—the freedom and the opportunity to work at their businesses rather than dragging them into huge consultation exercises.
The hon. Member for Wrexham mentioned the euro and the European Union. Without getting into that huge debate, a number of economic areas in Wales
194WH
would benefit greatly from a change in the exchange rate from which we have suffered for a number of years, because the rate has not reflected the relative competitiveness of a number of our industries. It is not only tourism and agriculture; manufacturing has suffered from the exchange rate.
It is key to the success of manufacturing of Wales in general and north Wales in particular that the Minister assures us that there are still strong links between central Government and the Assembly and that the Secretary of State of Wales, who is part-time, will play a key part in ensuring that that relationship continues.
10.36 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing this important debate. As he said, manufacturing is proportionally more important in north Wales than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned the importance of the north-west to north Wales and how jobs are cross-fertilised between the two areas. People are mobile and can live in England and work in north Wales, or vice versa. Today, I learned that BAE Systems is announcing 132 job losses in Samlesbury in my constituency and a further 32 job losses in Wharton. Everybody recognises that it is not only the loss of manufacturing jobs that is important, but the ripple effect on other jobs that are dependent on them. It is estimated that three jobs in the service sector and the supply chain are lost for every job lost in manufacturing. Those job losses will hit people throughout the north-west region.
The debate has been interesting. Hon. Members have discussed the need for co-operation between the Welsh Assembly Government and central Government. We all agree on the strategic importance of manufacturing. The issue is not party political and we must decide whether we want a manufacturing base in this country; I certainly do. At the end of last week's Welsh questions, I asked the part-time Secretary of State for Wales if he would set up a taskforce to examine manufacturing in Wales. We should assemble representatives from Westminster, the Welsh Assembly, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Welsh manufacturers and the WDA to sit round a table and come up with the answers to manufacturing's current problems.
Chris Ruane: Did the previous Conservative Government establish such a taskforce when there were massive job losses in north Wales in the 1980s, when there were 15,000 job losses at Shotton and 3,000 job losses in the pits?
Mr. Evans: This is not funny in a humorous way, but if we compare manufacturing's current position with its position then, many more people were employed in manufacturing in the 1980s, which is desirable. We have mentioned the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) when he was Secretary of State for Wales to obtain inward investment. We can thank Wyn Roberts for the enormous work that he put in on the dualling of the A55. We all joked at the time that it was to enable Wyn to get home to his constituency more quickly, but the work played an important role in assisting job creation around that area. We should recognise that.

195WH
Peter Walker, when he was Secretary of State for Wales, introduced a number of initiatives with local authorities. We should recognise their importance and get them to work together. Now is the time to put aside our differences and to recognise that manufacturing is important and that there are problems in manufacturing in Wales. We should have a taskforce so that we can all work together.
Hon. Members have mentioned a number of companies in their constituencies in north Wales where there have been severe job losses. Hoya is the most recent, with 200 jobs being exported from Wales. I have a list of household names in manufacturing where there have been job losses ranging from only 10 or 20 up to 480. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside mentioned several hundred jobs that were lost and referred to the churn factor; I also hate that word. Global figures show that there has been a net reduction in manufacturing jobs. There will be a churn in the service and financial sectors, as there will be always be people changing jobs. We must look at the bigger picture.
Conservative Members of Parliament do not often quote Bill Morris of the TGWU, but he said:
"Every sector is affected yet our politicians say 'crisis in manufacturing, what crisis?'"
Members of Parliament should be pressing the Department of Trade and Industry to take the state of our manufacturing industry seriously and not stand by. We must look to the DTI to come up with initiatives. An early-day motion was suggested and I have tabled such a motion, recognising the importance of manufacturing. I hope that I have phrased it in such a way that all hon. Members of all parties will feel able to support it. It states that
"this House recognises the problems faced by the manufacturing industry in Wales; and urges the Government to do more to help the manufacturing sector in Wales which has lost thousands of jobs over recent years."
I hope that all hon. Members agree with that and will feel able to sign it.
Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman seems keen to quote trade union leaders; I recall that he quoted my own union's general secretary on manufacturing at Welsh questions. Could he tell us whether he has signed up for the whole trade union agenda?
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman should not hold his breath, but it is important that trade union members recognise that there are real and severe problems. At the last general election we were told that manufacturing throughout the United Kingdom was suffering job losses. Some of us foolishly thought that when the Labour party became the Government, it would do something about that. Instead, the Government have exacerbated the problem. That is what is so staggering. In 2000, there were 205,000 manufacturing jobs in Wales. In 2001, the figure had fallen to 191,000; at the end of 2002, it was down to 179,000. The change in manufacturing output is nothing to shout about. In October 2001, there was a reduction of 3.2 per cent. from the year before. In March 2002, it was 8.3 per cent. lower than the year before and in March 2003, the figure was down 3 per cent. There is nothing to shout about there.
196WH
To quote the other side of the industrial coin, the CBI points to a number of significant problems that should be addressed. The hon. Member for Wrexham explained what we he thought we should be doing. I shall refer to Amicus again because Derek Simpson, joint general secretary of Amicus, was right when he said that if we do nothing, all manufacturing jobs in this country could be lost within five parliamentary terms. We must sit up and work out what we must do.
Mark Tami: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I have only four minutes left.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Wrexham referred to the climate change levy and I agree that we should have a review. After two years, let us see where the climate change levy is hurting. Let us see if it is resulting in job losses and whether there is something that we can do about it. Let us see what the competition is doing. It is not just Europe but the rest of the world with which we have to trade. What are other countries doing? I am not saying that we should lower our standards to those of the poorest countries, but let us at least ensure that we are not suffering from unfair competition
Ian Lucas: Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, favour a harmonised environmental tax across the European Union?
Mr. Evans: It is important that we see what impact the rest of Europe is having on us. It would be stupid if something in Britain gave an unfair advantage to the rest of Europe. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."' We have to trade with the rest of the world as well. We cannot assume that fortress Europe can survive on its own, ignoring the rest of the world. We must consider all the rules, regulations and directives that impact on Britain, and we have to get that right, too.
We know from the CBI that the amount of extra rules, directives and red tape with which businesses have to deal is absolutely enormous. Last year, 4,642 new regulations were introduced in the United Kingdom; one every 26 minutes of the working day, and an increase of 50 per cent. on 1997. The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that the cost to business of regulation has climbed by£20 billion since then. I thought that the Government believed in deregulation.
Let us be sensible and have regulations if they are necessary, but not the insanity with which businesses have to deal. There are all sorts of regulations; packaging and waste directives, the landfill tax, the national insurance contribution increases that came through in April, business rates, the climate change levy, increases in fuel taxes—from which many businesses have suffered—and the cost to firms of administering parts of the benefits system through their payroll.
Let us consider how British manufacturing is affected and what we can do strategically to support those industries. Let us not see them as an embarrassment or something that belongs to yesteryear. Let us not be keen on increasing jobs in the service sector only, but give some support to our manufacturers, which are vitally important.

197WH
Objective 1 was mentioned earlier, and the way in which that has been administered has been hugely bureaucratic as well. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) is absolutely right that we may have received our last tranche of objective 1 money because of the new entrants to the European Union. Let us at least spend it well and ensure that it supports our industries.
I am delighted with what is happening with Airbus in Broughton but, as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said, other smaller manufacturers also need support. They are vitally important.
Finally, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) said that the Conservatives at some stage had decided that they were not interested in manufacturing. We are interested in manufacturing and wish it to flourish. I would support anything that the Government did to support manufacturing industry throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, particularly in those areas that are so reliant on a strong manufacturing sector.
10.47 am
The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on securing this debate on a very serious issue. All hon. Members have highlighted the significance of manufacturing for their own constituencies. Perhaps I could begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that manufacturing is vitally important for Wales and the UK as a whole. I assure him that it is very important to this Government.
Manufacturing makes up a sixth of the economy overall. It employs more than 3.5 million people and many more in associated services; it accounts for two thirds of our exports and 80 per cent. of our research and development; it is a crucial driver of innovation and technology uptake in the wider econ omy; it is absolutely central to our future as a high-teciimology, high-value successful economy.
In the relatively limited time available, I wish to talk about what the Government are doing in partnership, if necessary, with the Assembly and with other Ministers in order to ensure that manufacturing thrives.
I am very well aware that manufacturing is going through a tough time at present. The three largest economies in the world—the United States, Japan and Germany—are suffering from recession and very slow global growth. Furthermore, competition is increasing from lower-cost producers in other countries. The reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade, with easier global transport and communications, although important, are expediting that change. They combine to bring huge pressure on our manufacturers. Increasingly, we see labour-intensive production shifting from advanced industrial economies to lower-cost economies.
Mr. Evans: I agree with what the Minister said about the importance of manufacturing. Why has the number
198WH
of people in her Department dealing with engineering and materials gone down from 25 to nine, and why only one person now deals with the trade associations?
Jacqui Smith: A very important part of the Department deals with manufacturing, not least myself. I shall now continue to pursue my ministerial responsibilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham highlighted the issue of Hoya lenses, and other hon. Members referred to particular difficulties, which I recognise. My hon. Friend spoke about the need for information and consultation. I refer him to the important announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about new plans for improved information and consultation provisions in the workplace. They are the result of considerable work and consultation between the TUC and the CBI, and they will promote the sort of high-quality sharing of information and consultation that is good for employees and for high-quality employers. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured.
We should not run away with the idea that manufacturing is collapsing as a percentage of our GDP while holding up in other countries. It is an international challenge. To put things into context, manufacturing is 18 per cent. of GDP in the UK; as we heard, it is higher in Wales. It is 14 per cent. of GDP in the USA, and 19 per cent. in France. In Germany, the figure is higher, at 23 per cent., but not much. However, we have important successes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and others rightly referred to Airbus. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Prime Minister and the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales were there last Friday. The wings produced by Airbus are transported from Wales to final assembly lines in Toulouse.
Chris Ruane: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Jacqui Smith: Preferably not, if my hon. Friend does not press me.
I was able, on my first day in this job, to attend the Paris air show, where three major new deals for the A380 programme were struck. My hon. Friend is right that Airbus is now outstripping its major competitor, Boeing, something we can all celebrate. However, we cannot hide from the realities of the pressures that manufacturers face, nor the pressures of global restructuring.
We cannot compete on the basis of low-cost, low-value added; nor should we wish to. Our response must he to have the best companies, the best products and the best workers. That is why, shortly after taking over as Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend brought the main stakeholders together for a manufacturing summit. Trade unions, trade associations, the regional development agencies and manufacturers were able to share views on the key challenges and to focus on practical steps for dealing with them.
At the summit, it became clear that there are longstanding weaknesses in UK manufacturing—in skills, investment and innovation—many of which have

199WH
been raised this morning. We must address those problems together, and there was clear agreement throughout industry on the way forward.
Our manufacturing strategy, which was published in May last year, was based on that consensus. I know that those themes are picked up in "A Winning Wales", the economic development strategy of the Welsh Assembly. Our themes were welcomed by industry and trade unions alike. Everyone agreed that the way to ensure global success was not to cut wages and compete on cost, but to invest for the future so that we could compete on quality. That is what our strategy sets out to do. However, I recognise the need to demonstrate progress and to show that we are putting those words into action.
We have made considerable progress against all seven pillars set out in the strategy, and those areas picked out in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham rightly highlighted the need for macro-economic stability. Due to the strong macro-economic policy framework that the Government have put into place, the UK has weathered the recent global economic slowdown better than many of its major competitors; with our low inflation, low interest rates, sound public finances and low unemployment, we are in a better position to gain from any global upturn.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the important issue of investment. Across the UK and in relation to Welsh-specific schemes, we support investment through regional selective assistance, the small firms loan guarantee scheme and regional venture capital funds. Through the Budget, we have introduced a range of measures to encourage investment. Corporation tax rates have been cut to their lowest ever; reforms to capital gains tax have substantially reduced the effective rate of tax, creating the right incentives for investment in business assets; and we have made permanent enhanced capital allowances for small and medium sized enterprises.
Several hon. Members rightly emphasised our need to compete on the basis of innovation and development. We are investing strongly in science because of its importance as a driver of new products and new processes in manufacturing. The UK science budget is increasing at 7 per cent. per annum in real terms arid, as a result of the 2002 spending review, it will increase at 10 per cent. per annum in real terms over the next three years.
We are undertaking a major review of business innovation. The Wales for Innovation strategy is also making clear the importance of innovation for improving business performance. Several hon. Members have mentioned the importance of research and development, and the research and development tax credit. We have further extended the tax credit to all
200WH
companies, which will overwhelmingly benefit manufacturers. As a result, the UK is among the best in the G7 in terms of tax support for research and development as a percentage of GDP.
At the time of the Budget, 58 small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales were benefiting from the 150 per cent. tax deduction for qualifying research and development expenditure. The new improvements—in particular the reduction in the minimum expenditure threshold from£25,000 to £10,000—will also increase accessibility, especially for small companies.
We are already seeing the results in terms of support for science investment, with the number of spin-off businesses from UK universities up by 22 per cent. and the number of patents filed by higher education institutions up by 26 per cent. I hope to follow up the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), but in general there is an important benefit from the investment in science and the relationship that can be built between business and those innovating in our academic institutions.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the important matter of skills. I agree that we need to invest in modern apprenticeships and, as they are doing in Wales, in a scheme covering all age groups—particularly the economically inactive—that will result in a modern skills diploma for adults, encouraging the over-25s to upskill to NVQ3 level and above. In Wales, as in the UK as a whole, competing on the basis of skills is crucial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham also mentioned infrastructure, in particular broadband. Under the heading Broadband Wales",—115 million is being spent on a broadband programme for Wales, launched by the Assembly last July and designed to improve broadband access across Wales. That is an area in which the Department of Trade and Industry plays an important role, along with the devolved Administrations. Yes, there is a regional centre for manufacturing excellence in Wales. The manufacturing advisory service—another important area of our manufacturing strategy—is also highly successful in Wales, with about 500 visits to companies made by highly qualified engineers with real experience of manufacturing.
Those are all practical steps that show the significance that the Government places on manufacturing. We have also set up a policy forum for senior policy makers, including Welsh Assembly officials, to help us to champion the needs of manufacturing with Whitehall colleagues and throughout Government. I assure hon. Members that we shall continue to take forward the work that we are doing in relation to manufacturing in partnership with colleagues in Wales, and in recognising the significance of the industry throughout the whole of the UK.

Work and Pensions (File Stores)
11 am
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I want to speak about an issue of grave concern in my constituency and others throughout the land. Next July, the Government intend to hand over to the private sector responsibility for the management and storage of millions of files held by the Department for Work and Pensions, which contain personal and confidential data on millions of citizens. At the moment those files are kept in secure locations until they need to be worked on by local offices, when they are sent away.
Some 56 file stores are dotted around the country employing about 900 staff, who mostly earn around£12,000 a year. The file stores vary in size; the largest, in Willand, Devon, employs 140 people. The sensitive records include information on attendance allowance, disability living allowance, mobility allowance and so on.
I believe that sensitive records on citizens should be held by the state. That is a very unfashionable view in some quarters, but I would prefer my files to be the responsibility of a civil servant rather than some casual worker employed on the minimum wage by a private sector company. Other things being equal, I would prefer my records to be held by a Government Department than by, say, Virgin records. However, there is to be no in-house bid, in spite of the experience of the civil servants who run the system and make it work.
The matter is of concern in Pendle, where there is a large file store in a converted mill. The Nelson file store is the main repository for attendance allowance and DLA files. There must be about 9 million files there; it is huge, and I have never seen so many files in my life. There is an astonishing number, with shelf after shelf extending as far as the eye can see. All the files are kept in a warm, air-conditioned environment. It is quiet, like a library, with the staff going about their work in a purposeful way. The file store has more than 48 miles of shelving. The main storage area covers the same area as the pitch at Wembley stadium, which gives an idea of how big the operation is.
There are 124,000 requisitions for files every month, meaning that the turnaround is nearly 6,000 files a day, and 120 staff make the process work. Like the rest of the public sector, they have to work to targets. We insist on that. Staff turn around 90 per cent. of non-priority requests within 24 hours. They turn around 100 per cent. of such requests within 48 hours. They turn round 100 per cent. of priority fax requests within one hour of receipt, since people's money depends on the file being sent to a local office.
I have a copy of a fax that went from the disability benefits centre in Surrey to the file store in Nelson. Under the heading "Great service!" it states:
"Well done file store team! You found my file in six minutes! Great service! Are you on roller skates?"
That is what they think in Surrey about the file store in my constituency.
Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) will know that there is also one
202WH
of those stores in my constituency, at Primrose mill in Clitheroe. I have visited it and seen its amazing array of boxes. I have talked to people there, and I have seen how quickly they are able to retrieve any information and their professionalism and commitment. I am at a loss to think how it can possibly be improved. With security and terrorism to the fore, is it not better to have the information dispersed rather than kept in very large, central stores, which could provide a threat of terrorism in the future?
Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) makes a good point. The file stores are in secure locations staffed by dedicated people who want to remain civil servants. They do not want to work for any old private sector company; they are proud of being civil servants.
Why is that being changed? We can all recite by heart the new Labour mantra, "We do what works", but there is a flip side to that coin: the mantra should be, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". If the structure needs to be tweaked or reconfigured, I have no problem with that. People with expertise and professionalism in the Department can handle that, but they are not going to be asked to turn their attention to the matter.
Like the chair of the Labour Party, my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, I believe that we cannot modernise Government without taking public service employees with us. I have read his speech on 8 March on Labour and the unions and the new deal. He said:
"We will modernise better, if we do it in partnership with the unions drawing upon the skills, experience and commitment of public sector workers and giving them shared responsibilities for promoting quality and innovation."
Yet there will be no shared responsibility, because the whole shooting match will be transferred lock, stock and barrel, with the staff, to the private sector.
A project group was set up last June, which met the Public and Commercial Services union, the one that organises in file stores. The union was told that the preferred option was to outsource to the private sector in 2004. The Minister told me in a letter yesterday, after I had raised the issue in business questions on Thursday, that
"consideration was given to inviting a bid from the existing in-house operation but it was decided this would not be a viable option given that the fragmentation of the current service does not provide a basis for development into the new service the Department requires."
With respect to my good Friend the Minister, I find it astonishing that it is possible to go out to tender for a private sector provider without checking that against the costs and service standards of retaining the operation in house.
We are told that the predicted financial savings of going private are considerable. Last year, the cost of running document retention and retrieval at the file stores was in the order of £30 million. I am told that savings of between £10 million and £20 million are forecast, and that one of the latest estimates—the Minister will be able to elaborate on this—of the cost of a private provider is £5 million. I am also told that the private sector bidders include Hays, Hayden and TNT.
Jim Dobbin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department for Work and

203WH
Pensions has a file store at Heywood? It takes care of working families tax credit, invalid care allowance and the majority of filing for veterans, and is also part of the departmental review. Up to now, the service has been deemed to be good value for money and of high quality, factors that privatisation experiments throughout the UK have failed to deliver.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) mentioned the private company Hays, which is based in Heywood. It currently works from lorry containers that have neither heat nor light. That raises concerns about security, the damage that could be done to the documents and the private sector's ability to reach the required high standards. I also understand that the private service is more expensive. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Department must examine retaining the service in the public sector or giving civil servants an opportunity to prepare and submit an in-house bid?
Mr. Prentice: Indeed, that is my view, as I hope I have made clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) mentioned lorry containers where files are stored without heat and light, circumstances in which paper files can decay and rot. I have heard horror stories about the operation at Heywood, with which I need not detain hon. Members. The Minister will want to give weight to my hon. Friend's informed criticism about the private sector operation run by Hays.
There will, of course, be consequences when the work transfers to the private sector. I have already mentioned that the transferred staff will no longer be civil servants. That matters in a constituency such as mine where civil service jobs are seen as being secure. The people employed in the file store take pride in their jobs and in delivering a public service. When people are transferred to the private sector, their terms and conditions will be protected under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, but what will happen further down the line? The Minister cannot possibly guarantee to safeguard terms and conditions five or 10 years from now.
In the Minister's letter, he also said that staff will be redeployed where possible within the Department
"provided we have vacancies and they can be released without affecting the future operation of services."
Redeployment may be an option in some areas but not in Nelson, where there are few civil service jobs. Ominously, he went on to say:
"It is not possible to guarantee that despite these efforts, some may not be transferred against their wishes nor that their new employer may need fewer staff to undertake the work in the future."
That is the nub of the matter. The number of jobs could reduce; indeed, the number of file stores could reduce. I have seen the minutes of a meeting held on 18 June at which it was suggested that there could conceivably—not probably, but conceivably—be as few as one file store for the country, which touches on the point raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. There could be one gigantic file store holding the records of everyone in the country. In any event, the minutes state that
"there would definitely be a greatly reduced number of sites."
The staffing cost of running the current operation is about £11 million, which covers 900 staff on an average salary of £12,000. If a private sector provider could do
204WH
the work for £5 million, which has been suggested, the job losses could be in excess of 60 per cent. of the work force, or 550 to 600 jobs. People are clearly fearful when they hear those estimates. People are also upset that the decision to go private was taken by the permanent secretary with the "agreement of Ministers" rather than by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. People are mystified that such an important decision can be taken by a senior civil servant rather than by a Minister who is accountable to the House of Commons. I do not know whether the decision to transfer the estate of the former Employment Service—for example, job centres—to Land Securities Trillium without an open competition among private sector bidders was also taken by senior civil servants on the grounds that it was merely an extension of an existing contract, given that Trillium handled the old Department of Social Security estate.
There is also concern that what is happening runs directly counter to previous ministerial assurances. I have seen another letter—I do not mean to sound like Inspector Clouseau—from the Department, which is dated 23 June. It states that the
"previous commitments provided by the Benefits Agency were given in good faith and took account of the business environment of the time".
However, sadly, the Benefits Agency
"no longer exists and new services are now being delivered by new businesses as part of a much larger Department."
Well, that is all right, then. If central Government can be reconfigured, the assurances given to employees may be set aside and will count for nothing.
I conclude with several questions that I hope the Minister will address. Why do not the Government consider an in-house bid? What guarantees are there that most of the file stores will not close? How will quality of service be maintained when the stores are transferred to the private sector? For example, it is vitally important that files can be quickly retrieved and sent to offices around the country. What will happen if the private sector contractor fails, and what remedies do the Government have? What guarantees are there that the files will be as secure and as confidential as they are now? That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton. Finally, why was this very important decision taken by a senior civil servant and not by my hon. Friend the Minister or the Secretary of State?
11.18 am
The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on securing the debate. He introduced it by saying that the issue is important—although he may have used more extravagant adjectives—and I agree with that. I am grateful for this opportunity to record the reasons for the decision to seek a private sector solution to the future file storage needs of the Department for Work and Pensions, and to provide some of the reassurance that he seeks, particularly for employees who work in the service in the Department, about their value to us and their future prospects. I recognise my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in the matter and pay tribute to the way in which he has pursued it. He asked several questions to which I shall seek to reply.

205WH
Services provided by the DWP touch the lives, from birth to death, of every citizen. That is why there are so many paper files and why the records storage need is vast. New technology gives us opportunities to hold records in much more efficient ways in future, but the Department inherited 50 million paper-based files from the organisations that came together to form it and, therefore, a need to store and, if necessary, retrieve those files as efficiently and effectively as possible.
My hon. Friend referred to correspondence about changes in the way in which we deliver our services. Such changes are important. For example, because of the creation of much more customer-focused workplace environments in Jobcentre Plus offices and pensions centres, we need increasingly to hold customer records away from our operational offices to create additional space to allow us to provide services in modern and effective ways. The services that we provide to our customer base are changing as, for example, we look for opportunities to provide all those of working age with employment options.
There are some misunderstandings—I do not suggest that my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle and for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dcbbin) and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) misunderstand—about the current file storage and retrieval services, which are provided by a mixture of in-house and commercially managed operations. Around 30 per cent. of the provision of services to the Department is provided from commercially managed operations. They are already privatised, and they were inherited in that form.
I heard the informed criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton about the company in his constituency. My understanding is that the lorry containers to which he referred are a temporary and short-term solution as the process of building capacity continues. My information is that that private provision of storage and retrieval has not turned out to be more expensive, although I do not have detailed information. If my hon. Friend wishes, I am sure that I can find it for him. I am not aware of any horror stories, although I must say that I have been in the Department for only three weeks. If my hon. Friend knows of any, he should let me or my Department know so that we can investigate them.
Throughout the country, there are 50 stores, ranging from some with only a few staff to others, such as that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, where well over 100 people are employed. Those stores have grown up in response to local or regional needs, with a variety of operating practices and widely different levels of efficiency. This is n at an issue of public versus private. Some sites that we operate are very efficient, and I am happy to pay tribute to the dedication and effectiveness of our staff. By the same token, the private sector has shown that it is fully capable of managing those services and that, in particular, it can ensure that the confidentiality of sensitive records of individual customers is fully respected. My hon. Friends and hon. Members will be aware of that.
A significant amount of the core work of the DWP is provided by people operating in the private sector. It could not be otherwise because of the number of doctors
206WH
who would need to be employed to carry out the medical examinations necessary to inform decisions and decision makers. Even when we are successful in moving people into the labour market, the process and necessary support is provided by the private, community or voluntary sectors, which provide services to address specific barriers to employment. My Department, in its present shape and previous manifestations, has a long history of working closely with people outwith the public sector to deliver services and to support our customer base. There is no evidence to suggest that, except in isolated cases, any of that information has leaked out or been treated other than confidentially. The Department has significant experience in dealing with people beyond the public sector, enforcing confidentiality agreements and having contractors respect those agreements. Otherwise, stories of confidentiality being breached would be legion, and they are not.
I do not accept that the only way in which services can be provided to the DWP's customer base must be through the public sector if the need to protecting people's confidentiality is important. Nor do I accept that is necessary to have a proliferation of small sites providing storage and retrieval services in order to protect against the possibility of some terrorist attack in the future. It seems perfectly possible to concentrate that work in fewer sites than we do at present and still build in protection for files from the possibility of destruction in any fashion, including the rather serious risk of a terrorist attack suggested by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley.
However, the needs of the DWP are not simply those of the aggregation of the organisations that came together in 2002. It is not just a question of taking 50 distinct providers and aggregating them. We have new objectives, new priorities and new ways of meeting them. The services that supported previous operations are not always well placed to do the same in the future. That is true of our file storage and retrieval service, as it is of much of the support that we hope to provide for our customer base. Our current arrangements are simply not capable of meeting future needs.
We have looked at alternative ways of delivering such services, and it is clear that there is a willing market available to compete to do it, and that a single operating system—not necessarily a single operating site—which uses modern systems of records management could do so more efficiently and effectively, and at greatly reduced cost. In comparison with existing costs, we estimate that we should save a significant amount of taxpayers' money over, say, the life of a 10-year contract. To cite one aspect for my hon. Friend the Member of Pendle, I can say that the savings in estates costs alone are estimated at £4 million a year. There will be other savings, but some are more difficult to calculate. For example, someone may provide storage and retrieval services on a DWP site as well as on others. We would not necessarily intend to redeploy that person out of that site, even if the stored files left.
It must be right to look at the best way of acquiring services that meet our needs, and that will provide us with value for money gains. The scope for DWP teams currently delivering the service being able to mount a bid has been fully considered. My hon. Friend was right to refer to my letter of yesterday, which I sent to inform his

207WH
contribution to the debate. We expect future service to be delivered very differently, from a greatly reduced number of sites and supported by a single, proven, modern information-handling system. Creating an in-house bidding capability is simply not practical in these circumstances. However, as a matter of overall policy, the Department is committed to looking for in-house solutions and to examining the scope for in-house bids as part of any future review of support services case by case before considering bids solely from the private sector.
Mr. Prentice rose—
Mr. Browne: I will allow my hon. Friend to intervene, but it may mean that not all of his questions will be answered. They can, of course, be answered by other means.
Mr. Prentice: I just wanted the Minister to expand on his point about rejecting the possibility of any in-house bids. What did the Department do to explore the option of an in-house bid? It is not enough to say that it is not practical.
Mr. Browne: The Department had significant experience of existing services and their capabilities. I will be happy to expand on that in correspondence. The Department concluded that in relation to the expectation of the modern service, it would not be possible to reconfigure in such a way as to allow existing services to compete to provide that service.
It is important to record that the Department recognises the valuable service provided by the staff who run the file stores. Where possible, we shall find them other positions, and I am determined that we must do that; those are not simply words. We already have experience of closing two file stores and moving the records to a central site, and we found alternative posts for the staff. That will be more difficult at some sites, and I do not underestimate the problems in sites such as Nelson, in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. Time is up.
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock

.Genetic Modification
2 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to have secured the debate to which I welcome the Minister and hon. Members. The choice of subject recognises that we are supposed to be in the middle of a public debate, and I am sorry to say that it has taken a Back Bencher to secure a debate on the matter in Parliament. It would have been nice if the Government had secured the debate because the subject involves their public interface.
I shall make clear my position on GM technology: at first, I recoiled in horror at the idea of it, but now I am less concerned about the technology and more concerned about its application. The principle of humans interfering with food genes was established many millennia ago in Iraq, around Nasiriya, which is in the news today. Improving plants through selection allowed people to test tiny variants in plants on the human population over many generations, which allowed them to understand the limits of human digestion and which variants are bad for us.
GM allows us to bypass that involved process, which is potentially dangerous. GM technology is a hierarchy that must be considered with precautionary principles in mind. At the bottorn, demanding the least concern, are non-food crops such as biomass crops, which are improved from within their own species gene pool. Food crops, which have been improved in a similar way, are next. I am more concerned by non-food crops, such as pharmaceutical crops, and food crops modified with genes from outside their species, like the famous Sainsbury's fish-flavour tomato paste in Private Eye. GM technology within animals and our own species, which is not impossible to conceive with modern technology, is of greatest concern.
I want to examine those technologies from the point of view of consumer choice, the environment and health. First, however, I want to ask what has happened to the great debate. In Wales, it has not amounted to a row of beans—GM or otherwise. There has been a handful of public meetings, most of which were organised by anti-GM groups. The Welsh Assembly Government have organised nothing; for example, the matter is not mentioned on the National Assembly's website. The consultation information and questionnaire are available only in English, so some half a million Welsh speakers have been disfranchised from the great debate at the start, which is a disgraceful way to approach public consultation. In addition, the debate is taking place without the full evidence being available. The Government's studies—a scientific assessment and the field studies—will not be published until the autumn.
Let us start with the effect of GM technology on health. As a Member of Parliament, I will not support a novel technology if I do not think that its effect on human health has been properly evaluated. I owe that duty of care to my constituents. It is therefore up to the proponents of GM technology to demonstrate that it has no ill effects on human health, animal health and the environment. GM technology is being given a soft landing as a novel food technology by the regulatory bodies and by the Food Standards Agency in particular.

209WH
I prefer to eat local food, followed by organic food and finally bog standard food—I hope that it is not bog standard, but hon. Members will catch my drift. Others have a different set of priorities: some will eat the cheapest food first and perhaps have some treats to bolster their diet. I wonder which avenue FSA members follow. Why is everyone so keen to subject the UK population to a giant experiment in digesting novel GM foods? The research has been insufficient to evaluate the short or long-term effects of GM foods on human health.
Genetically modified crops are usually created by adding genes from bacteria, viruses and other plants to make them immune to chemical weedkillers or to enable them to produce toxins to kill insects that feed on them. The genetic modification may make the plant toxic when eaten. Even if that toxin is present in small doses, it can build up to cause harm, especially to vulnerable individuals. Allergies, which are generally on the increase among the population, may also develop.
There has been virtually no monitoring in the United States, where the main human testing is taking place, of the number of GM ingredients in food or of the impact on the general population. All that we know is the general trend of allergies and health effects emerging in the population; we do not know where they have come from. There is no doubt that food allergies are increasing as we eat more varied diets with new ingredients. It will soon be possible to test whether GM genes come from peanuts, which are known to cause severe allergies in some people. Dr. Michael Antoniou of Guy's hospital said:
"The reason why we can't be specific about the health consequences of GM food is that we don't know enough…Each genetic engineering event holds its own dangers. You could have acute toxicity or something that sneaks up over many years. Any of these things are possible."
Another danger is antibiotic resistance. Genes are often used for antibiotic resistance as selectable markers, which allow plants to select cells that have taken up foreign genes. They have no further use, but the genes continue to be expressed in plant tissues. Most genetically engineered plant foods therefore carry fully functioning antibiotic-resistance genes. There are two possible consequences: first, eating those foods could reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics taken as medicine; secondly, the resistance genes could be transferred to human or animal pathogens, making them impervious to antibiotics. It is unlikely that very strong resistance will occur, but any possibility of that requires careful scrutiny, especially as we know that so many diseases today, such as the SARS virus, come from animals.
That is why the overall health risks were assessed by the Royal Society last year. It said that GM products needed rigorous investigation before marketing to vulnerable sectors of the population, including the elderly, babies, those with chronic disease and pregnant women, due to the
"unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods".
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I call him my hon. Friend in this instance because we share the same
210WH
concerns. Does he agree that a major concern is the lack of peer evaluation in GM issues, which has come about because of a fear of commercial confidentiality? In every other avenue of science, peer review is considered essential for the evaluation of new products.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Lady—my hon. Friend——has put her finger on a particular problem there. Many of the so-called tests have been undertaken by the companies themselves, so the foods have not been subject to the rigorous examination that we would expect before we could say to our constituents, "These are safe foods to eat; eat as much of them as you want". I cannot say that, and I share the hon. Lady's concern.
As far as I am aware, the only study commissioned by the FSA looked at bacteria from GM food which is shown to be transferred through the human intestinal lining. If in, say, 1983 we had had results from an animal feeding test of cows' brains being changed as a result of the animals ingesting sheep's brains, I wonder whether we would have been wise to press on with feeding animal proteins to ruminants. We need to learn a lesson from BSE. The United Nations has certainly done that, because its food standards body said only last week that the failure to carry out adequate checks could lead to toxic reactions, allergies and an increased resistance to antibiotics. As far as I am concerned, the food safety case has not been made.
I turn to agriculture and the environment. Wales, through the National Assembly, has declared itself a GM-free zone. That is a declaration of intent, rather than a reality, but it exists as a political will expressed through a democratic body. I am sure that the future of Welsh agriculture does not lie in the production of mint-flavoured lamb chops or antibiotically enhanced milk. Following common agricultural policy reform, farmers will have the opportunity to sell to local markets, to add value directly to their products and to engage in sustainable agriculture, including the growth of organic crops, which is particularly relevant and important to agriculture in Wales. GM technology does not sit easily with that vision. I claim a constituency interest in the matter because Ceredigion is part of a west Wales cluster of organic farming with world-famous producers such as Rachel's Dairy and the organic centre for Wales at Aberystwyth university.
Let us look at the latest GM gee-whizz idea to grab the headlines: ready-decaffeinated coffee. I drink decaffeinated coffee, having discovered what caffeine does to the body, but should I be drinking GM-decaffeinated coffee? It sounds good not to have to remove the caffeine with a chemical or water-based process, but the coffee plant contains caffeine for a reason: to defend the coffee beans against fungi. Plants that are unable to produce caffeine might be susceptible to fungi, which can produce toxins. Fungal toxins, such as aflatoxin, are potent human toxins that can remain active through food preparation processes. I have no doubt that there will be a GM solution to that, perhaps by introducing GM markers to provide resistance to the fungi, but is that really how we want to produce our food?
I turn now to virus-tolerant crops. For reasons not yet well understood, plants producing viral components on their own are resistant to subsequent infection by those viruses, and there is a risk of creating new and worse

211WH
hybrid viruses through recombination and transcapsidation. For that reason, the European Parliament has handed a lifeline to organic and conventional crop producers in the United Kingdom on the issue of cross-contamination. It voted last week on an amendment tabled by the Plaid Cymru-Green group in the European Parliament to amend directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment and insert new article 26a, which states:
"Member States may take appropriate measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in other products."
I should like to know how the Government intend to implement that new article when it has been approved, as I presume it will be, and whether the Welsh Assembly can draw up its own regulations on implementation. I understand that although the directive gives member states the right to take appropriate measures, the regulations will be drafted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for England, and by the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. There must be a GMO land registry, as the Chartered Institute of Surveyors suggested, which is open to the public, showing where GMOs are being planted, the nature of the planting and so on. The public must have access to such information.
Finally, on consumer choice, the European Parliament has voted on a strict labelling regime for all GM foods and derivatives with over 0.9 per cent. GM content. That used to be 1 per cent. but the rule has been tightened. The Government must explain how they will protect consumer interest in the World Trade Organisation negotiations. Some countries may seek to downgrade that interest and to introduce an alternative agreement, but we must protect it. I defend the right of members of the FSA to stuff themselves full of GM food, as well as the right of the rest of us to choose a different path. Perhaps that is why the British Retail Consortium, which represents 90 per cent. of high street shops, said on 8 June that it did not see a market for GM foods at present.
The GM industry tends to concentrate production in monopolistic companies. Corporations are given patents on the genes that they use and the crops and seeds they develop. Royalties may then be charged for the use of their technology. Companies and Governments of the developed world are now pushing developing countries to accept patents on genes and seeds, sometimes for gene and seed banks that they have developed through traditional methods of agriculture. That will benefit the companies that produce GM crops, but many small farmers cannot pay the royalties or purchase the herbicide or pesticide that must be used with the GM crop.
A Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser, has been held responsible for Monsanto canola which grew on his land although he did not plant it. Monsanto produces over 90 per cent. of GM crops worldwide, and Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, Dow and DuPont produce the rest. Leaving worldwide production to five multinational corporations, and saying that that is the way to feed the starving world, is like leaving Dracula in charge of the blood transfusion service and expecting him to give a drop to everyone. All the companies are putting pressure on the United Kingdom, as well as on developing countries, to buy their products, thereby forcing more traditional farmers out of the market.
212WH
Conversely, the GM industry wants no legal liability for any genetic pollution or potential health or environmental effects of the crops. It is not willing to be held accountable, despite its claims of GM safety and success. The only clear winner is the GM industry, which wants to play the game by its own rules. There is absolutely no evidence that farmers, consumers or the environment in the UK or Europe will particularly benefit from GM crops.
The decision of the European Government, or rather the European Parliament—there is no Government yet, but perhaps at some time we will have a debate on that—is a step towards better regulation, but the introduction of GM foods in UK agriculture has not been thought through. If and when organic and non-GM foods are contaminated, who will be held responsible for the economic and environmental consequences? More importantly, who will pay for the damage? Welsh farmers cannot compete now with large corporate farms. How will GM foods help the Welsh agricultural economy and environment, which sustains not only biodiversity but cultural diversity?
Finally, the cruellest canard is that GM crops will feed a starving world. Already enough food is grown throughout the world to feed everyone on the planet to sufficiency. Feeding the world is a matter of political will and better distribution, things which genetic modification cannot achieve. The push for GM foods serves only to hide the root causes of poverty, hunger and disease. Even if a case could be made for immediate relief in developing countries, there would be the potential for catastrophic long-term effects. The genetic contamination seen in the loss of crop diversity in the developed world may be more of a problem for developing countries. Many crops have wild relatives and can cross-pollinate. In tropical countries, where many staple foods such as rice, maize and potatoes have evolved, there is greater potential for genetic contamination. Already, imported GM maize has contaminated native maize varieties in Mexico.
My central point is that agricultural biotechnology may have a role to play, but it is not a substitute for sustainable agriculture, which solves problems by understanding and adjusting elements of the system to achieve its goals rather than by developing new products that must be purchased. Agricultural biotechnology, by contrast, is basically an input industry, developing relatively expensive products and always depending on the novel. In sustainable agriculture, new products are less important than new knowledge and new ways of manipulating agricultural ecosystems.
I wish to end with some direct questions for the Minister. How will the precautionary principle be applied to GM foods? I ask him seriously to consider extending the great debate to at least October, in light of the poor publicity, the lack of public meetings and the call by eight major organisations, including the Consumers Association, to extend the period. I ask him also to ensure that the Government's studies are published before any conclusions are made about the public's opinion of GM crops. I say that even though I suspect that the public consultation is running heavily against GM crops. It is better that any public consultation is done on the basis of all the evidence and not on preconceived ideas.

213WH
I would like the Minister to give a copper-bottomed guarantee that labelling or strict co-existence regulations will make it possible for those who do not wish to ingest GM foods to avoid having them stuffed down their throats. Will he explain how the European Parliament's co-existence proposals will be brought into force in the UK and how organic farming in particular will be able to protect its position as a non-GM system of food production?
It is said that the Government have already made up their mind on the commercial planting of GM crops—at least, according to the Evening Standard.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I wonder why.
Mr. Thomas: Perhaps we will hear a little more about that. As a constituency MP, such questions are of interest to me. If they cannot be fully answered now, it will mean that it is too soon and too risky to countenance such a move.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): It would be advisable for me to remind hon. Members that it is customary in these 90-minute debates to commence the first of the three winding-up 30 minutes before termination. That leaves us with 41 minutes in which to accommodate the five right hon. and hon. Members who are trying to catch my eye, only two of whom have given me prior indication of their intention to do so. I appeal to everyone to make their comments as brief as possible and to bear in mind the time constraints when accepting or making interventions.
2.20 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: By my calculation, that means that I have eight minutes. I will do my best.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on an excellent speech that raised the relevant questions. I endorse and confirm its content. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister allows me to pursue some points that I raised on Friday, to which I received a rather limited response. My first question concerned what the Government's response to the farm-scale evaluation trials will be. They will receive a report on the conclusions of the research in September. I argued, as we all know, that a decision has to be taken on the commercialisation of GM crops in accordance with the terms of EU directive 2001/18, but that that does not mean a yes or no determination. That is a key point.
A further option is for the Government to invoke the precautionary principle, which is allowed under item 8 of the preamble, which states:
"The precautionary principle…must be taken into account when implementing"
the directive. That is also covered under article 23 of the directive, which is the safeguard clause, and under article 5 of the phytosanitary agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister's response was that
"if the evaluations are inconclusive or demonstrate that there are potential problems that require further investigation, that will be undertaken."
214WH
He did not follow through the logic of his position. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, there are huge uncertainties about GMOs because the long-term research on clinical and biochemical impacts has simply not been carried out. The random position and the lack of control of the gene's functions could change any character of a plant, and that might not be evident immediately. In the US, there are already many examples of undesired effects being identified only after approval has been given.
Those are more than adequate reasons why, in the case of each and every GMO, approval should be deferred until the long-term epidemiological, clinical and biochemical research has been fully carried out— exactly as is already the case in relation to the introduction of new drugs. My first question is, will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that that option is open to the Government and that they are seriously considering it?
At the moment, the Government seek to avoid that option by regularly citing the mantra—I signed many letters in these terms—that
"there is no evidence of any greater risk from a GM product than from its non-GM counterpart."
However, the truth is that no one has undertaken the systematic tests to find out whether that is true. It is simply assumed. The biotech companies look at the various nutrients, allergens and toxins and if, in their view, the GM plant has similar levels to the non-GM variety, it is assumed to be safe in all respects. That is the so-called principle of substantial equivalence—an infamous concept, if ever there was one—which is at the heart of the whole problem. The Minister did not mention that in his reply last week. Will he do so today?
My second question is, will the Minister confirm that that process has no scientific validity whatever, that it is open to fraudulent manipulation and that it does not meet the criterion of giving certainty to people, which is what they want, on whether a GM product is safe to eat? People want to know not whether a GM food or ingredient is similar to something else, but whether it is inherently safe to eat—without any side effects—and whether all the tests necessary to check that beyond any reasonable doubt have been carried out.
There is also the question of biotech companies' own credibility in these matters. In the case of GM forage maize called Chandon LL, the company claimed that there was no nutritional difference. I would point out that when the company data were subjected to peer review, it was found that there were significant variations in fat, protein and fibre content.
My third question is, will the Minister confirm that the Government will not sanction any GMO until full-scale, long-term research on health and biochemical effects has been carried out on the GMO in its own right, not on the basis of its alleged similarity to something else? The only reason for introducing the deceptive and misleading concept of substantial equivalence was saving the biotech companies the lengthy and expensive research necessary to establish what the truth is directly, or conceivably because they feared what such tests might reveal.
I asked the Minister last Friday about the organic sector, which he, I and the Government are committed not only to preserving, but to expanding. How will that

215WH
sector be protected against cross-contamination from GM, which could drive most, if not all, organic farmers out of business? His reply on that point was tempting but rather unconvincing:
"We must consider the most appropriate separation distances on the basis of good, scientific advice."
That is fine, but he added:
"I do not want the organic sector or its viability to be threatened."
That is absolutely excellent, but the logic is clear. The separation distances must be set so that cross-contamination is so small that it is below detectability. If they were set at such a level, the organic sector would be protected. If they were set above it, the organic sector would be threatened, and slowly destroyed, which is exactly what has happened to the organic oilseed rape industry in Canada.
We know that the detectability of GM is about 0.1 per cent. We also know from research by the National Pollen Research Unit at Worcester what the separation distances are for different crops that will yield cross-contamination no higher than 0.1 per cent. My fourth question is, if GM crops were to be commercialised in the UK, will the Minister guarantee that separation distances will be set statutorily at a level that ensures that any cross-contamination does not reach detectability? If he does not take that view, how will he deliver his commitment that the organic sector will not be threatened?
I raised the crucial question of liability, and the Minister replied a little airily:
"We must examine that more carefully."—[Official Report, 4 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 728–30.]
Quite so, but mere examination is not nearly enough. My fifth question is, will the Minister guarantee that the Government will not approve the commercialisation of any GM crops until a legally enforceable liability provision is in place that ensures that any organic or conventional farmer whose crops are subject to contamination from nearby GM cultivation is eligible for full compensation so that his livelihood is not disrupted or destroyed in any other way?
Although I was going to raise other points on health, I shall take one more minute to raise my final point, to which I did not receive an adequate reply. If the Government believe in consumer choice, and I believe that they do, how will they deliver for that large number of people—perhaps the majority of the population—who want to eat exclusively GM-free food? That crucial question was also raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. Why should people be forced to eat GM food if they do not want to?
The Minister referred to the recently agreed EU threshold of 0.9 per cent. for labelling GM food. With great respect, that misses the point. If a tin or package on a supermarket shelf has no GM label, does that mean that it is GM-free or that it might have nearly 1 per cent. GM content? That does not provide for consumer choice. It provides the opposite: it means that we will all soon be eating food that contains small amounts of GM, but without being given that information. In my view, that will be unacceptable to the British people.
My last question is, will the Government enforce labelling rules in the UK that provide for genuine freedom of choice by placing the labelling level at the
216WH
threshold for detectability, which is far below 0.9 per cent. and probably as low as 0.1 per cent? If the GM debate is for real and not mere window dressing, we need answers to those questions. I look forward to receiving them today.
2.30 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I start by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
This debate is not about the pros and cons of GM, so I shall not go down that road. First, I believe that there is no such thing as risk-free food. That is seriously important, because if the debate is to mean anything it must be about risk assessment. There are risks in every sort of food; whether food is fatty or non-fatty, or a host of other things, we take a risk with every spoonful that we consume. It is also true that there is no such thing as GM-free food. It is a bizarre deception that people should think that food can be labelled GM-free even if it has up to 1 per cent. of GM produce in it. Patently and obviously, such food would not be GM free.
Looking at it semantically, one could say that all food has been genetically modified; it is a question of who does it, how it occurs, how fast it is done and how long it has taken to evaluate. I visited the Broom's Barn establishment 18 months ago to find out about GM sugar beet. I learned an enormous amount in my day away from Parliament, and I began to understand what is at stake. The images of Frankenstein food quickly slipped away as I came to understand the enormous potential of GM foods and the good that could come from them—for the environment, for the nutrition of people around the world, and for other uses including pharmaceutical ones.
In our debate, we first need to know the facts. That is where the Government have been slow, and I am critical of them for that. Trying to get information from the Government is like trying to get water from a stone. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) is absolutely right to press the Government hard on the basic facts of the matter. Only when we have more facts can we make an appropriate risk assessment.
I have asked a series of parliamentary questions in order to elucidate some interesting information, and I have perused the daily outflow of answers on GM from DEFRA. It is clear that the Department is working extremely hard, and I commend the Minister and his officials for that. I was also interested in the answer of the former Secretary of State for International Development to a question from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). She said:
"Developing countries must have the opportunity to make their own informed decisions on whether or not to adopt modern biotechnologies based on an assessment of the risks and benefits from their safe development and use. Developed countries have a responsibility to help developing countries build the capacity to make these choices."—[Official Report, 24 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 67W.]
If we block people's choices by saying that certain foods cannot be imported, even if they are safe, because the EU has a 1 per cent. threshold, we shall be doing them no favours.
I turn next to an answer from Lord Warner, an Under-Secretary of State for Health in the other place. He said:

217WH
"All genetically modified foods approved for sale in the UK have undergone a rigorous pre-market safety assessment by independent scientific advisers…There is no evidence that the consumption of genetically modified food has caused an increase in allegenicity. The available evidence does not indicate that GM DNA transfer to gut bacteria has adverse consequences for metabolism, organ development, and the immune and endocrine systems. DNA is consumed as part of our normal diet."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 July 2003; Vol. 650, c. WA153-4.]
Indeed it is—just as, every day, we all consume genes. That is important.
I tabled a question about what evidence there was on the safety of GM food consumption, and asked for a statement. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), replied:
"The available scientific evidence does not support the view that the consumption of the genetically modified foods approved to date would lead to any harmful effects. The safety is assured using procedures developed by the World Health Organisation."—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 117W.]
I asked, pursuant to that question, whether she would list the scientific evidence on which her answer was based and whether she would describe the procedures developed by the WHO. Answer came there none—so far. It is extremely important that those sorts of answers are produced.
The same Minister, in an answer to a question from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), said:
"Details of the research programme"—
the Food Standards Agency's programme—
"are published in the FSA's research and surveys programmes annual report and are available on the FS A web site".—[Official Report, 3 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 483W.]
The website address is given, but the website simply does not work. People cannot get the information—that is worse than useless, because it makes the Government appear to have something to hide. I do not believe that the Government have anything to hide. I wish them well; it is extremely important that they win the debate. I want genetic modification to be used in the production of food; it would have a huge impact and could be of benefit around the world. However, it is right, of course, to ensure that the scientists are completely open.
I end with a plea that the Government do something radical: start to be an open Government. It does not matter whether we are talking about nuclear energy, about the response to terrorism or about GM foods—it is about time that our Government came clean with the public. The culture of the United States of America is wholly different in that respect. Some in this country, particularly civil servants, argue that our Government are dangerously open; they are not.
The approach of the Americans——I have discussed it with them recently, with respect to terrorism, on a visit to the United States—is that the more information that can justifiably be made public, the more people will realise that someone is on to them before they start. A similar argument applies in this country. We need to be far more open and to present the scientific evidence in a way that the layman can understand—then we will have a proper debate on GM.
2.37 pm
Joan Ruddock: First, Mr. Cook, may I congratulate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has happened a couple of times, and I would be remiss if I did not remind hon. Members that, when establishing proceedings in this Chamber, the House decided that the occupant of this Chair should be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Joan Ruddock: I am so sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the first occasion that I spoke in this Chamber it was different; I had not appreciated the change.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate and, in particular, on the way that he has presented his case. I do not want to go over the same ground, but everything that he said on the developing world, on choice and on liabilities I would have wished to say myself.
I believe that there is a consensus in this country on the issues that we need to address in UK food and farming, such as food safety, food supply, food costs and environmental pollution. Genetic modification needs to be judged against that background. So, first, does genetic modification enhance food safety for animals or humans? The answer is no; there is a risk and it is unquantified. Do we need GM crops to guarantee UK food supplies? No, we are generally a country of surpluses.
Should food costs be paramount in the debate? The answer is no. Experience tells us—and has told us all too recently—that a cheap food policy compromises food safety and nutrition and drives farmers out of business. Will GM foods be cheaper in the long run anyway? There is no guarantee of that. Finally, the issues relating to environmental damage are well understood: we do indeed need to reduce pesticide and chemical fertiliser use, but we do not need GM crops to achieve that.
Can we, as a nation, tackle the major challenges in food and farming today? The answer, surely, is yes. I believe that we are doing so. Indeed, the Minister and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), have done much to drive the process forward. Why, then, is GM now imperative? Why are we as a nation on the verge of making an irreversible decision that could have totally unpredictable effects on our countryside and on animal and human health?
The answer is simple: one company, Monsanto, rushed from the laboratory to the field to plant GM crops, and it irresponsibly sought to mix the products of those crops with non-GM foods. It did so with the lightest of regulation and without waiting for public consent. Today, it is still responsible for 90 per cent. of commercially grown GM crops. Although millions of Americans have eaten the products of those crops, that is testimony not to the popularity of those products but to the fact that they had no choice.
This debate should focus on one question: does this country need GM crops? My answer is a resounding no, and I must tell the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that the Monsantos of this world have done nothing to convince me otherwise. Of course, public knowledge and understanding would be increased if the Government's scientific review, the strategy unit's

219WH
economic report and the results of the farm-scale trials and evaluations were made available. None of those documents has been published, and it will not be possible to take them into account in the public debate, which ends next week. The time allotted to that debate, and the nature of the process, have been inadequate to the task. I commend the attempt to deal with the issue, but it is ludicrous to keep the three strands—the public debate, the science review and the economics—separate.
All of that raises the suspicion that the public debate will be sidelined. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether public hostility to GM will be the determining factor for the Government if it remains as strong as it is or whether the decision to commercialise GM crops will be taken regardless of public opinion. Does the Minister believe that the Government have any scope to respond to public opinion and to keep the UK GM-free? Is not commercialisation inevitable, given US pressure and the potential role of the World Trade Organisation? What is his assessment of the arithmetic in the European Union? Does a majority of states still oppose the commercialisation of GM crops?
I cannot think of a more important issue. It is more important than any changes that we might make in the administration of our health or education services. The decision to commercialise GM crops could bring irreversible change to our plants, animals and environment, but the topic is virtually undebated in the House. Indeed, I would put money on the fact that only a few MPs actually know that the great national GM debate is under way at all. Why is that? Sadly, many MPs are wary of issues when they feel that they might not fully understand the science or that expressing their gut instincts could result in them being labelled ignorant or anti-science. However, expressing one's gut instincts is neither irrational nor primitive when one is considering the quality of the food that we ingest and the environment that we inhabit.
Genetic modification is not a simple extension of centuries-worth of tried and tested old plant-breeding technologies; it is fundamentally different. It crosses species and creates organisms that would not arise in nature. The crops under trial—maize, oil seed rape, sugar and fodder beet—have all been modified for tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium. None of the constructs between the bacteria and the crops would occur in nature and all pose potential threats to the environment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton has said, none of the resulting food products has been subjected to long-term human or animal testing.
What is the utility of GM crops? They are simply tolerant to the weed killer to be used during the growing season; all that they do is allow the farmer to put the herbicide on the crop without destroying it—so the farmer has a seed that is tied to a herbicide and the company has a farmer that is tied to the company.
The debate has hardly begun. I have accessed all the material on the public debate site and I estimate that it takes about three hours to read and digest it. I commend the effort, but people cannot easily engage in the debate, express themselves and form a view for or against. I understand, having read the transcripts, that people have been tremendously frustrated at the meetings because they cannot question experts and receive
220WH
answers. The Government have not even organised a public meeting in London; there are many deficiencies in the public debate.
I remind the Minister that the country has been working systematically towards a sustainable agriculture policy. The commercialisation of GM crops in the UK would fatally undermine the consensus on sustainable agriculture. I urge the Government to continue to accept the precautionary principle. There will be enough speakers with views that indicate that the precautionary principle can and should be applied, despite anything that comes up in the documents and reviews that are under way. Sufficient evidence exists for us to say "case not proven; not yet, and maybe not ever," but we have to have the choice.
I end by asking the Minister to extend the period of the public debate. It has had far too little publicity and the House has not been engaged, and it is critical, in a democracy, that it is.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are 12 minutes remaining and two hon. Members to go.
2.48 pm
Mr. Roger Williams: I draw the attention of hon. Members to my entries in the Register of Members' Interests in relation to agriculture, although they might not be relevant to this topic. I have a background in plant breeding, so I am interested in the issue. I would have liked to debate a number of the points that have been made. However, I shall restrict myself to a few of my interests.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on having secured the debate. I was interested in his hierarchy of concern about the ways in which GM has been applied to different crops, and I should like to have another look at it. I, too, am more concerned about GMOs as applied to animals and human beings than to plants. It is strange that the public seem to be more concerned about the application to crops than about other applications that could be critical to the future of the human species.
It has been said that the public are expecting a simple answer to emerge from the debate—GM technology will either be accepted in a blanket way or deemed unacceptable. The important point, which is being made well, is that each genetically modified organism should be examined to determine the implications for safety and human health. Each genetically modified organism should also be examined to discover what effect it has on the environment.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Welsh Assembly's aspiration to make Wales a GM-free country. Whether the Assembly has the competence to achieve that, I do not know. The evidence from field trials on contamination could well suggest that GM technology is acceptable in some environments and ecosystems, but not in others. Indeed, some ecosystems may be so sensitive or perhaps so important for biodiversity and other things that it would be very harmful for there to be any GM intrusion, whereas the fact that big arable areas may contain few native plant species or plant species of any importance could make them appropriate areas in which to commercialise GM production.

221WH
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) mentioned the four crops that are being produced in connection with GM technology in this country: rape, maize, sugar beet and fodder beet. The hon. Member for Ceredigion talked about the large expansion of organic farming, but that is not based on arable production, so contamination into that type of organic farming would be limited and perhaps not even an issue at all.
Just as there will be no universal answer to the question of whether GM is a safe or unsafe technology, so there will be different answers to the question of where GM crops can be grown. When it comes to taking a decision and making an announcement, will or can the Minister come out with a solution that respects the sensitivity and importance of certain ecosystems?
2.52 pm
Gregory Barker: Like the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), to whom I pay tribute for securing this debate and the powerful speech he made in opening it, I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. That Committee spent hardly any time discussing the subject at issue this year or last year. That is not because we have been lax or are not interested; as many people have pointed out, the subject is one of the most crucial issues in the environmental sphere in recent years. The reason is that when we raised the issue earlier in the year it did not even occur to us to begin a serious discussion and investigation into the subject before the results of the first UK farm-scale trials were made public and we had proper, detailed evidence on which to base a sensible judgment. I am therefore absolutely amazed that the Government should have leapt in and sought to have the debate in a few weeks, before any farm-scale evidence becomes available and long before any of the long-term scientific implications are made known.
The potential impacts of GM crops are huge: on the environment, on public health, on local sustainability and even on our culture, particularly that of the small farmer. There is also the impact on consumer choice—real choice that will eventually not be a gift of a handful of the world's largest multinational corporations. More and more people across the political divide are becoming convinced that those who farm the countryside are its guardians and not, in Mrs. Thatcher's famous phrase, its freeholders. It is therefore ironic that those individuals, who manage the landscape on our behalf, working with the natural order, not against it, should be confronted by crucial, irreversible changes of such enormity, yet not have access to full and proper research or the more broadly based scientific understanding that any sensible person would like to see before taking such a huge step. I cannot understand why the Government are so complicit in denying them that wider debate.
One argument that is most commonly used by those in favour of GMOs is that they are necessary if we are to feed the world. The Prince of Wales has been outspoken in trying to pump prime the debate, and I praise him for the work that he has done speaking across party political boundaries to try to interest the public in it. In
222WH
2001, in a speech to Essex university's centre for environment and society—an event sponsored by the Department for International Development—he said,
"No-one in their right mind would resist a technology which could solve the world's food shortages if that was the only way forward. But where people are starving, lack of food is rarely the underlying cause. It is more likely to be lack of money to buy food, distribution problems or geo-political issues. But there is very clearly a need to create sustainable livelihoods for everyone, particularly those in developing countries. This is why I would like to argue for a more balanced approach, looking at all the options, particularly where research is concerned."
The department of land economy at Cambridge university recently argued:
"There is a strong case for research and development funds to he made available for organic agriculture."
It explains that that would help organic farming to reach the productivity levels of conventional farming, which has benefited from extensive Government-funded research in the past 60 years. The department also pointed out the
"existing imbalance in the technological development of the two farming systems"—
which is—
"likely to put organic agriculture at a distinct disadvantage."
It concludes,
"a long term research strategy for organic agriculture would aim at rectifying that imbalance and help to improve the efficiency of organic production, thereby making it more attractive and more profitable."
At the moment, the emphasis seems to be on supporting research into genetically modified crops, which, regardless of any possible environmental threat, certainly pose an acute threat to organic farmers and to all those consumers who wish to exercise a right of choice over what they eat. I am particularly concerned about the impact on organic agriculture in the UK. Public consumption of organic produce is rising at 15 per cent. a year, yet we are able only to produce a fraction of the total demand for such produce. It is a huge growth area for British agriculture, but it could be snuffed out in its infancy by the rapid introduction of GMOs.
Scientific studies demonstrate that cross-contamination of GM and non-GM crops is inevitable. Separation distances of a few tens of metres are completely inadequate when we know that pollen is naturally designed to carry over much greater distances. Furthermore, pollen is not the only problem. Gene flow can take place through cross-contamination of seed supplies and through plant material attaching itself to machinery, people and animals moving between farms. Unlike other forms of pollution, which diminish over time through a process of natural degradation, genetic pollution has a natural propensity to reproduce itself. The idea that genetic-free agriculture should compromise with the new technology is crackers. GM agriculture is the intruder and although genes flow both ways, the damage is done only one way, as conventional and organic farmers lose their GM-free status.
Exactly the same arguments apply to GM food. GM-free food production was there first and it is up to the GM industry to keep its products out of the pre-existing food chains. As the Soil Association has argued,
"We must have consumer choice to eat non-GM food. Ultimately we should be consumer focused in what we deliver."

223WH
I do not understand why the Government are seeking to pre-empt a properly informed debate, whatever conclusions may emerge from it. I do not understand why they are in such a rush to reach conclusions before the research has been done. I do not understand why they have such a short-term agenda with a technology with such long-term implications.
There are conflicts of interest at the heart of the Administration. It must be a matter of profound concern that Lord Sainsbury, in many ways a great and admirable Minister for Science and Innovation, although also a donor of millions of pounds to the Labour party, sits at the very heart of the debate. Surely the time has come for him to remove himself from this position of conflict and for the Government to adopt a sensible, un-alarmist but nevertheless clearly precautionary principle over planting and licensing, before the views of the British public and the clear scientific evidence become a retrospective irrelevance
3 pm
Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing this debate and making such a powerful, comprehensive argument for the need for more time to consider further information and evidence. That is a theme that has come through this debate. We need that to inform what is clearly going to be a truncated public debate, in which that crucial evidence is simply unavailable.
One of the first points that the hon. Gentleman made was that we must learn lessons from past mistakes. In my view, the two most recent and expensive—to the public purse, at least—food chain catastrophes to hit the UK teach us two simple lessons that we are showing signs of rapidly forgetting. The first, from BSE, was that we adulterate any part of the food chain without the backing of sound, cautious science at our peril. The second, from foot and mouth disease, is that unnecessary and excessive transportation of food helps to promote, and undermines efforts to control, disease. Whether we will take heed of those lessons in respect of other challenges is yet to be seen, but they should at least give us pause for thought before we launch headlong into a brave new world, or push back the frontiers of science with indecent haste and without the backing of sound science.
The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), who clearly knows a great deal about the subject and about the internal workings of government in relation to it, made a rather revealing comment towards the end of his contribution, when he expressed concern that the public debate should not be seen merely as window dressing. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) argued eloquently why we need more evidence and why the parliamentary questions that other hon. Members and I have tabled have not been fully answered. Clearly, an information gap is obscuring any possibility of an informed public debate.
Information from the Department of Trade and Industry in one of the answers that I received most recently, on 26 June, column 922W, identified the amount of money that the Government are spending to promote genetic modifications through biotech companies. A certain amount is going through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
224WH
but let us compare the £500,000 being spent on the public debate with the DTI grants to the biotech industry of£18 million in 2002–03, and the £81 million spent in support of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's work, and other grants given in support of biotechnology. That is quite apart from the £13 million put into biotechnology companies to promote biotechnology, as I pointed out to the Minister in the last DEFRA questions to which he responded.
Mr. Morley: On the money going into biotechnology-related industries, which other hon. Members have also mentioned, those industries are not all related to GM technology. Some work sponsored by the biotech council concerns biological control in horticulture, which benefits the organic sector. The hon. Gentleman should not think that all the money goes into GM technology.
Andrew George: I entirely accept that point, but some of the money is going into companies that support and promote genetic modification. In a previous question to the Minister, I mentioned that£13 million is going into biotechnology companies, which are clearly in the business of promoting genetic modification.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) mentioned one aspect of the debate that we might easily have overlooked. The four crops being trialled in the farm-scale trials are primarily used for animal fodder. Animal feed is an element of the debate that is often overlooked. My hon. Friend also described the particular conundrums that arise when the Welsh Assembly or a local authority declares itself GM-free.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) made an impassioned argument in favour of considering not only human health and the environment but local sustainability, consumer choice and the impact that GM technological might have on organic and small farmers. He made those points eloquently and I hope that the Minister listened to them.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) asked whether this country needs GM crops. That is a crucial issue on which the farming industry must reflect carefully. The hon. Member for Ceredigion rightly pointed out that in June the British Retail Consortium said that there is no market for GM produce in the UK. If farmers are going to be sucked into producing GM crops, they must know whether there is a market. It would be pointless for them to consider producing GM crops if there is no market.
Several hon. Members referred to liability. The European Commission produced a report last month demonstrating that the introduction of GM technology will impose significant costs on organic growers, which is an issue that the Government must get on top of. The Government have undertaken their own research and have identified potential problems looming for growers. The contracts between tenants and landowners demonstrate that GM technology could further strain that relationship.
Farmers must consider the extent to which biotechnology companies have a stranglehold over the industry. They are clearly not best pleased that

225WH
supermarkets have got them by the short and curlies. Biotech companies will have farmers by the throat if farmers enter into contracts with them because they clearly have a widespread interest in the food chain having bought up a number of seed companies.
A further concern is that GM technology will set farmer against farmer. Hon. Members have identified the problems for organic growers and those who wish to remain GM free, who will face significant problems where a neighbouring farmer chooses to take up the opportunity to grow GM crops. Those issues have not been properly resolved and it is important that the farming industry can speak with one voice.
Finally, GM technology could be a public relations disaster for the farming industry. Farmers have been wrongly maligned and criticised for being responsible for BSE by urban consumers. To take on genetic modification when it is unwanted in this country, whether that decision is based on sound science or not, would be a public relations disaster, and they need to reflect on that carefully.
The recurrent theme in today's debate, on which I hope that the Minister will reflect, is that people feel that the situation is entirely unsatisfactory. We need more time and more evidence. The evidence is not available at present. The Government's inquiries and research have not yet been published and the public debate should begin when that evidence is in the public domain.
3.10 pm
Mr. James Gray: This has been a particularly well informed and interesting debate, with sensible speakers from all parties. I fear that the Minister may be a little isolated when he replies, supported only by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). All I can say is that I am glad that Salisbury plain comes between his constituency and mine. Such a distance may be enough to prevent any cross-pollination across the plain. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) for securing the debate and for his sensible and intelligent opening of it. He spoke extremely well.
The debate's quality stands in sharp contrast to the quality of what the Government have described as the public debate that has lasted some six weeks. How ludicrous, patronising and absurd to suggest that the nation could debate something as fundamentally important as GM in six weeks. There will be a date after which one cannot debate the issue any more because the Government are going to make a decision, which will mean the end of the debate. It is nonsensical and dangerously patronising of the Government to have that debate some months before the only serious scientific research on the matter—the field trials— becomes public. We shall continue the debate for as long as matters continue to be unclear and until scientists are clear about them. The notion that somehow we have reached the culmination of the great debate after which it will be quite all right for the Minister to reach a conclusion about all our futures is absurd.
The debate has been badly handled—it seems to have been a Government PR exercise rather than anything sensible. There have been regional debates in
226WH
Birmingham, Swansea, Taunton, Belfast, Glasgow and Harrogate at a cost of£500,000, which were not particularly useful. Several sensible organisations, such as the Consumers Association, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the National Trust, Unison, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Sustain, wrote to the Secretary of State to say that the entire public debate was chaotic. Lots of people would have liked to enter into a debate had it been sensible. Why is an important decision about to be taken when the public debate has been nonsensical?
I particularly want to highlight two issues arising from the debate. The first is the precautionary principle. Rather like the matter of telecommunications masts, while there is any scientific doubt about something, it is only reasonable not to allow it until such time as the scientists or those proposing it can give us a 100 per cent. guarantee, backed up with bonds or funds, that it is 100 per cent. safe to the environment and human health. If Monsanto will not do so, that leads many people to ask questions.
What has happened to the precautionary principle? Do the Government support it or are they letting it lapse? That particularly applies to one aspect that concerns me more than the others: transgenic GM. That means, in other words, taking a gene out of a pig and putting it into wheat, which strikes me, as a bit of a simpleton, as unnatural and unusual. I would like particular Government assurances that that is guaranteed to be 100 per cent. safe, now and for all time.
The second matter has been raised by a number of people, including the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). I pay tribute to him, as he probably knows more about the subject than the rest of us put together. There is a possibility of damage to the organic industry, which has grown enormously. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) said that it has grown by 15 per cent. a year, but the figure is 30 per cent. a year. There are 680,000 hectares in organic production, which is growing massively. Tesco reckons that sales will be "1 billion by 2005. Of course, 70 per cent. of the organic food that we eat at present is imported.
The important thing about organic production, as several Members said, is that there is a strong likelihood of cross-contamination of one sort or another unless the separation distance is adequate. So far, the Government have stuck to a separation distance of 200 m for GM crop trials, but the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, the National Institute of Agricultural Botany and the European Commission all say that that is inadequate. There is evidence that seeds can be spread as far as 1.5 km away. Equally, BBC News Online looked into the matter and found that seeds in the soil can easily be carried by vehicles.
We need to know more about cross-contamination. Will the Minister give a guarantee to the Soil Association and organic farmers that there is no possibility whatever of cross-contamination? That must be the benchmark.
The Minister must also deal with labelling, which has been raised by several Members. It is extremely important that the public know precisely what they are buying in the shops, so labelling must clearly distinguish

227WH
between products that are GM free and those that contain GMOs. Otherwise, we will interfere with the consumer's right to make that decision.
The Minister may not yet have come to any clear conclusion on that matter, but he must tell us how he will enforce labelling laws. There must be no room at all for cheating. The Food Standards Agency described the labelling of traces of GM material as a cheat's charter, so we want to know precisely what the Government intend to do to prevent it. Fair labelling schemes are extraordinarily important.
Whatever else is concluded by this afternoon's debate or the dreadfully truncated and condescending national debate that the Government have called on the issue, one thing is certain: no one knows the answers to the questions. If they did, there would be no need for a debate. If the answers were known, the scientists would come along and say, "Don't worry, here is the evidence." If it were 100 per cent. clear that there was no risk to the environment or to health, we would not be having a debate. We would all acknowledge that there were some benefits, such as feeding the third world, and that there may be environmental upsides in reducing the pesticides required in certain conditions. However, the fact that we are having a debate at all shows that there is a lack of clarity. Threfore, we very muchy look forward to hearing the Minister"s answers in his winding-up speech and, more importantly, in the month ahead, because the Government will have to be extremely clear on the issue.
I wish to add some questions to the very clear ones posed by the right hon. Memebr for Oldham, West and Royton. What review will be made of the results of the GM field trials? Will the public have an opportunity to express their views and contribute to the debate once the dield trials have ended—not on a six-week basis, but over the long term? What separation distances have the Government decided on to minimise crosscontamination? Who will be liable for the economic loss to organic and traditional farmer if there is crosscontamination? That is a very real worry.
Finally, will the liability laws be retrospective if damage found years after commercial GM planting? The reality is that the answers are unclear and people are very concerned about the issue. Only the Government can reassure us, and I hope they will. I look forward to the Minister trying to do so.
3.18 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion(Mr. Thomas) on securing the debate? He made a very reasonablespeech and many fair points. I shall try to address the important issues that he raised, as well as the question asked by the hon. Member for North Wilshire (Mr. Gray). Hopefully, in the 11 minutes that are available, I shall also be able to answer the complex questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton(Mr. Meacher)
It is patronising to suggest that the whole issue has been condensed into six weeks, because this has been a long-running debate. The Government wanted an independent debate with an opportunity for people to
228WH
question the issues and to hear both sides of the argument. That was challenging and difficult, and the organisers made a very good effort to achieve that. It was never going to be a simple process, but it has stimulated debate. The fact that we are having this debate now is a result of that stimulation. There have been questions to the Prime Minister, Adjournment debates and reams of newspaper articles. The issue has even been featured on the "The Archers", which many people listen to. The suggestion that the profile of GM has not been raised is wrong. The debate has been successful in that respect and in allowing people to ask questions.
I should make it clear that we decided that the debate process should be independent of the Government, and that was right. It is not for the Government to organise it because people would think that there was an ulterior motive or an attempt at manipulation. The same applies in the Welsh Assembly, which wanted to remain at arm's length from the debate, but that is not to say that questions cannot be raised in the Welsh Assembly under the same democratic process as we have in the House.
Health issues have been raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton, who has raised such matters, knows perhaps better than anyone the procedures for dealing with health issues, how those are applied and how they go through the FSA, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. That approach is open and transparent, and it is reasonable to raise concerns and to ask about studies and how they are carried out. I shall come to that in a moment.
I want to make it clear that we must avoid the mistakes of the past. I remember the BSE issue, and I assure the Chamber that I have no intention of feeding GM burgers to my children on the basis that they are absolutely safe and that there is no problem. It is not for the Government to do that. The process must be independent, which is why we have the independent FSA and a range of independent bodies to examine the issues and report publicly to Government so that people are aware of them.
Mr. Gray: Does the Minister agree that although it is fundamentally unnatural to feed bits of cow back to cows in meat and bonemeal, it is equally unnatural to take bits of pig and stick them into wheat?
Mr. Morley: That is an extreme example and there is no approval at present for that product. There are ethical issues concerning biotechnology and animals which were raised by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. We treat the matter very seriously, and although it is a separate issue, it is part of our evaluation.
The FSA is considering whether there should be a long-term health study on the effects of GM. It is looking into the feasibility and potential benefits of such a study, and it will make its conclusions known very soon. It is treating the issue very seriously.
Some hon. Members referred to choice. The Government accept absolutely that farmers, consumers, processors and retailers should be able to choose whether to take advantage of GM products. That should not be forced on them. We need clear labelling so

229WH
that that choice is available. I also accept the point about the WTO and world trade. It is essential that we are not bullied by any country into taking products without giving people a choice of whether to buy and use them.
We also recognise that it is important to take into account the needs of the organic sector and of conventional farming. The issue of separation distances has been raised. Obviously, those need to be considered, particularly in the context of the farm-scale evaluation studies. One reason for conducting those studies is so that we can consider things such as pollen spread. I will say a little more about that later.
We warmly welcomed directive 2001/18. In fact, we are about the only country in Europe that has started to implement it—we began to do so even before the European Parliament changed it. We need to consider the scientific advice, particularly on the co-existence rules, which relate to separation distances.
Although the public debate is coming to an end—some Members have suggested an extension, but there has already been one—I accept that the FSE results and the scientific review are an important element. People must have the chance to look at them and comment on them. We have agreed with the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment that, when the FSE results are made available, ACRE will hold an open meeting so that stakeholders can submit their concerns or views.
The meeting will be held in public, so that those attending can see the process and watch the decision being made. That will be helpful in ensuring that people have the opportunity to comment on the results of the FSEs and their implications. The fact that the formal part of the debate happens to finish in July does not mean that there will be no opportunities for further public participation and involvement, which I am keen to see.
I take the point about genetic modification and developing countries. Claims should be considered on their merits, or otherwise. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who said that, in the end, it is a matter for individual countries to decide whether such technology brings benefits, and that must
230WH
be part of the evaluation. Such decisions should not be foisted on countries, but should be considered in light of their potential benefits as part of good scientific evaluation.
I also accept that environmental liability is an issue. We have asked for advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission about how to shape liability and about what regulations we may need. I also agree that sustainable agriculture goes much wider than genetic modification, which is just one issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) made that point.
There were a number of detailed questions. I was asked how the precautionary principle would be applied. The whole approach has been based on that principle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton made another detailed point about whether we can refuse applications simply on the precautionary principle. That depends on the evidence and on people's doubts and concerns.
There is also article 23. I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not want to give the impression that I refused to answer his questions in the earlier debate. As he knows, he was on his feet asking me questions when I ran out of time to answer them. I gave him an undertaking that I would reply in detail to every question that he asked. I have already put that process in train and it will be completed—he will get those replies. Some of the questions were technical and others asked for absolutes; some of the answers might not be absolutes. I will have some difficulty in answering the other questions in the 50 seconds available. My right hon. Friend may wish to discuss the information that I will provide, and I am happy to do that with him, as with any Member.
This is an ongoing debate. I shall not do justice to the pertinent questions that have been put, but there will be further opportunities to ask them both inside and outside the House. There are legitimate questions to be asked. I take the point of the hon. Member for Salisbury. If hon. Members are concerned about not having received adequate answers, they should raise the matter with me or with other members of the Government, and we shall ensure that answers are provided.

Nanotechnology
3.30 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: By happy coincidence, this debate follows one on genetic modification. The mess that we have got ourselves into with GM should be a salutary lesson. Let us hope that we do better with this latest emerging technology.
Nanotechnology is the science of the small. The breakthrough came in 1990, when IBM manipulated 35 individual atoms so that they spelled the letters IBM. That was an extraordinary scientific achievement, given that atoms are clubbable little numbers that like to stick together. Stringing them out was quite an achievement. It was also an advertising opportunity, and I do not suppose that it was a mistake on the part of the company that it strung the letters out into the magical three letters. The fact that it did gives us a window on to the opportunities and risks inherent in the technology, and this debate gives us a chance to address the risks and opportunities and what the Government are doing about them.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to lead the first debate in Parliament on a technology that has the potential to revolutionise the way we live. It is important to explode a few myths. Michael Crichton, author of "Jurassic Park", has written another book called "Prey", the starring cast of which are an army of nanobots, self-replicating miniature robots that end up covering the planet in what is described as grey goo. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has taken the matter up in a fairly big way, and The Mail on Sunday led in April with "Charles' Grey Goo Threat to the World." Two Nobel prize winners for chemistry, Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Aaron Klug, take a contrary view to that of the Prince of Wales. The former says:
"It shows a complete disconnect from reality. He should take a degree in chemistry, or at least talk to someone who understands it, rather than reading silly books."
I am not sure that Crichton's multi-million pound bestseller can be so easily dismissed and Prince Charles should not be, but that is Nobel laureates for you.
Secondly, practical nanotechnology is here already. It is not something for decades in the future; we have nanomachines cruising our bodies in the form of antibiotics. Many of us will have been fascinated by the elegant schematics recently shown on the television featuring fuzeon, the latest drug in the fight against HIV, which works at a molecular level. We are dealing with extensions of what we have already, rather than futuristic things of the sort conjured up by Michael Crichton.
So what are the risks, if any? Much of the excitement over nanotechnology rests with the nanotube, a small cylindrical structure of carbon-based molecules that shows great promise as the basis for the next generation of semiconductors, and therefore microchips. However, animal tests suggest that inhaling them could cause serious lung damage. Important though that is, such risks do not seem to be as apocalyptic as those that Prince Charles may have envisaged. They seem akin to the occupational health challenges that many already encounter. Presumably, they could be dealt with in a similar way. The Royal Society of Chemistry, which I have the pleasure of advising, is keen to make that point.
232WH
It says that the ethical, social and environmental issues to do with nanotechnology are not unique and can be dealt with using existing regulations. I agree.
It appears to have dawned on the Government later than on most that nanotechnology could revolutionise manufacturing and commerce, and that we had better address it. That is where nano parts company with genetic modification. The former will pervade all sectors, whereas GM is more discrete. Not doing nano means not competing in great swathes of industry. One may prevaricate over GM and blight the farming sector, but if one prevaricates over nano one stands to blight the whole of our industry and commerce. That is not an overstatement.
Dr. John Taylor, the director general of Research Councils UK, was asked to produce a report, which surfaced in the Office of Science and Technology last June as "New Dimensions for Manufacturing: A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology." It contained a road map—we seem to be in the season of road maps, and we have one for nanotechnology—for the UK Government to follow to bring them up to speed in turning the basic science in this field, which we do very well, as we do most basic science, into commercial reality. It is ambitious and sets an ambitious time scale, which suggests that Dr. Taylor feels that we have much ground to make up. The tightness and ambition of his time scale are symptomatic of the urgency that he feels is necessary to bring us up to speed.
According to Taylor's road map in the OST report, we must have a nanotechnology applications strategy board immediately to
"develop and articulate a coherent and coordinated strategy for accelerating the applications of nanotechnology as widely as possible across the economy."
He insists that by 2004 we must have at least two national nanotechnology fabrication centres to "incubate new businesses" from the basic nanoscience that our scientists are so good at. So concerned was Taylor that he said that those centres should be established "urgently", and that funding by the end of 2002 should be
"one of the highest priorities for the DTI."
Dr. Taylor's insistence was no doubt influenced by the fact that the USA already has a number of highly advanced fabrication centres. It has stolen a march on us, that is for sure.
In the UK, to use maritime parlance, we appear to be under way but not making way. Mark Welland, professor of nanotechnology at Cambridge, is obviously frustrated and said in The Times last month:
"Every month that goes by without the decision being made is a month in which our competitors get further ahead. We were in a position to take a lead, and while I'm sure that we will be a very strong performer, it would have been nice to have led the way rather than scurrying along behind."
I should be grateful if the Minister could say where we are with the Taylor road map, the nanotechnology applications strategy board and our fabrication centres. Could he address those points specifically, head on?
What Ministers have done—hurrah, they have done something—is commission another investigation. The Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society have been tasked to investigate nanotechnology and report back in late spring 2004. That investigation will

233WH
be chaired by Professor Ann Dowling. Given Taylor's lengthy report, it is not entirely clear what more Ministers hope to get from that, other than being seen to do something.
Professor Dowling's tasking seems to be weighted in the direction of risks and regulations rather than opportunities and how the Government might provide support in the interests of British trade, commerce and industry. Anticipating harmful regulation, Otilia Saxl, the chief executive of the Institute of Nanotechnology, has fired a warning shot across the legislators' bows pointing out:
"A sharp knife in your kitchen can be used to cut a steak or to stab someone. You cannot legislate against knives because a few people misuse them. And it's the same for nanotechnology."
I concede that the Dowling study may be an attempt to balance the full-steam-ahead approach of the Taylor investigation. However, I remain concerned that in setting up this further committee we are simply parking the issue for another year at a time when the US, Japan, Germany and even France are forging ahead and far outstripping the UK Government in tangible support given to nanotechnology.
Public debate is very important. We need to get it right and address the legitimate concerns that so many have expressed about nanotechnology, even at this early stage. That should not be an excuse for prevarication and substituting committee investigation and one commission after another for definitive action. My fear is that that is precisely what we are doing. Surely we should have learned something from our handling of GM.
Others in the van of GM, if I may touch upon that briefly, are far better placed than the UK to capitalise on its likely benefits. Other Governments have clearly taken the view that the potential for GM to benefit the lives of the global many, not to mention their domestic agricultural centres and agri-industries is enormous. The UK, true to form, has parked GM by embarking on a series of consultation exercises. Are we doing the same with nanotechnology? Consultation is important but many have questioned the value of the public debate on GM orchestrated by the government.
Crucially, the Government's initiative "GM Nation?" will conclude before three valuable pieces of evidence are available. We heard at length about those during the previous debate. As a salutary warning for our future handling of nanotechnology, those are the Government field studies due in September, Professor David King's scientific report on GM in the summer, and the strategy unit's economic report also due in the summer. Those crucial pieces of evidence will not be available for the public consultation exercise. That exercise will cost £500,000, as opposed to £2.5 million for a similar exercise in little Belgium, and £2 million in the even less populous New Zealand.
The exercise will be poorly informed, badly advertised and certainly cheap. No wonder it has been dismissed as chaotic by an alliance of the Consumers Association, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the National Trust, Unison, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sustain, and that repository of sound good sense, the National Federation of Women's Institutes. It looks to me like a window dressing exercise.
234WH
We must not allow the public debate on nanotechnology demanded by the better regulation task force report of January and accepted in principle by Government to be similarly ill informed and chaotic. The BRTF was quite right in calling for a public debate, and the Government were right to support it. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some reassurance on that today and assure us that we will not see the kind of chaos and ill-informed debate that we have had on GM.
We need to know to what extent the debate will exist in the realm of the hypothetical given the constraints imposed by the European Union. Drawing on our experience of GM, we know that EU directive 2001/18 means that a decision on the authorisation of GM products is subject to a majority vote of member states. We must assume that there will be directives from the EU dealing with nanotechnology in due course. However, the RAE-RS study on nanotechnology makes no mention of that in its preamble or opening remarks. As the Minister formulates our position on nanotechnology, I would like to know to what extent and in what areas he anticipates the EU impacting on the Government's latitude.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's mitigation for the UK's late start, because that has happened very much on his Government's watch. Perhaps he can say where his early thoughts lead him in terms of Government funding opportunities, what he is doing to assess the risks of the emerging technologies and where he thinks the risks might lie. That would be very useful. I should be especially grateful if he could tell us what has become of Taylor's road map, and the nanotechnology applications strategy board and the fabrication centres, to which the Taylor report and the OST road map referred. Perhaps he would let us know what, if anything, has happened. Finally, we need to know whether the Minister intends a permissive regulatory environment, in what areas he anticipates constraints and to what extent his room for manoeuvre is likely to be limited by the EU. Nanotechnology deals with the very small, but its potential is very large and we must not miss this opportunity.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on his success is securing the debate. He is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Nanotechnology promises benefits for the environment, our health and the wealth of our economy. Put simply, it is the application of material sciences at around the nanometre scale—that is, one billionth of a metre. It consists of a collection of technologies derived from other areas of science and engineering such as electronic engineering, chemistry, physics and biology. In that respect it is not new. Nanoparticles have been detected in the glazes of 15th century pottery and carbon black has been used in the manufacture of tyres for the past 100 years. Nanotechnology is available now in self-cleaning glass, vehicles with nanocomposite panels and computers containing processors and memory with nanoscale features.
It is important that as the technology develops people feel confident about it. My colleague in the Department of Trade and Industry, Lord Sainsbury, recently

235WH
commissioned an independent study by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering to look at current and future developments in nanotechnology and to find out whether the technology raises new ethical, health and safety, environmental or social issues that have not already been covered by current regulations. An important function of the study will be to separate fact from fiction and to focus on Crick rather than Crichton. It is worth noting that one of the original proponents of the "grey goo" theory, Eric Drexler, has recently stated that such fears should not be used as an excuse to halt research or to introduce crude and oppressive regulatory regimes.
The study has been commissioned as a reflection of the Government's response to recommendations by the better regulation task force in its report on "Scientific Research: Innovation with Controls", which was published in January this year. The wide range of disciplines and views connected with nanotechnology will be represented, including ethical, social and regulatory considerations as well as science and engineering. Wider stakeholder groups, including academia, industry and interest groups, will be approached for input and the public will be engaged. The final report of the study will be published and made public.
Few industries will escape the influence of nanotechnology. As the Prime Minister said to the Royal Society last year:
"Nanoscience…is startling in its potential. This kind of technology may create whole new industries and products we can't begin to imagine".
Some predict a global market in nanotechnology worth more than $1 trillion in a decade. We need to ensure that the UK wins a share of that prize with a prosperous, world-class nanotechnology sector in the UK. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in 2001 Lord Sainsbury set up an advisory group chaired by Dr. John Taylor, director general of Research Councils UK, to advise on actions needed to improve the UK's capability in nanotechnology and related technologies. His group found that the UK's strengths in nanoscience and nanotechnology provided a strong foundation on which to develop nanotechnology for the benefit of companies in the UK. His report in June 2002 highlighted a number of actions that should be taken. They include the reduction of the mismatch between our research and industrial capabilities, improved UK access to international research and development, improved access to manufacturing facilities to enable industry to trial its ideas and to create a stable, visible and coordinated strategy for public support. Following that report, Lord Sainsbury's officials have visited key fabrication facilities in the US and Europe to gain firsthand knowledge of how best to implement such manufacturing facilities in the UK. They also visited a number of UK academic and industrial centres to gain a clear picture of the depth of capability already present in the UK.
236WH
Of particular interest are the two interdisciplinary research collaborations in nanotechnology which have been established at Oxford and Cambridge universities. Those collaborations are funded by three of the Government's science research councils. DTI officials are also in regular contact with other Government Departments and agencies with a clear interest in nanotechnology, such as the Department of Health, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and all the research councils.
The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. The Government are investing£184 million to ensure that we gain maximum advantage from our investment in nanotechnology. We are determined to put the UK at the forefront of nanotechnology development. Existing Government investment in nanotechnology already totals£94 million, which includes all research council funding with £70 million from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and £16 million from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. Last week, Lord Sainsbury announced a cash injection of a further £90 million over the next six years to implement those recommendations and so help industry to harness the commercial opportunities offered by nanotechnology. Of that fund, £90 million will be available for collaborative research and development between industry and our science base. That should encourage UK companies to take advantage of the strength of our science base to develop new products and processes and provide their academic partners with new challenges to drive forward new areas of research. Strengthening those collaborative links is vital if we are to gain maximum advantage from the EU sixth framework programme, particularly the third priority area of nanotechnology, materials and processes, which we estimate to be worth some £900 million.
The UK development agencies have responded positively to the creation of a UK nanotechnology network. That netwc rk will receive £40 million from the fund to provide industry with access to cutting-edge nanotechnology research and resources in academic and industrial facilities throughout the UK. Existing and anticipated micro and nanotechnology projects supported by the UK development agencies are expected to exceed £200 million over the next few years. That substantial investment will help UK companies to take advantage of the exciting commercial opportunities offered by scientific advances in nanotechnology and compares very favourably with the level of investment of our major competitor nations.
Nanotechnology will change the future and I hope that the actions that I have outlined on behalf of Lord Sainsbury will ensure that it is a change that will benefit the UK as a whole. I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate today.
3.53 pm
Sitting suspended.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence
3.55 pm
Mr. Dai Havard: I want to make three essential points. The first is on a particular matter that I have been examining—I think that you chaired a previous debate on this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—which is the use of blood, and the alternatives, in cancer. I want to use that as an illustration to lead into my second point, which is the processes that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence allows, and what happens after them. Finally, I will look at how we can make change and improve those processes in doing so.
I am a great supporter of NICE. It was a great idea to set it up. It is a world-class organisation, largely because of the quality of the people involved in it and the integrity of its processes. That is shown once NICE makes a recommendation in the way in which that is accepted in the community. It deals with the right range of matters. It deals with clinical guidance for all conditions, medical interventions and the broader question of technologies—not only physical equipment, but such things as drugs.
One of the great things about NICE is that it has a citizens council. It tries to be participatory in a range of ways, and those can be applauded as ways forward. It tries to address postcode prescribing, as it has been called—consistency in the application of treatments once they have been decided on. It is timely to have this debate now—more timely, in fact, than I initially understood—because having done a little research, I find that the World Health Organisation is conducting a peer review into some of NICE's activities and that NICE has announced its own reviews of its appraisal processes. It is almost exactly 12 months since the Select Committee on Health did serious work on the operation of NICE.
Some 18 months ago I looked at the predicament of cancer patients who suffer from the debilitating effects of anaemia stemming from their treatment. Blood transfusions are used as part of the process to help with that and are one of the main treatments for that common side effect of cancer. I discovered that 30 per cent. of the blood supply is used for that.
Over that period, I have asked 40 ministerial questions and had two Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. There are clear alternatives to using blood transfusions, such as a drug process called Erythropoietin, more commonly known as EPO. EPO has been licensed for use in the national health service since 1995, but NICE, newly established since then, has not approved that as the normal practice that should operate, which is interesting. Were it to do that, its application would clearly have a different effect than at present. Last November, the Department of Health indicated that it was considering referring EPO to NICE, to get the arrangements consistently applied. On 11 February, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, then the Under-Secretary of State for Health, confirmed in a parliamentary answer to me that that was under consideration.
During that period, I conducted my own survey of health trusts. Some 30 per cent. said that funding was the biggest hurdle to prescribing EPO and that it would
238WH
be beneficial to have an early reference of the drug to NICE. The then Minister also reaffirmed that that was being considered in the ninth wave of work that NICE would undertake.
There has been no certainty in the community since the earlier debates, so I conducted my own survey of cancer networks to find out how the uncertainty was affecting them on the ground. I do not mean this to be pejorative, but the replies that I received were that it was rather disingenuous to suggest that there were no funding barriers. The current situation with EPO is that it is a non-NICE approved product, whereas a NICE-approved product would have considerable funding weight. There are barriers to funding if a product has not been approved.
That led me to look further into the costs, and I did some analysis and put some information to the Treasury and others about the relative economics of blood versus alternative treatments. I tried to contribute to that part of the debate, but it came out clearly that NICE is the vehicle for doing a total cost analysis of one treatment versus another. The national health service and health economists do not seem to be able to introduce a proper, consistent process for which funding follows.
I have given information to the Treasury, which seems to think that it would be a good idea to assess the treatment. The industry that produced the product thinks that it is a good idea, and the medical profession seems to think so as well. Patient groups and charities tell me that it is a good idea. According to the latest information, a joint planning group of officers from the Department of Health and NICE are to consider whether assessment should go forward. I ask myself, therefore, exactly what it takes for something to get on the list for appraisal and to be included in the programme of work, given such a body of evidence. I am still waiting for confirmation that that particular treatment will be considered in the ninth wave of NICE's work. I have written to the Minister and ask her again today to give assurances that that will happen.
As well as issues about how something is selected, there are questions about what happens after the reviews are done. The reviews of reviews are taking place at present, in that the WHO is examining the way in which NICE does its work, and NICE is re-evaluating its own appraisal processes, but there are questions about what happens after reviews are done.
Let me give some examples. I am particularly concerned about the speed at which the process works. The first example is the one that I have already given of EPO. If it were to be included in the next programme of work, the evaluation would start later this year. The evaluation—approval, recommendations, promulgation and so on—would take 12 months. By the time funding was in place in the health service, it would be 2005. The process takes that long. Ten years after a product is licensed for use, it gets NICE approval and, possibly, funding.
I try to imagine what would happen if tomorrow I came up with a bright idea and a cure for the common cold. If it were referred to the evaluation process, it would be at least two years before it was applied in the national health service. The general public would think that bizarre.

239WH
What happens if a product goes through the process and is approved? I am happy about the confirmation that, within three months of approval, funding should be made available by the commissioning authority, whether it is a local health board in Wales or a primary care trust in England.
However, there are exceptions. One of the latest reports deals with insulin pumps. It took two years for that treatment to be selected. It then took a year for it to go through the process that I have just described. Within three months it should have come into application, but it has not. Implementation has been delayed because of problems with acquiring the technology and with training people to use it properly. There are post-appraisal effects that require serious examination.
There are other effects. For example, the Government are laying themselves open to charges of anti-competitive practices. If the reverse of the situation that I described earlier occurs and EPO is approved and gets funding, the truth of the matter is that it gets funding over and above something else. The Government know that they need to be careful in that area. There are classes of things that are already approved. I want to know how something being approved, or not being approved, fits with articles 81 and 82 of the EC treaty and the Competition Act 1998.
We need a process that allows a review of classes of treatment, because technology is moving so quickly that even though we can protect ourselves against a charge now, within months we are open to that charge again. There needs to be an interim guidance process, because there will be a sound clinical and evidential base for those things to happen.
I understand that the whole point about NICE is that it provides a clear, well-established evidential base to make changes, and I support that, but we are talking about incremental change over time. We need a process to deal with the interim period and re-evaluations. With peer reviews, licensing and so on, there would be enough evidence to provide processes by which an interim guidance procedure could be introduced. Otherwise, the Department opens itself up to charges of being anti-competitive, as well as of not necessarily keeping pace with the best developments for patients. I want to know whether there is any thought of issuing that sort of guidance and, if not, why it cannot be issued.
On change, we are talking about ways of deciding what is the best thing to do, and about doing away with the old processes and introducing better, new processes. NICE is, first of all, about making consolidated incremental change. However, we need ways of dealing with step change. I have made that point time and again in relation to other areas. Without that, we lack consistency of application.
I want to comment on postcode prescribing, because the issue is even more extended than that. As a Member of Parliament from Wales, I want to consider the devolved environment. Although NICE covers England and Wales, Wales has the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group and Scotland has the Scottish Medicines Consortium. Those bodies do similar things to NICE, but they can do assessments within three months. The disparity in the speed of application in different parts of the United Kingdom needs to be considered.
240WH
The Select Committee rightly dealt with the idea that quality of life should take precedence, or have a high priority, in all the assessments. Everything that I have said until now tends to suggest a technical view of the world as a place that is evidentially based in terms of technology, regimes and epidemiological studies, but, within that, there is another aspect: the quality of people's lives. if we are to do something about that, we need to do things better and quicker.
To do that, NICE needs more resources. It is all very well for me to claim that it should do things more quickly, and to a better standard, but the reverse of that point is to ask what resources it has to do that. What, if any, additional funding and resources will be given to NICE to appraise more treatments more quickly?
I have covered three areas. I would like confirmation that EPO is being referred to NICE for appraisal. I would like some understanding that interim guidance could be introduced to keep pace with technological change and avoid restrictive practices, and I would like to know that additional resources are to be given to NICE to allow it to appraise more treatments more quickly.
4.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) on securing the debate and on his interest in a subject that I know he has pursued vigorously for some time. When we came to office in 1997, we inherited a national health service with an absence of national standards. There was no means of spreading good practice or of eliminating bad practice. There was no process for developing national guidance on the use of new treatments, and no independent inspection of local services. The health service was starved of the investment that it needed to meet the legitimate expectations of patients.
Since coming to power, we have established a clear national framework within which local NHS services can operate. We have developed new national standards for cancer, mental health, care of the elderly and coronary heart disease, and others are in the process of being developed. We have introduced a new duty of quality, and a new system of clinical governance to drive up standards of care across the NHS.
Central to our modernisation programme is the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which we established to give clear national guidance on the use of drugs and other treatments. Its work reaches into all aspects of the NHS, from wider judgments on whether a new treatment is both clinically and cost effective, to assessments of what care is best for individual patients.
My hon. Friend recognises that NICE forms part of our plan to give us a world-class health service. I am grateful for his supportive comments. NICE was established in February 1999. As my hon. Friend said, it has a clear range of objectives. He supports the way in which it works for common standards, the fact that it seeks to promote a faster uptake of treatments, and the fact that it wants to ensure that resources are used more effectively by focusing on the treatments that work best for patients.
My hon. Friend has done much research on the Erythropoetia treatment that concerns him, and I understand the benefits that he believes cancer patients

241WH
will receive. I also recognise the knock-on effects on the future supply of blood, and for the NHS more generally through the potential saving in bed days that he described. He made a strong case, but that is only side of the argument. Some argue that EPO may be useful in only a minority of cancer cases and that it is simply not effective enough to be used as a standard treatment in the majority of cases. Some would further argue that the savings in bed days might not be quite as high as estimates suggest, because cancer patients need to be seen in hospital regularly, and blood transfusions may be one of several procedures required in a single visit. The beds will be needed not only for transfusion. The cost of treatment with EPO is likely to be more than the cost of the blood used in transfusions.
I do not want to get involved in those arguments today, however, because I am neutral on the matter. We have said that it is for NICE to consider it, and NICE is the most appropriate forum to consider the use of EPO versus blood transfusions. NICE has the responsibility and, most importantly, the expertise to consider the wealth of evidence collected by my hon. Friend, and it can provide independent and authoritative advice.
Mr. Havard: My question is whether consideration of EPO will be part of the ninth wave of NICE. I do not contest that it is the appropriate body to examine such incremental changes.
Miss Johnson: I shall come to that point next, as my hon. Friend has raised it. Work on developing the ninth wave of NICE's work programme is complete. Ministers are considering the items to be included in that wave, and an announcement will be made shortly. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to make that announcement today. The remit, or terms of reference for each study, is made public when the ninth wave goes out for consultation, as happens with each wave. When NICE receives its work programme, it determines the timing of topics within each wave, taking account of such issues as the licensing of important new drugs and clinical need. Again, I believe that my hon. Friend comes from the same position as I do on this, in that he argues strongly that NICE is the right mechanism for determining such matters.
NICE determines who should be consulted during the study and draws up a list of stakeholders. My hon. Friend supported the arrangements for engaging and participating with patients and other key stakeholders as part of the work that is done. NICE carries out as part of its work an investigation of both the clinical effectiveness and the cost effectiveness of particular drugs and treatments. My hon. Friend will therefore have to await announcements in the fullness of time to learn what is included in the ninth wave.
We have made drugs that treat cancer a priority. My hon. Friend mentioned the postcode lottery for chemotherapy drugs, which we are concerned about. By implementing NICE appraisals on chemotherapy drugs for ovarian, brain, pancreatic, lung and breast cancers, as well as leukaemia and lymphoma, we are tackling the problem of the postcode prescribing lottery that he mentioned. Some 31,000 patients a year are eligible to
242WH
benefit from those drugs; EPO, which is primarily a therapeutic drug is currently being considered for referral, as he knows. I agree that quality of life is also important in such circumstances, although treatment for cancer is clearly a high priority, and sometimes such things will have to be weighed against each other.
On NICE's capacity, we obviously cannot send everything to the institute at once. NICE is already considering a growing number of cancer technologies. The rate of innovation in cancer research means that there are always many topics for potential referral. That is a good thing in many ways, although it obviously has its downside. It would not be right to fast-track EPO, a primarily therapeutic drug, ahead of drugs that treat and potentially cure patients. We must decide where and when NICE can best add value. EPO must go through the normal channels, but I am optimistic that it will be referred to NICE.
In response to my hon. Friend's questions about competition, I should say that there are no competition issues to address in that context. He mentioned three months, which is sufficient for the majority of NICE's guidance. The NHS should gear up to establish robust arrangements, if it has not already done so, to release funds when required. In any event, we are prepared to issue bespoke directions if, following consultation, NICE advises that implementation over a longer period is desirable. Such matters will always be watched over carefully, and it is appropriate that they should be, because they are matters on which both patients and clinicians have a keen interest. It is therefore appropriate that there will be ongoing discussions and consideration of how well the arrangements are working. However, we have certainly put in place arrangements to make such things work as well as they can.
As I understand the matter, there are no plans to extend the funding of NICE beyond current plans. My hon. Friend will understand that it is resourced to do the job, and that there will always be a balancing act between the resources we direct to any such special health authority and the money that is spent directly on patients. We set up NICE to tackle postcode prescribing and inequality, and it is central to our plans to modernise the NHS and drive up standards. NICE has issued 41 guidelines and 44 technical appraisals, which are in simultaneous preparation, making it the largest programme in any country. That is an impressive record. In the first four years, NICE published 62 appraisals, which gave advice on pharmaceuticals, surgical procedures, diagnostics and medical devices.
I understand my hon. Friend's interest in the subject, which he has pursued with his usual vigour. From what he said today, I am sure that he will await the announcement of the ninth wave with great interest. I hope that what I have said recognises sufficiently the interest that he has shown in the matter, and the way in which he has advanced his case and brought to our attention evidence about the issues surrounding the therapeutic treatment in question. We place our faith in NICE to deal with such matters through appropriate processes, which I am sure my hon. Friend fully supports.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Four o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Intruders (Government Buildings)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether his Department monitors the number of false alarms by intruder alarms in buildings which it occupies on the Government Estate. [124155]

  Mr. Alexander
  A record of all alarm activations, whether true or false, is made by my Department where we are responsible for the security provision of a building.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department proposes to arrest the spread of bovine tuberculosis; and if she will make a statement. [123394]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra is working hard to arrest the spread of bovine TB. We are spending £35 to £40 million a year on a programme of public health protection measures, cattle testing, cattle controls and extensive research.

  Last autumn we introduced a package of measures in response to industry calls, aimed at helping farmers under TB restriction and improving the diagnosis of the disease.

  In February we announced a review of the current TB Strategy. This will form an integral part of Defra's Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. Discussions with stakeholders have begun and public consultation is expected in the autumn.

  Discussions with stakeholders are also under way on a series of short-term policy options. These focus on cattle controls and improving the delivery of the TB programme. We will consult on these proposals later this year.

  Climate Change
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government has taken to tackle climate change and improve air quality. [124198]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Climate Change Programme, published in 2000, sets out the policy framework for delivering the UK's Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below base year levels by 2008–12 and to move towards the domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.
  670W
  Policies in the Climate Change Programme include the following:
  the Climate Change Levy, which applies to energy used in the business and public sectors, is helping to fund measures to promote better energy efficiency in business and the public sector;
  Climate Change Agreements which allow energy intensive business users to receive 80 per cent. discount from the Climate Change Levy, in return for meeting challenging energy efficiency or carbon saving targets;
  the Carbon Trust, which is recycling about £100 million of climate change levy receipts to boost the take-up of cost-effective, low-carbon technologies;
  a UK-wide Emissions Trading Scheme, with Government support of £215 million over five years;
  targets to provide 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2010;
  the Energy Efficiency Commitment, which requires electricity and gas suppliers to help domestic customers to save energy and cut fuel bills;
  European Union voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency by at least 25 per cent., backed up by changes to vehicle excise duty and company car taxation, and the 10 Year Plan for Transport.

  Data for emissions of the basket of six greenhouse gases for 2001, submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in April 2003, show that emissions fell by 12.3 per cent. between the base year and 2001. Emissions of carbon dioxide for 2002 are provisionally estimated at 8 to 9 per cent. below 1990 levels.

  Latest projections suggest we are well on course to meet our Kyoto commitment, a conclusion that is also supported by a recent independent assessment by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

  The Government's policies on improving air quality are set out in detail in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, published in January 2000. The Strategy explains the measures that are in place to reduce emissions of harmful pollutants from all sectors, including road transport and industry. Copies are available via the Department's website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality.

  Air quality in urban areas has improved significantly over the last decade, as a result largely of the progressively tighter European Union standards for new vehicles and fuels, and of the continuing reduction in total emissions from industry. The air quality headline indicator, published annually, shows that the average number of days of moderate or poor air quality in urban areas of the UK has reduced from 59 days in 1993 to 20 days in 2002 and, in rural areas, from 50 days in 1990 to 30 days in 2002.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether all internal reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy will be reflected in EU commitments at the forthcoming WTO trade round negotiations in Cancun. [123268]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The internal reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy provide a good basis for a successful outcome to the negotiations at Cancun. We want the
  671W
  EU to make full use of the opportunity which the reforms provide, but it will also be necessary for other WTO members to demonstrate their own commitment to a successful outcome.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was sufficient and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority. [117207]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department does not hold information in the form requested in parts(a) and (b) prior to 1999. The information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  On no occasion since 1999 was the vote by this Department or its predecessors against a legislative proposal sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority.

  On three occasions since 1999 the vote against a legislative proposal by this Department and its predecessors was not sufficient to achieve with other Member States a blocking minority.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [117268]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department does not hold information in the form requested prior to 1999. The information is not held centrally or electronically and could only be assembled at disproportionate cost.

  On no occasion since 1999 has this Department or its predecessors indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention.

  Countryside Protection
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government has taken to protect Britain's countryside and natural resources. [124200]

  Alun Michael
  Details of the action we took during 2002–03 and our aims for 2003–04 are set out in Defra's most recent annual report, copies of which are in the Library. The report is also available on Defra's website at http://defraweb/corporate/deprep/default.htm.

  Dog and Cat Fur Trade
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 19 May concerning the early day motion calling for a ban on trade in cat and dog fur. [124268]

  Alun Michael
  A letter was sent to the hon. Member on 30 May stating that as this matter was for the Department of Trade and Industry his letter had been transferred from Defra to the DTI for reply.

  Exotic Imports
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many licences for importing exotic(a) birds, (b) reptiles,(c) mammals, (d) amphibians and (e) fish for the pet trade have been given during the last three years, broken down by (i) month and (ii) species; and if she will make a statement. [122646]

  Mr. Morley
  The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species makes it a requirement on an importer to obtain a licence for certain species which are listed on the Appendices to the Convention. They are not defined as 'exotic' as such, but are listed on the appendices according to their conservation status.

  Our records, which are kept on an annual not monthly basis, show the numbers of species imported for commercial purposes—these are not necessarily exclusive to the pet trade. The following table shows the number of licences issued in each of the last three years by taxonomic category.

  Birds

  Reptitles

  Mammals

  Amphibians

  Fish

  2000

  298

  199

  13

  10

  21

  2001

  469

  202

  31

  8

  22

  2002

  758

  234

  1

  9

  12

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has(a) commissioned, (b) undertaken, (c)reviewed, (d) completed, (e) published or received and (f) ensured the appropriate peer review of in respect of the impact of genetically modified foods consumed by humans upon their health in the last five years. [122492]

  Mr. Morley
  Policy responsibility for the safety of genetically modified foods lies with the Food Standards Agency. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health on 3 July 2003,Official Report, column 483W.

  Pig Farmers
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that pig farmers comply with Paragraph 4 of the Annex to Council Directive 91/630/EEC (as amended) to ensure that pigs are provided with straw or a similar natural material, rather than objects such as footballs and chains; and if she will make a statement. [119497]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have fully implemented the provision on environmental enrichment from Commission Directive 2001/93/EC in the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which came into force on 14 February.

  The Directive gives examples of materials suitable for environmental enrichment, rather than a prescriptive list. In terms of enrichment, the choice of material is

  673W
  secondary to whether it achieves the aim of enabling the pig to satisfy its need to manipulate and to investigate and thus help to reduce aggressive behaviour. Our new pig welfare code, which provides guidance on the Regulations, stresses that straw is an excellent material, but also gives advice to those farmers where straw is not a practical solution. Objects such as chains or footballs can only be used in conjunction with other manipulable materials or when changed on a weekly basis. When tail biting occurs the code requires that a full investigation is made and also recommends that the provision of environmental enrichment is reviewed and an action plan developed which should be incorporated into the farm animal health and welfare plan. This plan should in any case be revised annually by the farmer and his veterinary surgeon or other advisers.

  It is the welfare of the pig that matters. If it is found that the material used does not allow the pigs to investigate and manipulate and the pigs are tail biting, then the farmer will need to find an alternative material.

  Rights of Way
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding was made available by her Department in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 (i) directly and (ii) via local budgets for work to improve public rights of way. [124324]

  Alun Michael
  The allocation for rights of way improvement is subsumed in the unhypothecated Environment Protection and Cultural Services block, a methodology that was agreed between the Government and the Local Government Association as is supported by all four political groups in the Association rather than through direct grants or ring-fenced support to local government. So we cannot say exactly how much funding has gone to local authorities to improve the rights of way network. I confirmed with the leaders of all four groups on the LGA their agreement that this was the right approach for this funding.

PRIME MINISTER

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the foreign visits he has made since 1 April; what the dates were; whom he met; what the cost to public funds was of each; and what gifts were received on each. [124355]

  The Prime Minister
  A list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 costing more than £500 will be published in the normal way before the House rises. The information requested concerning the Prime Minister's travel since 1 April 2003 will be published at the end of the current financial year.

  For gifts, I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on 12 May 2003, Official Report, column 88W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Fires
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated cost of fires in schools was to local education authorities in each of the last three years. [123315]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect these figures.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [117267]

  Alan Johnson
  We are unable to provide statistics on the details of the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers for the period before 1999 as this information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Since January 1999, there have been no occasions where the Department has indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention.

  Departmental Employment Costs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost of an employee working in his Department has been in each year since 1997. [119434]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The average cost of an employee in my Department based on mean basic pay, superannuation and employer's national insurance contributions since 1997 is given in the following table:

  £

  2002–03

  30,600

  2001–02

  29,000

  2000–01

  26,800

  1999–2000

  25,900

  1998–99

  25,400

  1997–98

  24,700

  1996–97

  23,900

  For the period 1996–97 to 2000–01 (the period for which comparisons are available), this shows a 12 per cent. increase in average cost for the Department. This compares to a 21 per cent. increase in average salary for the labour market as a whole over the period and a 19 per cent. increase in average salary for teachers in London over the same period.

  EU Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by the Department over each of the last five years. [120851]

  Alan Johnson
  Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states, without the need for implementation in national law.
  675W
  As far as we have been able to verify, the Department for Education and Skills has had no regulation for implementation over the last five years.

  Graduate Teachers
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of graduates on primary school PGCE courses in 2002–03 have secured full-time permanent employment; and how many full-time vacancies for qualified teachers there are. [123400]

  Mr. Miliband
  Figures on the destinations of teachers who are due to complete Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) courses in 2002/03 are not yet available. The most recent data available show that of those who completed primary PGCEs in the 1999/2000 academic year, around 80 per cent. were in any service in England in March 2001.

  The total number of vacancies in maintained nursery and primary schools in England fell from 1,800 in January 2002 (a vacancy rate of 1 per cent.) to 1,100 in January 2003 (a vacancy rate of 0.6percent.).

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of graduates on primary school PGCE courses in 2002–03 have secured full time permanent employment; and how many full time vacancies for qualified teachers there are in Chesham and Amersham. [123919]

  Mr. Miliband
  Figures on the destinations of teachers who are due to complete Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) courses in 2002–03 are not yet available. The most recent data available is for those who completed primary PGCE courses in calendar year 2000 where around 80 per cent were in service in England in any sector as at March 2001.

  Vacancy information is not available at constituency level. The most recent vacancy data available for Buckinghamshire LEA is for January 2002, which show that there were 53 vacancies in the maintained schools sector (a vacancy rate of 1.6 per cent).

  The total number of vacancies in the maintained schools sector in England fell from 4,540 in January 2002 (a vacancy rate of 1.2 per cent) to 3,400 in January 2003 (a vacancy rate of 0.9 per cent).

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to assess the(a) compliance costs and (b) regulatory impact of the White Paper, "The Future of Higher Education" on higher education institutions; and if he will (i) publish such assessments and (ii) subject them to external audit. [123429]

  Alan Johnson
  Officials in my Department are currently developing a Regulatory Impact Assessment, which will consider the compliance costs and the impact of the proposals in the higher education White Paper on higher education institutions.

  The Regulatory Impact Assessment will be published on our website in the summer.
  676W
  From this year the National Audit Office has a new role in independently evaluating a selection of RIAs, focusing on the quality of analysis, and the thoroughness with which it has been undertaken. The NAO's findings and recommendations of best practice will be fed back to Departments.

  Medical Schools
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding was received by each medical school in each year since 1997. [124077]

  Alan Johnson
  With the exception of St. George's hospital medical school, which is funded directly by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), medical schools form part of larger institutions. The majority of the funding the HEFCE pays to institutions is given as a block grant and it is for individual institutions to decide how much funding to pass on to each of its academic departments, including medical schools. There are therefore no figures held centrally about the funding for medical schools, other than St. George's.

  The total recurrent funding for teaching and research paid by the HEFCE to St. George's hospital medical school is shown in the following table.

  St. George's hospital medical school

  £ million

  1997–98

  10.2

  1998–99

  11.4

  1999–2000

  11.6

  2000–01

  12.2

  2001–02

  13.5

  2002–03

  14.8

  2003–04

  16.2

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact on medical schools of the allocation of funding for places according to(a) the location of applicants' schools and (b) the achievement of three Cs or less at 'A' level; how many such applicants have been admitted to medical school; and how much funding has been distributed to medical schools on this basis. [124078]

  Alan Johnson
  For 2003/04, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has allocated £265 million to higher education institutions in their block grants to recognise the additional costs of recruiting and supporting students from disadvantaged or non-traditional backgrounds. There are around 4,300 medical students who attract additional funding because they come from low-participation areas, and around 2,900 who attract additional funding either because they are mature students or because their pre-entry qualifications are lower than the equivalent of three Cs at 'A' Level.

  Details of how much of this funding has been spent by institutions on their medical schools is not held

  677W
  centrally, except for St. George's hospital medical school, which will receive £126,704 from the widening access and improving retention pot in 2003/04.

  Millennium Volunteer Projects
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding for Millennium Volunteer projects was allocated to Chesham and Amersham in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04; and how much funding he proposes to allocate to Chesham and Amersham in 2004–05. [123917]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The amount of funding allocated for Millennium Volunteers activity in Chesham and Amersham is not collected. However, funding provided to Wycombe and surrounding areas in 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 is provided as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  92,000

  97,000

  97,500

  The funding which is to be allocated to each region in 2004–05 will not be finalised until September to allow local discussions on budget allocations and final agreement of the funding formula. When this has been agreed I will arrange for the information to be provided in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he has issued regarding the distribution of funding for Millennium Volunteer projects in Chesham and Amersham. [123918]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The funding which is to be allocated for 2004–05 and 2005–06 to each region will be finalised in September 2003. Government Offices for the Regions will be able to take decisions on how funding for local Millennium Volunteers activity in 2004–05 and 2005–06 is to be distributed within their regions. These decisions will take account of regional needs and will be informed by local discussions with key partners as well as the outcomes of a review of the formula which will determine the allocation of funds to each region. In making their decisions in late Autumn, Government Offices will take into account existing provision, the needs of young people, particularly those at risk, and the coverage across their region.

  £ millions

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Primary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 2 tests

  0.35

  0.57

  0.31

  0.39

  0.99

  Secondary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 3 tests

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Secondary school performance tables of achievements in GCSE examinations and vocational qualifications

  1.19

  1.12

  1.06

  0.8

  0.98

  School and college performance tables of achievements in A/AS examinations and vocational qualifications

  Pilot tables testing the calculation and presentation of a Key Stage 2-GCSE/GNVQ value added measure

  N/A

  0.2

  N/A

  0.19

  0.28

  Pilot tables testing the reporting of achievements in all approved qualifications at age 16

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  N/A

  Notes:

  1. The figures shown above are programme costs and do not include departmental staff costs.

  2. There were no secondary school performance tables of achievements in key stage tests published between 1997 and 2001.

  3. The tables testing the reporting of achievements in all approved qualifications at age 16 will be piloted for the first time in 2003.

  National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students have accepted places at the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth this summer; what the budget is of this programme for 2003; and how much of this budget has come from(a) Government funding, (b) Warwick University, (c) business and (d) donations. [123508]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: As of 3 July 2003, 1,490 students had joined the Academy, and 515 of those had been accepted for summer schools. The total budget for the Academy in the current financial year is not yet finalised, in part because the total cost of the 2003 summer schools will depend on the number of participants. The cost for 515 students is £839,000, including£656,000 direct Government funding, £25,000 from the University of Warwick and £35,000 from business donations. The balance is from parents, local education authorities and schools.

  Ofsted Inspections
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Chesham and Amersham have undergone an Ofsted inspection within the last 12months. [123920]

  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.

  Performance Tables
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was of producing and publishing the(a) primary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 2 tests, (b) secondary school performance tables of achievements in Key Stage 3 tests, (c) secondary school performance tables of achievements in GCSE examinations and vocational qualifications, (d) school and college performance tables of achievements in A/AS examinations and vocational qualifications, (e) pilot tables testing the calculation and presentation of a Key Stage 2-GCSE/GNVQ value added measure and (f) pilot tables testing the reporting of achievements in all approved qualifications at age 16 in each year from 1997 to 2001. [123507]

  Mr. Miliband
  The cost of producing the school and college performance tables in each year from 1997 to 2001 is as follows:
  679W
  4. The secondary school performance tables of achievements in GCSE examinations and vocational qualifications and the school and college performance tables of achievements in A/AS examination and vocational qualifications are managed as one exercise so there are no separate costings.

  5. Figures for 1997 do not include key state 2 data collection costs as QCA commenced operations on 1 October 1997 and figures relating to QCA's predecessor (SCAA) are unavailable.

  6. Figures for 1999 and 2000 do not include key stage 2 collection costs as QCA underwent a change in their accounting system and these detailed figures are not available.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 23 June 2003,Official Report, columns 550–52W, on school budgets, what budget each school originally set. [122623]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department does not collect this information from schools or local education authorities. Details of what each school originally budgeted should be available from the Southend-on-Sea LEA.

  School Funding
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the funding available per pupil to schools in (a) North East Lincolnshire and (b) the South East of England from
  (i) central and (ii) local government.—[120064]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  £

  Total funding per pupil

  Total funding per pupil (inc pensions transfer)

  (i) Funding from central government 2003–04

  North East Lincolnshire

  3,560

  3,630

  South East with London Government Office Regions

  3,990

  4,070

  ( ii) Funding from local government 2003–04

  NE Lincolnshire

  3,980

  —

  South East with London Government Office Regions

  4,400

  —

  Notes to funding from central government:

  1. Figures reflect education SSA/EFS settlement (all sub-blocks) plus revenue grants in DfES departmental Expenditure Limits relevant to EFS pupils aged 3–19.

  2. Figures exclude EMAs and grants not allocated at LEA level. They also exclude pensions transfer to EFS and LSC for 2003–04 unless otherwise indicated.

  3. The pupil numbers used are those underlying the SSA/EFS settlement calculations plus PLASC 3-year-old FTE maintained pupils and estimated 3–4 year old pupils funded through state support in maintained and other educational institutions where these are not included in the SSA pupil numbers.

  4. 2003–04 figures are forecasts. Figures are in cash terms and rounded to the nearest 10.

  5. Pupil numbers have not been calculated on the same basis as those in the local government table, and therefore the unit funding is not directly comparable.

  Notes to funding from local government:

  1. LEA Budget Figures are provided gross of all income (whether DfES grant, grants from other sources, or other income).

  2. Figures provided are from the 'Total Education Revenue Expenditure' line of LEAs section 52 budget statements table 1, as submitted by the LEA (Line 4 in 1999–2000, Line 5 for 2000–01 to 2002–03 and Line 3 for 2003–04).

  3. Pupil Numbers for 03–04 are maintained pupils from January 03 ASC and are provisional.

  4. Pupil numbers have not been calculated on the same basis as those in the central government list above, and therefore the unit funding is not directly comparable.

  5. Figures are as reported by the LEAs as at 30 June 2003.

  School Rolls
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received on the obligation of community schools to admit up to their published admission number if they have sufficient applications on a set date. [124135]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: None. Admission authorities have a statutory duty to comply with parental preference, and if applications are made for available places, they should admit pupils up to the school's published admission number. The local education authority is normally the admission authority for community schools. They should not reserve places, for example, in the expectation that there may be later applications from families moving into the catchment area.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether community schools may reserve places at the beginning of an academic year for pupils who move into the defined catchment area after the cut off date for admissions, but before the start of the academic year. [124136]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: The School Admissions Code of Practice published in January 2003 specifically advises against reserving places in the expectation that there may be later applications from families moving into the catchment area.

  The Rotherham judgment in 1997 clarified that local education authorities—who decide on admissions to community schools—must not allocate places at their schools to local catchment area parents who have not expressed a preference, over parents living outside the catchment area who have expressed a preference. School places must be allocated to parents who have expressed a preference for them by the application deadline, until all preferences are met or (if the school is oversubscribed) the published admission number is reached.

  SCOLA System-built Schools
  Mr, Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he will take to ensure that local authorities with significant numbers of SCOLA system-built schools retain sufficient capital allocations to maintain their fabric and improve facilities under his new proposals. [123345]

  Mr.. Miliband
  Overall capital funding to schools and local education authorities in England has increased from less than £700 million in 1996–97 to £3.8 billion in 2003–04. This will increase further to more than £5 billion in 2005–06. The bulk of this funding is allocated by formula, based partly on need identified in local asset management plans (AMPs), and it is for
  681W
  authorities and schools to deploy this funding in line with locally agreed priorities identified in the AMP, including the replacement of system buildings.

  Skills Training
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action the Government have taken to improve skills in the UK through better education for young people and greater training opportunities for those in the workforce. [124215]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government have introduced many improvements in recent years to raise the levels of skills in the workforce, including: major school reforms; the expansion of modern apprenticeships; and new initiatives such as Learndirect's network of learning centres, Skills for Life and the Union Learning Fund. On 9 July 2003 we will be publishing a groundbreaking Skills Strategy, which outlines how these developments and other new ones will be used to bring about the further transformation in skills the country needs in order to support a productive, modern economy.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of the workforce in the UK have at least level 2 skills; and how many adults lack basic literacy and numeracy skills. [124217]

  Alan Johnson
  The Labour Force Survey in autumn 2002 showed that 70.9 per cent. of the workforce in the UK were qualified to at least level 2.

  The International Adult Literacy Survey in 1996 estimated that in Great Britain1 there were 7.9 million adults aged 16–65 who lacked basic literacy skills (below level 1), equivalent to 22 per cent. of the population aged 16–65. The survey also showed that 18.6 million adults lacked basic numeracy skills (below level 1), equivalent to 51 per cent. of the population aged 16–65.
  1 IALS data is not available for the UK

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 555W, on specialist schools, if he will list average point scores for each of the four specialisations. [124171]

  Mr. Miliband
  The 2002 results, for those schools which were operational specialist schools1 as at September 2001, are shown in the following table.

  2002 average capped GCSE/GNVQ point score

  Arts Colleges

  34.2

  Language Colleges

  39.1

  Sports Colleges

  33.7

  Technology Colleges

  36.2

  1 Special schools are excluded from these figures.

  Student Drop-Outs
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in the UK dropped out of university during the academic year 2002/03. [122010]
  682W
  Alan Johnson
  The available information on non-completion rates is published annually by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education". The latest figures show that the overall non-completion rate for students starting full-time first degree courses in the UK in 1999/2000 is 17 per cent., which represents around 49,000 students.

  Figures published in 2002 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that the UK as a whole has one of the lowest non-completion rates among OECD countries.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students paying tuition fees in higher education institutions in England and Wales are resident in Scotland. [122294]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest data shows that, of the 368,100 UK domiciled students on full-time first degree courses in England and Wales in 2001/02 who were paying some or all of their tuition fees, 3,100 had recorded their normal place of residence as Scotland.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether part-time students studying for their first level 4 qualification will have their fees deferred after 2005–06; and what estimate he has made of the cost of his support for part-time students. [122560]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on our plans for improving the financial support offered to part-time students on 14 April! 2003, Official Report, column 563W.

  Teacher Vacancies (Somerset)
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacancies there are for(a) primary and (b) secondary school teachers in the Somerset LEA. [123581]

  Mr. Miliband
  There were two vacancies in maintained nursery and primary schools and eight in maintained secondary schools for full-time qualified teachers in Somerset LEA at January 2002. These are the most recent figures available at local authority level.

  Provisional regional and national figures for January 2003 were published in statistical first release 10/2003 in April 2003. The total number of vacancies in maintained nursery and primary schools in the South West Government Office Region fell from 60 at January 2002 (a vacancy rate of 0.4 per cent., compared to a national average of 1 per cent.) to 40 at January 2003 (a vacancy rate of 0.3 per cent., compared to a national average of 0.6 per cent.). The total number of vacancies in maintained secondary schools in the south-west fell from 100 in January 2002 (a vacancy rate of 0.5 per cent., compared to a national average of 1.3 per cent.) to 70 in January 2003 (a vacancy rate of 0.4 per cent., compared to a national average of 1.1 per cent.).

  Teachers? Pay
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what level of additional funding pressures his Department has identified due to the shortening of the teachers' pay spine. [118126]

  Mr. Miliband
  Shortening the classroom teachers' main scale is estimated to have accounted for 0.4 per cent. of the overall teachers' paybill in England and Wales for 2002–03. It is estimated to account for 0.6 per cent. in 2003–04, was factored in when calculations resources schools needed.

  University Bursaries
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Department's estimate is of the income from bursaries that he has calculated with his proposals for university income after 2005/06. [123068]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: Universities will submit their plans for bursaries and other financial support as part of their access agreement, which the Office for Fair Access must approve in order for them to be able to charge higher fees from 2006.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Consultation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received(a) for and (b) against the Cliffe airport option as part of the consultation on the future development of air transport in the south-east. [123632]

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses to "The Future of Air Transport in the UK: Midlands'', the Department received(a) in total and (b) during the extended period of consultation, broken down by region. [124269]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not available as we do not, as yet, have numbers of responses broken down by consultation option.

  Many thousands of responses, questionnaires and petitions have been received. We are analysing these carefully. As soon as possible after completing the analysis, we shall set out our decisions in the air transport White Paper.

  In due course all responses will be made available for public inspection, unless consultees have explicitly requested confidentiality.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances he will consider representations on the future of airport capacity in the south-east after the consultation deadline of 30 June 2003. [123633]

  Mr. McNulty
  We will consider all communications posted to the freepost consultation address and received by 4 July 2003 as responses to "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation". During the analysis of the 684W
  thousands of responses received we may wish to approach stakeholders to clarify points in their submissions or to explore issues further.

  British Midland (London-Belfast)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to increase the number of slots for British Midland between London and Belfast. [124469]

  Mr. McNulty
  It is not Government policy to intervene in airlines' commercial decisions with regard to the flight frequencies operated on routes.

  Departmental Policies (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the impact on the Battersea constituency of his Department's transport policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [123671]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government created the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) to give a strategic overview of transport in London. The Mayor and TfL are responsible for improvements to services within their control.

  Government funding for transport in London has risen substantially under the 10 Year Plan for transport. For 2003–04 to 2005–06, funding for TfL is some £3.455 billion—averaging £1.15 billion per year, a 50 per cent. increase on the 2001–02 allocation and double the equivalent figure for 2000–01.

  Bus patronage across London has grown by 13 per cent. over the past two years, with demand at its highest level since the 1970's. Between January and March this year, London buses travelled over 103 million kilometres—an 11 per cent. increase on the equivalent period last year.

  Like all Londoners, the constituents of Battersea will benefit from the massive investment under the Tube PPP—£16 billion over 15 years.

  On the railways, the new five-year South Central franchise, operated by Govia, commenced on 25 April 2003. It will deliver over £1 billion of improvements to the busy commuter routes between London and Surrey, Sussex and the south coast, including investment in new rolling stock and improvements in performance.

  EWS
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the level of compensation required by Network Rail to reimburse EWS for the loss of contract after March 2004; [R] [123768]

  (2) what impact the payment of compensation to EWS will have on (a) the Strategic Rail Authority's budget and (b) the Ten Year Transport Plan for rail and road targets; [R] [123769]

  (3) how the move from rail to road by Royal Mail deliveries will affect the targets in the Ten Year Transport Plan; and if he will make a statement; [R] [123770]
  685W
  (4) when he was first informed that the Royal Mail would be terminating their contract for deliveries of mail by rail by EWS from April 2004; and what estimate he has made of the impact of transferring the delivery of mail from road to rail on (a) the number of road miles driven, (b) the length of journey times required and (c) the number of lorry journeys made; [R] [123771]

  (5) what representations he has received on the delivering of Royal Mail post by road rather than rail after March 2004; and what estimate he has made of the likely impact of switching Royal Mail deliveries from rail to road. [123821]

  Mr. McNulty
  The terms of English Welsh and Scottish Railway's contracts with Royal Mail and Network Rail respectively are a matter for the companies involved. The Department for Transport was informed of Royal Mail's decision to withdraw from its contract with EWS shortly before its announcement. We have subsequently received a number of representations about the decision.

  It is the Government's policy to promote a competitive and efficient distribution industry that supports economic growth while bringing benefits to society and the environment. Mail represents only a small part of total freight moved by rail. Royal Mail says that its new distribution strategy will reduce the total mileage covered by its road fleet and use around 2,000 fewer road vehicles.

  The Strategic Rail Authority published its "Freight Progress Report" in May 2003, explaining achievements to date in facilitating more freight by rail and its plans for achieving the growth envisaged by the Government's Ten Year Plan for Transport. A copy of the report is in the Libraries of the House.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect on greenhouse gas emissions of predicted growth in air traffic; and if he will make a statement. [123675]

  Mr. McNulty
  Detailed information on aviation's environmental impact, with particular reference to greenhouse gas emissions, is contained in the joint Department for Transport/HM Treasury discussion document, "Aviation and the Environment: Using Economic Instruments", published on 14 March 2003.

  High-speed Rail Network
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timetable for the UK high speed rail network. [123284]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority is considering how to take this matter forward and will make a statement in due course.

  Hybrid Vehicles
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to expand the scheme of assistance available to purchasers of electric-petrol hybrid vehicles to include those leasing such vehicles. [123584]
  686W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government recognise that hybrid vehicles can provide useful environmental benefits over conventionally powered vehicles and that hybrid technology may provide a bridge between internal combustion engines and fuel cells.

  The Government support the take-up of hybrid vehicles with PowerShift purchase grants of £1,000. These grants are already available to support the purchase of hybrid vehicles for leasing, as well as to private motorists and business buying for their own use.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what emission savings he estimates have been achieved through supporting the take-up of liquefied petroleum gas vehicles; and what the cost per tonne of carbon saved from the Government's support of LPG has been. [123350]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Just under 12,000 LPG vehicles have received grant support totalling some £13 million under the Government's PowerShift programme since its inception in 1997.

  These vehicles will deliver lifetime savings of around 111,000 tonnes of CO2, 760 tonnes of NOx and 10 tonnes of particulates'. The support for the wider use of LPG vehicles is aimed at securing reductions in all these emissions, to help improve air quality as well as reduce climate change emissions and the cost cannot be properly attributed to the CO2 reductions alone.

  The Government's support for LPG has also been aimed at widening fuel diversity in the transport sector, and has been successful in establishing LPG as an alternative fuel, now available nationwide, reducing consumption of conventional fuels by some 300 million litres, through the total of around 100,000 LPG vehicles—the 12,000 vehicles supported through the PowerShift scheme, and the larger number converted without grant.
  1Estimates provided by the Energy Saving Trust, which administers the grant programme on behalf of the Department for Transport.

  Lost Passports
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passports sent to the DVLA as proof of identity in driving licence applications were reported lost(a) en route to the DVLA and (b) in the offices of the DVLA, in each year since 1997. [123509]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 8 July 2003]: Identity documents have been sent to DVLA since 1999. More recently, customers are now able to take applications and passports to DVLA's local offices and some 750 Post Offices, enabling them to be examined and returned immediately. 12 per cent. of all applications are made in this way. Drivers are advised that responsibility for the delivery of passports rests with the Royal Mail. No records are kept by DVLA of the non-receipt of passports.

  Mobile Phones
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate the Government have made of
  687W
  (a) how many people might be fined under the proposed offence of using a hand-held mobile phone while driving, (b) how many people would contest the fines and (c) the revenue to be raised through fines in the first year of operation. [123829]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Enforcement is a matter for the police. However, the Department published a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment last year when it consulted on the proposal for a new offence of using a hand-held mobile phone while driving. Based on prosecutions for failure to wear a seat belt, the assessment suggested that perhaps up to 100,000 fixed penalty notices at £30 each might be issued a year. Fines could therefore total £3 million a year, depending on the level of enforcement.

  Motorway Accidents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact which raising the motorway speed limit to 80 miles per hour would have on(a) the number of road accidents and (b) the number of deaths caused by road accidents. [124075]

  Mr. Jamieson
  An assessment of the effects of increasing the motorway speed limit to 80 miles per hour was conducted in 2001. Although no estimate of accident or casualty numbers was made, it was concluded that there would be a greater risk of both increasing in those circumstances.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the road safety implications of increasing motorway speed limits. [123834]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The last assessment of the possible effects of raising the motorway speed limit conducted in 2001 concluded that to do so would run too great a risk of increasing accidents and casualties.

  Offshore Windfarrns
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation establish safety zones around UK offshore windfarms and make it a criminal offence for unauthorised vehicles to operate or anchor within them. [123823]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is intended to introduce legislation which will provide for the designation of safety zones around windfarms located in United Kingdom waters.

  Potters Bar Rail Crash
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce with the Health and Safety Commission a decision on whether to hold a public inquiry into the Potters Bar rail crash. [123472]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Health and Safety Commission and the Secretary of State for Transport will need to consider the implications of the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Investigation Board report of 29 May 2003, the response of the rail industry to the recommendations and the continuing British Transport 688W
  Police investigation before deciding whether the issues raised by the Potters Bar derailment would benefit from investigation by a public inquiry.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the procedures for determining(a) the cause of and (b) responsibility for the Potters Bar crash; and if he will make a statement. [123657]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Health and Safety Commission, under section 14(2)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, required the Health and Safety Executive to undertake an investigation into the Potters Bar derailment under the supervision of an investigation board that included members independent of the Health and Safety Executive. The British Transport Police are separately investigating the derailment.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps the Government are taking to encourage enterprises to use rail freight; [124153]

  (2) what financial support from the Government is available to assist enterprises shift their goods from road to rail transport. [124154]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan sets out its plans for achieving the growth envisaged by the Government's 10 Year Transport Plan.

  Grants are available from the Strategic Rail Authority to enable companies to move freight by rail instead of road where this is justified by environmental benefits.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for his rail freight targets set out in the Ten Year Plan for Transport of the decision by the Royal Mail to transfer post deliveries from rail to road; and if he will make a statement. [124436]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given earlier today, ref: (123768).

  Railways
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responsibilities the Strategic Rail Authority has for the number of train movements in Scotland. [122752]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has a duty to promote rail use and drive the strategic agenda for developing the national railway infrastructure, of which the Scottish network is an integral part. Although responsibility for infrastructure and safety are reserved to Westminster, the Scottish Executive is responsible for funding and specifying services in Scotland provided under the ScotRail franchise. The Executive, together with the SRA is working towards the re-letting of the current franchise, which ends in 2004.

  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total public subsidy has been to the railways in each financial year from 1987–88 to 2002–03. [123828]
  689W
  Mr. McNulty
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 28 April 2003,Official Report, columns 7–10W.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority about services between London and Chesham and Amersham; and if he will make a statement. [123923]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any recent discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority about rail services between London and Chesham and Amersham.

  Redhill Aerodrome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2003,Official Report, column 192W, on Redhill Aerodrome, if he will list the meetings which have taken place with promoters of proposals for new airport capacity that are alternatives to, or variants of, options set out in the Government's consultation document; when the meetings took place; what their duration was; and what the purpose of each meeting was. [123852]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: Since publication of "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom South East: Second Edition" consultation document in February this year, officials in the Department for Transport have met on seven occasions with the promoters (or their representatives) of four alternative south-0east options, in addition to the two meetings with Redhill Aerodrome Ltd. to which I referred in my answer of 1 July 2003, Official Report, column 192W.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Maternal Health
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment his Department has made in conjunction with the World Health Organisation to determine the most successful and cost-effective safe motherhood package for the developing world. [123553]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and others agree that the most effective strategy to reduce maternal mortality is to ensure that all women are attended at birth by a skilled attendant backed by timely access to emergency obstetric care in the event of a life threatening complication. There is consensus on the content of antenatal, natal and post natal care `packages' and these are considered cost-effective. The global failure to address the high burden of maternal mortality in developing countries does not reflect a lack of available cost-effective interventions but rather the lack of sustained political commitment to act on the scale necessary.

  Burma
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many 690W
  Burmese displaced people are (a) in refugee camps in Burma, (b) in refugee camps in neighbouring countries and ( c) hiding in the jungle in Burma. [123723]

  Hilary Benn
  There are no refugee camps in Burma. According to the latest available figures released by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, there are 22,000 Burmese in refugee camps in Bangladesh, and 113,155 in Thailand. There are no accurate figures for the numbers of displaced people hiding in Burma.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development (1) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards genetically modified food aid by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other donors; [123643]

  (2) what actions his Department has taken to persuade countries to accept genetically modified food aid from donor countries. [123644]

  Hilary Benn
  DF1D's approach to food aid is guided by the following principles:Recipient governments should be given adequate information on the type of food they receive and its characteristics, including whether genetically modified;
  Recipient governments should be allowed to decide on its acceptability; and
  Donors should respect the decisions of recipients and accommodate them as far as possible. For example, if milled cereals are preferred rather than whole grain to avoid GM grain being planted as seed then this should be arranged for.

  Statements by the European Community and the World Food Programme embody the same principles.

  DFID has been actively engaged in helping central and southern African governments to understand the issues associated with GM food aid. Staff in our in-country offices have been involved in discussion with the World Food Programme and with governments on the acceptability of grain containing genetically modified material as food aid. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), former Secretary of State for International Development discussed the issues with President Mwanawasa of Zambia and last year DFID organised a fact-finding visit by Zambian scientists to London to meet a range of representatives from Government and civil society.

  Internal Policing (Funding)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will list the schemes funded by the Department which have allocated financial resources to internal policing since 1997; and how much has been allocated in each case. [124002]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID have supported police development projects in a number of countries, some of which have contributed to international policing. A list of such projects that have taken place since 1995 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Support has been provided either through standalone police development projects, or since 2001, as an element within a Safety Security and Access to Justice programme.
  691W
  In the main, technical support is provided. This is provided through seconded officers; visiting consultants —usually retired police officers; in-country technical co-operation officers (TCOs); UK police forces and UK police training establishments. DFID also provide equipment.

  New Partnership for Africa's Development
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what steps he is taking to encourage business participation in New Partnership for Africa's Development. [123641]

  Hilary Henn
  DFID is supporting (£117,000) the Commonwealth Business Council (CBC) to develop private sector engagement in the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) Programme of Action, and stimulate the increased domestic and foreign investment required for NEPAD to succeed. This work is subsumed under the principal private sector initiative in support of NEPAD—the NEPAD Business Group
  (NBG).

  NBG comprises leading business organisations that have a broad constituency both inside and outside Africa and are committed to helping the continent realise its full economic potential. NBG includes the following organisations: CBC; Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum; British African Business Association; and the International Chamber of Commerce,

  Nicaragua
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) of 22 May 2003,Official Report, column 972W, on Central America, when his Department has had discussions with the Government of Nicaragua concerning violence and social exclusion in Central America; what the content of these discussions was, with particular reference to street children; and what the outcome was of these discussions. [123729]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has been working on the issue of violence in Nicaragua since 2001, supporting the government to develop an integrated program that will address social causes of violence. The Government of Nicaragua recognises that many children are on the street and in street gangs due to poverty, intra-family violence and drug and alcohol abuse. DFID has been supporting the Education Department to develop a system of counsellors for children in schools in order to decrease drop out rates and ensure that the schools are a centre for support for children at risk. DFID has also been supporting the Ministry of the Family in developing community level responses to exclusion, violence and abuse.

  Philippines
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development which projects his Department supports in the Philippines working with street children. [123735]
  692W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID is not directly funding projects with street children in the Philippines. Funds from the Department for developmental and welfare activities in the Philippines are mainly provided as our share of spending by multilateral development agencies and as grants to non-governmental organisations, none of which is earmarked by the Department for particular purposes.

  Street Children
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much aid his Department gives to tackle the problem of street children. [123727]

  Hilary Benn
  We are currently providing financial support of around £900,000 to three UK-based nongovernmental organisations that work directly with street children: Childhope, GOAL and World Vision. We also support many more organisations and Governments working to tackle the underlying causes of the poverty, deprivation and social exclusion that force children on to the streets.

  Children live on the streets because of poverty in their communities. Support for children's rights to basic health care, education, nutrition, shelter and protection from violence and abusive labour, along with work on sustainable livelihoods for their parents, is central to our effort towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

  The UN Convention on the Right of the Child sets out the inherent rights and entitlements needed to guarantee a child's right to survival, development and an adequate standard of living. Poverty Reduction Strategy processes are particularly important in ensuring that these policies address child poverty and secure child entitlements. The Government believe that we should all work for the earliest possible realisation of these rights for all children. We regularly raise our concerns in bodies such as the UN Commission for Human Rights.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much aid his Department gives to tackle the problem of street children in Central America; who this money is given to; and what the money is spent on. [123732]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID provides funds to support street children in Honduras (£18,000), Nicaragua (£10,000) and Guatemala (£16,000) under our Small Grants Scheme. In Costa Rica the British embassy has provided equipment to improve the lives of street children (£10,000). The money is given to non-government organisations (NGOs) and local organisations.

  Funds are provided for projects such as the construction of a training centre in order to rescue young people and street children from drugs, alcohol and gangs; programmes to help street children gain vocational qualifications for preparation of integration into society; rehabilitation projects to prevent and combat violence in street children and projects for medical and psychological attention and vocational training.
  693W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many street children there are in Africa; in which African countries they are located; and how many street children there are in each country. [123736]

  Hilary Benn
  We have no specific estimate of their numbers, but street children form a proportion of the 300 million people that live in poverty in Africa (on less than $1 per day, figure relates to 1999). In Africa, we know that some 50 million girls and boys are out of school (UNESCO). Some of these will be street children. Support for children's rights to basic health care, education, nutrition, shelter, and protection from violence and abusive labour, along with work on sustainable livelihoods for their parents, is central to our effort towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals.M

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much aid his Department gives to tackle the problem of street children in Africa; who this money is given to; and what the money is spent on. [123737]

  Hilary Benn
  Much of DFID's work in Africa in support of street children is done in the context of broader based activities, and it is therefore not possible to provide specific figures for work in this particular area. Street children in many countries benefit from our support provided through the United Nations Children's Fund, the ILO's International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour, and Save the Children Fund Programmes. We directly support GOAL in Ethiopia. We are providing £188,000 for their Street Children's Rights Project which aims to rehabilitate 700 severely impoverished street children in Addis Ababa.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what action the Government have taken to respond to the humanitarian aid crisis in Zimbabwe. [123600]

  Hilary Benn
  The British Government has contributed £51 million to help Zimbabwe since the humanitarian crisis began in mid 2001. We have given assistance for feeding programmes, emergency medicines, essential health supplies, and seeds and fertilizer to help promote agricultural recovery.

  The 2003 maize harvest, forecast to be 803,000 tonnes, is up 61 per cent. on last year, but it remains only 41 per cent. of 2001, and will provide less than half of the domestic requirement for 2003–04. The World Food Programme has just launched a new US $308 million regional appeal for southern Africa, of which some 60 per cent. is to meet Zimbabwe's needs.

  DFID is considering WFP's appeal and proposals from non-governmental organisations. DFID will continue to be a significantcontributor to humanitarian relief in Zimbabwe in 2003–04, with ongoing and anticipated new contributions amounting to £35 million in this financial year.
  694W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether UK food aid to Zimbabwe is distributed by Zimbabwean Government organisations. [123642]

  Hilary Benn
  No DFID funded food aid is distributed through Zimbabwean Government organisations. UK official food aid, whether bilateral or through the WFP, is distributed by international or Zimbabwean non-governmental organisations. The NGOs operate according to clear humanitarian principles, backed up by rigorous monitoring and complaints procedures.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost was to her Department of media and voice training for Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123128]

  The Solicitor-General
  I and the Attorney-General have received no voice or media training since 1997. In respect of officials in the Departments for which the Attorney-General holds ministerial responsibility, the information requested is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Priivate Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the running costs have been of Ministers' private offices in her Department in each year since 1997. [123101]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, which serves both the Attorney-General and me, is a small Department and no separate accounts are kept of the cost of the private office.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Solicitor-General what progress has been made in her Department and non-departmental public bodies on implementing the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; and if she will publish the results of the monitoring required by the Act. [117618]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 20 June 2003]: The Crown Prosecution Service has made considerable progress on the implementation of their Race Equality Scheme to comply with the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

  The Crown Prosecution Service Race Equality Scheme was published and launched on May 2002. It is a three-year plan, which applies to all existing and future functions and policies developed by the Crown Prosecution Service. To comply with the Act, and action plans must be reviewed within three years. However, the Crown Prosecution Service has decided to review and publish updates on its Race Equality Scheme progress annually. The first update (Year One—Crown Prosecution Service Update 2002–03) is to be published shortly and will be available on the Crown Prosecution internet and internal intranet.
  695W
  An impact assessment form has been produced in consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality. The impact assessment form will be used to evaluate all policies and functions.

  The Equality and Diversity Unit has overseen the day-to-day delivery of the scheme, which has been reviewed on a regular basis by the Senior Managers Advisory Group on Diversity. The Crown Prosecution Service Board has also assessed progress annually.

  Training on the Race Equality Scheme for policy makers and key staff is due to be rolled out in July 2003. This will ensure that staff are aware of the Racial Equality Scheme and their duty under it. Training will also be given in how to complete the impact assessment forms to ensure that all local policies that do not fall under the banner of national policies comply with the Act and the Crown Prosecution Service Racial Equality Scheme.

  In relation to monitoring as stated by the Act, the Crown Prosecution Service is continuing to monitor employment statistics. These are available publicly in the Year One review.

  With regards to the monitoring of prosecutions, the Crown Prosecution Service has made a good start with a view to extending monitoring via the forthcoming new IT system. All national policies and functions have been reviewed and new policies have been written. A Public Policy Statement on Racially and Religiously Aggravated Crime has been written which has set up monitoring systems. It is due to be launched on 14 July 2003 by the Attorney-General.

  The Serious Fraud Office has made significant efforts to meet the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, especially in encouraging a positive approach to diversity issues and other employment practices. Its full Race Equality Scheme has yet to be published and it is working with the Commission for Racial Equality to complete this task as fully and as quickly as possible.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate attaches considerable importance to the principles of equality and diversity, both in relation to the inspection process and the management of HM Crown Prosecution Service itself.

  Under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, the Inspectorate has a general duty to promote race equality and the specific duty to set out and publish a Race Equality Scheme.

  In May 2002, the Inspectorate published its Race Equality Scheme drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. The Scheme sets out the steps to be taken to ensure that its functions, policies and employment systems eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and promote good relations between persons of different racial groups.

  The Scheme also includes the specific duty in relation to employment issues which require HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspect orate to monitor the staff in post and applications for employment, promoting and training by their racial group. In fact, the Inspectorate has gone further by including gender, disability and age.
  696W
  The statistics are currently being compiled for the period ending 31 March 2003 and will be available shortly.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service has worked closely with the Commission for Racial Equality and other inspectorates in developing an inspection framework to underpin consistent and effective scrutiny of how inspected bodies are discharging their statutory functions under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. It has been incorporated with appropriate adaptations into the HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate methodology.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department, including the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, published its Scheme to Promote Racial Equality in May 2002, in accordance with the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. The Scheme is overseen by the Department's Diversity Group, which ensures equal opportunities good practice is upheld and monitored in the Agency, and which is currently in the process of carrying out a review of the Scheme one year after its launch, including employment targets.

  As a result of the Scheme so far, training in telephone technique has been undertaken by Bona Vacantia Division, to ensure race equality in dealing with public callers, some of whom do not speak English as a first language or understand English law or customs. The Diversity Group has also overseen an audit of external administrative recruitment since 2001 and made recommendations on monitoring. Details of employment monitoring will be published shortly, and thereafter each April and October.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. [123630]

  Mr. Ingram
  We shall continue to retain United Kingdom troops in Afghanistan at appropriate levels while the situation warrants it.

  Armed Forces (Maintenance Payments)
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the army is not required to comply with(a) deductions from earnings requests and (b) maintenance payment requests from the Child Support Agency; and for what reasons the Child Support Agency cannot make deductions from earnings orders against army personnel. [123929]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence complies with Deduction from Earnings Requests in full, in all but exceptional cases. Such exceptions might include an appeal by the individual on the grounds of a change in circumstances, or where the deduction would breach the regulations on minimum rates of pay. Minimum rates of pay were introduced around 50 years ago as a result of experience in the second world war to ensure that Service families could meet essential financial commitments. The Army regulations allow for up to 50 per cent. deductions
  697W
  from pay, where there are no other children or dependants. However, in circumstances where the soldier is legally married and living with his or her spouse, or where the soldier is widowed, divorced or separated and has care of the children, or the soldier does not have care of the children but is providing voluntary financial support, there is a limit of 25 per cent. deduction on pay. The amounts deducted are paid to the Child Support Agency for maintenance payments to be made.

  Service personnel were excluded from the law relating to deduction of earnings orders when the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 were drawn up as there was already provision for deductions from Service pay under Armed Forces' legislation.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deductions from earnings requests to the army for child maintenance payments were not agreed to in each year since 2001. [123930]

  Mr. Caplin
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the requirements on armed forces personnel in respect of(a) child maintenance payments and (b) Child Support Agency orders; and if he will make a statement. [123932]

  Mr. Caplin
  The armed forces has a good record in meeting its obligations in recovering child support maintenance payments. I therefore have no plans to propose any changes.

  Challenger 2 Tank
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Challenger 2 tanks are operated by each armoured regiment; and what reserve is held(a) centrally and (b) by regiments. [123546]

  Mr. Ingram
  Each armoured regiment is organised around an establishment of 58 Challenger II Main Battle Tanks. Each regiment, however, normally holds 44 tanks. This allows the balance of the fleet to be distributed for other tasks such as: individual training, collective training, repair programmes, trials work, etc. Nonetheless, regiments committed to operations or undertaking training may be augmented up to the full establishment of 58 tanks, dependent on the situation, or the nature of the training/operation being undertaken.

  In addition, some tanks are held at the Defence Supply and Distribution Agency depot at Ashchurch. The number held there on any one day will depend on ho many are required by the armoured regiments and training establishments, or are in the repair pool. On 4 July 2003, there were 17 tanks held at Ashchurch.

  Combat Aircraft
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what RAF and RN combat aircraft have a primary(a)reconnaissance, (b) air defence and (c) ground attack role; and what proportion of these aircraft can carry smart armaments. [124051]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Tornado GR4/GR4A, Sea Harrier FA2, Harrier GR7, and Jaguar aircraft are all capable of conducting a reconnaissance role.
  698W
  The Tornado F3 and Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft have a primary air defence role.

  The Tornado GR4, Harrier GR7 and Jaguar aircraft have a primary ground attack role.

  All combat aircraft types are capable of carrying smart armaments although this capability may not be fitted to each individual aircraft within the fleet.

  Congo
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops have been deployed to the Congo; what their role is; and if he will make a statement on the progress of joint operations with other allied troops. [124048]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 7 July, 88 United Kingdom troops were deployed as part of the EU-led multinational force in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Operation ARTEMIS). The majority of these troops are Royal Engineers whose role is to improve the quality and size of Bunia airport, which is of vital importance given the remoteness of the region. The remainder are staff officers and support personnel. A further six UK military personnel are deployed as part of the UN Mission (MONUC), based in Kinshasa.

  Operations by the EU-led force have gone well and Bunia is reported as calm, although the situation remains volatile.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase troop levels in the Congo; who is in overall command of allied troops in the region; and when the troops currently deployed were last involved in active operations. [124049]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to increase the number of United Kingdom troops deployed either as part of the EU-led multinational force in the Congo (Operation ARTEMIS) or as part of the UN mission (MONUC), although the situation remains under constant review.

  Troops deployed on Op ARTEMIS are under EU control, and General Neveux has been appointed by EU member nations as the Operational Commander. Troops deployed on MONUC are under UN control and General Diallo has been appointed by the UN as Force Commander. As with all multinational operations, although the UK has delegated some elements of command and control to the EU and UN respectively, Full Command of any UK military personnel is retained in the UK.

  The majority of the UK troops deployed on Op ARTEMIS are Royal Engineers from 42 Field Squadron of 28 Engineer regiment, who handed over from their previous tour of operation in Northern Ireland on 31 January 2003.

  D-Day Veterans
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on recognition for Midlands veterans at the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings; and when he will announce the programme of commemoration events. [123844]
  699W
  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: No such representations have been received. However I am aware of local media interest in this matter. Her Majesty's Government is represented on the French Government's Normandie Memorie 60eme Anniversaire Committee which is developing a full programme of commemorative events in France from 4 June 2004 onwards. I refer my hon. Friend to my letter of 7 July 2003, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department is providing to the Normandy Veterans Association to(a) organise and (b) implement the commemoration events for the 60th anniversary of D-Day. [122307]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Government's position on this matter is outlined in my letter of 7 July 2003. I refer the hon. Member to the copy of the letter placed in the Library of the House.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (I) pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 38W, on depleted uranium, when his Department plans to publish information on the depleted uranium it has fired in its area of operation in Iraq; [116216]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2003, Official Report, column 38W, on depleted uranium, if his Department will work with the Department of Defence in the United States of America to draw up a combined report on depleted uranium that has been fired by allied forces in Iraq. [116215]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence agrees that information should be released on how much depleted uranium has been used in the Iraq conflict and where. NATO provided information following use of DU in the Balkans conflict and the United Kingdom will do so for DU it has fired in its area of operations in Iraq. We have released information on the weight of DU expended in theatre, and are releasing information on the geographical locations of firing sites to UNEP.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave on 4 June 2003, Official Report, column 445W, to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). We are currently in discussion with the United States about their use of DU munitions.

  Iraq
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) Territorial Army personnel in Iraq and (b) the expected numbers stationed there over the next six months. [123479]

  Mr. Caplin
  Members of the Territorial Army (TA) have been deployed to the Gulf either as members of formed TA units and sub units or as Individual Reinforcements augmenting Regular Army units. Working alongside their Regular counterparts, they played a full and vital role during the war in Combat, Combat Support and Combat Service Support roles. In all, the Reserves (TA and Regular Reserves) formed just over 10 per cent. of the deployed Land element of our 700W
  forces; a figure which is in keeping with the level of TA and Reserve participation in other Operations such as Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan.

  Of the first tranche of TA mobilised for service relating to the Gulf conflict, some 1,825 members have been demobilised so far. Approximately 1,700 remain in the Gulf and the vast majority of these will be returning home shortly. They will be replaced in the coming weeks by a second tranche of approximately 2,050 TA personnel who will have, on average, a deployment period in theatre of six months.

  Military Operations (Cost)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average monthly cost of military operations in(a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq have been in the last three months. [123403]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Department identifies the costs of operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs, which the Department would have incurred had the operation not been undertaken—expenditure on wages and salaries or on conducting training exercises for example—are deducted from the total costs of the operation.

  I regret the information cannot be provided in precisely the format requested. Costs are not incurred on a regular monthly basis and to provide such an average would be misleading.

  Actual and provisional outturn for operations in Afghanistan are as follows:

  £ million

  Operating costs1

  Expenditure on capital items2

  2001–02

  188

  34

  2002–03 (provisional outturn)

  236

  75

  1Defined as Resource DEL in Main Supply Estimates.

  2Defined as Capital DEL in Main Supply Estimates.

  Full definitions of Resource and Capital DEL are included in the Glossary of Terms in Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 2002–03, published by HM Treasury.

  On Iraq, calculating all the costs of military action will take some time to determine since it will include the cost of ammunition, bombs and guided weapons consumed in excess of peacetime levels and the cost of equipment destroyed and damaged. These sums are likely to be significant. However, excluding costs of war-fighting (essentially those described above), the latest estimate is that the net additional cost of operations in Iraq for 2002–03 will not exceed £1 billion; the amount set aside at Spring Supplementary Estimates 2002–03.

  MOD Refurbishment
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what refurbishment works have been undertaken during the last six years at the Ministry of Defence buildings in Whitehall; and if he will list the(a) works and (b) contractors. [123859]
  701W
  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence Main Building in Whitehall is being redeveloped under the Private Finance Initiative. The contract with Modus plc which was placed in May 2000 covers not just the modernisation of Main Building and support services for 30 years but also works to the decant buildings needed to accommodate staff while the redevelopment is under way. Those in the Whitehall area are the Old War Office in Whitehall and Metropole building and Northumberland House in Northumberland Avenue. Modus? construction subcontractor, Skanska Whitehall is responsible for the work.

  During 2000 a partial refurbishment of 3–5 Great Scotland Yard was carried out as a result of emergency structural propping works. The contractor was Willmott Dixon.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reporting procedures were in place during refurbishment works on Ministry of Defence buildings in Whitehall for contractors coming across surveillance devices. [123860]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Contract Schedule states that throughout the contract period, the Private Finance Initiative Contractor will be responsible for compliance with the Defence Manual of Security, which lays down the action to be taken on the discovery of surveillance devices.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the army bases operational in Northern Ireland, broken down by council area. [123704]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces currently operate from 55 bases in Northern Ireland which are either solely military sites or joint bases with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Excluded from this list are those premises solely occupied by Reserve Forces and Cadets as well as Regimental Museums. The operational bases are listed by council area as follows:

  Antrim Borough Council

  Aldergrove

  Masserene Barracks, Antrim

  Armagh City and District Council

  Dramadd Barracks, Armagh

  PSNI Keady

  PSNI Middletown

  Ballymena Borough Council

  St. Patrick's Barracks, Ballymena

  Banbridge District Council

  PSNI Rathfriland

  Belfast City Council

  Divis Key Point

  Duke of Connaughts Unit

  Girdwood Park Army Base

  Moscow Camp

  Musgrave Park Hospital Echelon

  PSNI Grosvenor Road

  PSNI New Barnsley

  PSNI Old Park

  PSNI Woodbourne

  Divis Tower Observation Post

  702W
  Castlereagh Borough Council

  PSNI Castlereagh

  PSNI Ladas Drive

  Coleraine Borough Council

  Laurel Hill House, Coleraine

  Craigavon Borough Council

  Mahon Barracks, Portadown

  Derry City Council

  Clooney Base, Londonderry

  Ebrington Barracks, Londonderry

  Masonic Base, Londonderry

  PSNI Rosemount

  Down District Council

  Abercom Barracks, Ballykinlar

  Ballykinlar Training Base

  Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council

  Clougher Army Base

  Killymeal House, Dungannon

  Aughnacloy Base

  Fermanagh District Council

  Grosvenor Barracks. Enniskillen

  PSNI Beleek

  PSNI Belcoo

  PSNI Kinawley

  PSNI Lisnaskea

  PSNI Newtownbutler

  PSNI Rosslea

  Limavady Borough Council

  Magilligan Training Camp

  Shackleton Barracks, Ballykelly

  Lisburn City Council

  Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn

  Newry and Mourne District Council

  Bessbrook Mill

  PSNI Crossmaglen

  PSNI Forkhill

  PSNI Newtownhamilton

  R12 Observation Site

  R13a Observation Site

  R21 Observation Site

  GIO Observation Site

  G20 Observation Site

  G40 Observation Site

  North Down Borough Council

  Kinnegar, Holywood

  Palace Barracks, Holywood

  Omagh District Council

  Lisanelly Barracks, Omagh

  St. Lucia Barracks, Omagh

  Strabane District Council

  PSNI Strabane

  Pensions Appeal (Legal Costs)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Department's legal costs have been in the case of Mr. Shaun Rusling; if he will make a
  703W
  statement on the reasons advanced for appealing the findings of the Pension Appeals Tribunal; and what his policy is subsequent to the ruling of the High Court on 13 June. [123941]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 514W, and on 23 June 2003, Official Report, column 687. The Pensions Appeal Tribunal decision on the case of Mr. Rusling found that the Ministry of Defence had failed to show beyond reasonable doubt that disablement due to "Gulf War Syndrome" was not attributable to his Service in the armed forces. We appealed this decision because the overwhelming consensus of medical and scientific opinion is that the symptoms reported by some Gulf veterans do not constitute a discrete disorder. It is too early to say what the cost of contesting the case has been.

  Premature Voluntary Release
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications for Premature Voluntary Release have been received by each service since 1 January. [123653]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to TSP5 publication?UK Regular Forces Premature Voluntary Release", a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Department's Regulatory Impact Assessment procedure; and how many RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department in the last year. [120853]

  Mr. Caplin
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must be completed for all policy proposals that have a potential impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. It includes details of arrangements for monitoring and evaluating policy proposals and their impact.

  Most Ministry of Defence legislation relates to the armed forces and it is not necessary for a RIA to be conducted. Therefore, none was undertaken by the Department during the course of the last year.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels were involved in the(a) Iraq, (b) Afghanistan, (c) Saif Sareea II, (d) Sierra Leone and (e) Kosovo operations; and what primary role they played. [124059]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following Royal Navy vessels took part in Op Telic in Iraq:HMS Ark Royal, in her Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) role and HMS Ocean in her role as amphibious carrier and Landing Platform Helicopter.
  HMS Edinburgh, Liverpool and York carried out their role as destroyers, providing air defence for the task group.
  HMS Marlborough, Chatham and Richmond carried out the role of close range protection for the carriers and other high value units.
  704W
  HMS Blyth, Bangor, Brocklesby, Sandown, Grimsby, Ledbury, Ramsey and Shoreham were deployed on mine clearance tasks.
  HMS Roebuck was deployed in her coastal survey role.
  HMS Splendid and Turbulent provided strike weapon platform capability.
  RFA's Sir Percival, Sir Tristram, Sir Galahad and Sir Bedivere were deployed in the Landing Ship Logistic role;
  RFA's Grey Rover, Bayleaf, Brambleleaf and Orangeleaf were deployed as Fleet tankers.
  RFA Fort Rosalie, Fort Austin and Fort Victoria were deployed as Fleet Replenishment ships, providing stores for the task group.
  RFA Argus was deployed in her role as Primary Casualty Receiving Facility.
  RFA Diligence was deployed as Forward Repair Ship.
  RFA Sea Crusader was used in the strategic sea lift role.

  Afghanistan—Op Oracle
  HMS Illustrious provided air projection and a command platform.
  HMS York, HMS Southampton and HMS Cornwall provided air protection.
  RF'A Fort Rosalie, RFA Fort Austin, RFA Fort Victoria, RFA Fort George, RFA Sir Tristram, RFA Sir Galahad, RFA Sir Bedivere and RFA Sir Percival provided support, fuel and stores.
  RFA Diligence was deployed as forward repair vessel.

  Saif Sareea II
  HMS Illustrious provided air projection and a command platform.
  HMS Ocean deployed as Landing Platform Helicopter.
  HMS Fearless deployed as Landing Platform Dock and provided an amphibious capability.
  HMS Nottingham and HMS Southampton deployed in an AA.W capacity, providing air defence.
  HMS Monmouth, HMS Marlborough, HMS Cornwall acted as escorts. HMS Quorn, Cattistock, HMS Walney, HMS Inverness, and HMS Roebuck worked as survey ships and also Mine Operations.
  RFA Sir Tristram, RFA Sir Galahad, RFA Sir Bedivere, RFA Sir Percival, RFA Diligence, RFA Fort Rosalie, RFA Fort Austin and RFA Fort Victoria provided fuel, logistic support, stores, and land force transportation capabilities and a forward repair facility.

  Sierra Leone—Op Palliser
  HMS Illustrious provided air projection and a command plat form.
  HMS Ocean provided a helicopter platform.
  HMS Chatham and HMS Argyll provided force protection and acted as escorts.
  RFA Fort Austin, RFA Fort George, RFA Brambleleaf provided tanker support.
  RFA Sir Bedivere and RFA Sir Geraint provided support, fuel and logistics.

  Kosovo—Op Allied Force
  HMS Splendid and HMS Turbulent carried out submarine tasking.
  HMS Invincible was deployed as CVS.

  705W
  HMS Newcastle and HMS Iron Duke were responsible for anti-air warfare (AAW).
  HMS Somerset, HMS Grafton, HMS Norfolk and HMS Coventry carried out patrols and Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIOPs).
  HMS Atherstone, HMS Sandown and HMS Bulldog carried out surveys and mine clearance patrols.
  RFA Argus acted as an aviation platform and Primary Casualty Receiving Facility.
  RFA Bayleaf deployed as Fleet tanker.
  RFA Fort Austin, RFA Sea Centurion, RFA Sea Crusader and RFA Sir Geraint provided stores and logistic support.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy vessels have been decommissioned since 2000; and what measures are in place to ensure there is no loss in level of capabilities as a result. [124061]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following Royal Navy vessels have been decommissioned since 2000:

  HMS Intrepid

  HMS Fearless

  HMS Brave

  HMS Coventry

  HMS Sheffield

  HMS Orwell

  HMS Herald

  HMS Bulldog

  HMS Beagle

  HMS Shetland

  HMS Alderney

  HMS Cromer

  HMS Bicester

  HMS Berkeley

  RFA Olna

  RFA Olwen

  The Department regularly reviews the Defence programme to ensure that the Royal Navy remains a highly capable and potent force with the optimum level of capability to meet requirements.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what upgrades have been made to Royal Navy(a) surface ships and (b) submarines since 2000; and how these have improved their capability. [124062]

  Mr. Ingram
  Numerous upgrades have been made to ships and submarines since 2000 to ensure that the Royal Navy has the optimum level of capability to meet

  PVR exit rates for UK regular forces (as percentage)

  Officers

  Other ranks

  Total

  Navy

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  Navy

  Army

  RAF

  2002–03

  2.8

  2.5

  3.4

  2.1

  5.0

  5.3

  5.5

  3.9

  2001–02

  3.6

  3.4

  4.2

  2.9

  5.7

  6.4

  6.0

  4.4

  2000–01

  3.2

  2.6

  4.1

  2.5

  5.3

  4.2

  6.4

  4.2

  1999–2000

  3.1

  3.6

  3.5

  2.2

  5.6

  5.2

  6.4

  4.2

  1998–99

  3.1

  2.4

  4.0

  2.5

  5.9

  5.2

  7.1

  4.1

  Note:

  For the purpose of this table, PVR is defined as all exits from trained personnel which are generated by the individual except "as of right", "compassion", "redundancy" and "services no longer required". Those leaving at the end of their engagement from trained or commission are therefore excluded, but all notice givers are included.
  706W
  requirements. For submarines I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 13 May 2003, Official Report, column 157W. For ships, upgrades have included major improvements to command and communication systems, ventilation and air conditioning systems, diver compression chambers, flight deck modifications and electronic warfare systems.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the pension trough affecting personnel retiring between 1976 and 1978; and what estimate his Department has made of the cost of correcting the anomaly. [123586]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Government are aware of the strength of feeling among ex-Service personnel and other public servants whose pensions have been affected by periods of pay restraint. Successive Governments have concluded that it would not be affordable to increase the pensions of those affected to compensate for the effect of a pensions "trough". However, in view of the strength of concern on this issue and the fact that only indicative figures are available on the cost of remedying the position, my predecessor agreed that he would put work in hand to provide a more exact estimate of the cost of remedying the trough that occurred between 1976 and 1978. I can confirm that this work is under way. I expect this work to be completed before the summer recess and I will write to the hon. Member once the conclusions are available.

  Service Personnel (Retention)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what criteria are used by the Department for ascertaining the level of personnel retention within the armed forces; [122814]

  (2) what the (a) level set for retention of personnel within the three armed forces and (b) actual level of retention within the three armed forces was in the last five years. [122816]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Services have detailed targets for manning levels and these reflect expectations of outflow (when personnel complete their engagements or leave for personal reasons) and recruitment plans. One way of measuring retention is by monitoring historical trends in Premature Voluntary Release (PVR) rates as a percentage of those leaving. Details of actual PVR rates over the last five years by individual Service are in the table.
  707W
  We also monitor manning shortfall areas, and if shortages or imbalances are detected in a specific area, we look to address this by using targeted retention measures. There are a wide range of initiatives in hand across all three Services aimed at improving retention and seeking to increase the return of Service obtained from individuals.

  Sunset Clauses
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to include a sunset clause in all new legislation promoted by his Department unless a specific case can be made to exclude a sunset clause. [120855]

  Mr. Caplin
  Revised Regulatory Impact Assessment guidance, "Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment", was published on 28 January 2003. It advises policy officials to consider time limiting or sunsetting at an early stage of policy development and gives specific examples of where sunsetting may be appropriate.

  Most Ministry of Defence legislation relates to the armed forces, and it would be unusual for sunset clauses to be appropriate. Nevertheless, the periodic Armed Forces Acts, which extend the life of the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, do so for only five years at a time and, thus, may be regarded as having a form of inbuilt sunsetting. However, where new primary or delegated legislation that may have an effect on business is introduced, the MOD will consider whether a sunset clause or other arrangements are appropriate on a case by case basis.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Ministerial Travel
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Leader of the House when he last used the London Underground in connection with his official duties. [124603]

  Peter Hain
  Since my appointment as Leader of the House on June 12, I have not made any use of the London Underground as my office in 2 Carlton Gardens is within easy reach of the House or Commons.

  Staff
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Leader of the House how many staff his office had in each year since 1997; and what they cost in each year. [122297]

  Peter Hain
  The number of staff employed in the Office of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, where available, is as follows:

  From

  Number of staff

  July 1998

  8

  November 1999

  10

  August 2000

  11

  January 2002

  12

  The post of Deputy Leader of the House of Commons was created in July 1999.
  708W
  Full costs for 2002–03, including Ministerial and Special Adviser salaries were £670,971.10.

  Additional information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

TREASURY

  Appointments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the people appointed to ad hoc posts within his Department bearing the titles of advocate, Tsar, adviser, champion and comparable titles since May 1997; what their job title is or was; what their role is or was; whether they were or are being paid; what the total cost of each such person was in each financial year, including expenses and benefits; what the expected cost of each such person is in 2003–04; to whom they are accountable; and if he will make a statement. [112462]

  John Healey
  The following special adviser appointments have been made:

  Ed Balls

  Ian Austin

  Ed Miliband

  Spencer Livermore

  Nicola Murphy

  Charlie Whelan 1

  Andrew Maugham 1

  Paul Andrew1

  1No longer in post.

  In addition, the Chancellor has appointed Chris Wales, Shriti Vadera, Paul Gregg, Maeve Sherlock and Stewart Wood to the Council of Economic Advisers.

  Sue Nye has been appointed as an unpaid adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, details of individual salaries are not disclosed in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Burma
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which companies import goods made in Burma into the UK. [124510]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise is responsible for collecting and recording statistics on the movement of goods with other countries. Information on individual importers and consignments is recorded from customs documents submitted at import. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, information relating to individual importers cannot be disclosed. Exemption 13 of the Open Government Code applies.

  European Economic Convergence
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the required increase in housing supply in order to balance supply and demand; what discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on this subject; and whether the estimates he
  709W
  has made of the required increase in housing supply take into account the protection of (a) rural areas, (b) the countryside and (c) greenbelt land. [121437]

  John Healey
  The Government are taking forward the existing reviews of regional plans covering the high-demand growth areas in the south east as the means for realising the additional growth potential of 200,000 homes identified in my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's statement of 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 273, on "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future". Regional Planning Bodies will be required to consider the case for additional growth in the longer term when preparing new regional spatial strategies, and to take account of volatility in the housing market and the need to promote macroeconomic stability as part of delivering sustainable development.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many of his staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year; [111974]

  (2) how many sick days were lost over the last year by his Department through staff mental health problems. [112070]

  John Healey
  Cabinet Office publishes an annual report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". The statistics show reasons for absence including mental disorders. The most recently published figures for the calendar year 2001 were announced by Ministerial Statement on 19 December 2002, and copies placed in the Library of the House. The sickness absence figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  The Chancellor's Departments are committed to managing sickness absence effectively, and in meeting the 2003 target for reduced sickness absence as set out in the Service Delivery Agreements (SDA).

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the running costs of Ministers' private offices have been in his Department in each year since 1997. [123106]

  John Healey
  I refer to the answer the Financial Secretary gave to the hon Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 29 April 2003,Official Report, column 305W.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost to public finances of the smuggling of(a) beer, (b) spirits and (c) cigarettes into the United Kingdom was in each of the last three years. [123565]

  John Healey
  I refer my hon. Friend to Table 3.17 of the Customs and Excise paper "Measuring Indirect Tax Losses" published in November 2002, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  VAT Rates
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he intends to have with(a) the European Commission and (b)L ECOFIN concerning changes to European law to permit more substantial VAT rates. [121548]

  John Healey
  The current provisions in EC Directives regarding the level of VAT standard rates which may be set in individual member states are discussed in the Treasury publication 'Fiscal Stabilisation and EMU', published on 9 June, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. There are no current plans to amend these provisions, which are next due to be reviewed in 2005–06.

  World Bank
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that developing countries have increased influence within the World Bank; and if he will make a statement. [123401]

  John Healey
  The UK has been taking a lead role in promoting measures to increase the voice of developing countries in the World Bank and the IMF. The Department for International Development (DfID) has lead responsibility for issues related to the World Bank, and the Treasury has been working closely with it on this issue. In the 2000 DfID White Paper, the Government committed to"work with others to build a stronger, more open and accountable international system, in which poor people and countries have a more effective voice."

  "Voice" is not only an important step in our partnership with developing and transition countries, but also makes a strong contribution to increasing the effectiveness of the development effort.

  The UK played a key role in gaining agreement in the Board of the World Bank to provide additional staff to increase the capacity of the Sub-Saharan African representatives at the World Bank and the IMF, and is supporting further capacity-building proposals currently under discussion.

  The Government also believe that further action is necessary, both at the institutional level and at the level of the Executive Board, and we are discussing proposals in these areas with our international partners in the World Bank and IMF.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Clarence House
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who owns Clarence House; how much public money has been spent on the recent renovation; and for what reasons public money was used for this renovation. [119117]

  Mr. Caborn
  Clarence House, as part of St. James's Palace, is held by the Queen as Sovereign on behalf of the nation, not as a private individual. It has always been included as part of the Occupied Royal Palaces' Estate.
  711W
  A total of £3.9 million, comprising works and fees, but excluding VAT, is being spent on the redecoration and refurbishment of Clarence House from the existing public funding made available every year through grant in aid for the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces.

  As Heir to Throne, the Prince of Wales is moving from his present London residence, where the accommodation is very limited, to Clarence House which offers better facilities for him to fulfil his official duties. The Grant-in-aid has been used for the renovation as it pays for the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces in order to enable the Queen and members of the Royal Family to undertake official duties and fulfil their important official role.

  Crown Green Bowling
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many crown green bowling facilities she estimates are in use in west Yorkshire. [123517]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to statistics provided by the Yorkshire Crown Green Bowling Association, there are an estimated 400 crown green bowling greens in use in west Yorkshire.

  There may be a small number of additional facilities registered with the British Parks Crown Green Bowling Association (BPCGBA). The Department has contacted the BPCGBA to request this information, and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support Sport England gave to crown green bowling in each of the last three years. [123518]

  Mr. Caborn
  Over the last three financial years, Sport England has awarded a total of £657,596 to crown green bowls. In 2000–01, three awards were made totalling £161,247. In 2001£02, seven awards were made totalling £496,349. No awards were made in 2002–03.

  Elite Sports Funding
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the progress of her Department in implementing the recommendations of the Elite Sports Funding Review Group. [122249]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The Elite Sports Funding Review chaired by Dr. Cunningham made over 50 recommendations, the large majority of which are for the Sports Councils and National Governing Bodies of sport to take forward. The Review was discussed at the Sports Cabinet on 31 October 2001, chaired by the Secretary of State. The Cabinet brings together the Sports Ministers and Chairmen of the Sports Councils from each of the Devolved Administrations. At the Cabinet, the Sports Councils accepted and are now implementing the overwhelming majority of the recommendations.
  712W
  Following the recent Spending Review a ring fenced allocation of £4.7 million for 2004–05 and 2005–06 has been provided to UK Sport to enable them to take forward some of the outstanding recommendations that involved an increase in expenditure. Some of the recommendations relate to the World Class Plans and cannot be implemented until the current four year plans have been completed. This Department will continue to works with UK Sport, the Devolved Administrations and Sport England to ensure that implementation of the recommendations is effective and continues to remain relevant to the changing environment of high performance sport.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the events she plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121400]

  Tessa Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, columns 458–-59W, by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey).

  Film Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support she is providing to the British film industry to increase the number of UK productions. [124490]

  Estelle Morris
  DCMS established the UK Film Council in April 2000 as the Government's strategic lead body. The creation of the UK Film Council brought together, for the first time, responsibility for the film industry, film culture and education.

  The UK Film Council uses grant in aid and money from the National Lottery to support film production, as well as film development, training, education and film culture. Film production is also supported by tax relief for British qualifying films under the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1997.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 31W, on the Millennium Commission, (1) what the estimated final cost of running the Millennium Commission is; and what the estimated final cost of consultants employed by the Commission is; [124455]

  (2) what the final cost of consultants on each of the completed major projects was; and what the estimated final cost of consultants on those projects still under construction is; [124456]

  (3) how much was received in private finance by each major project; and when each payment was received. [124457]

  Tessa Jowell
  I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chair of the Millennium Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Lottery Distribution Fund
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much is unallocated in the National Lottery Distribution Fund; and what steps she is taking to reduce this sum. [123827]

  Estelle Morris
  According to the latest figures available, up to March 2003, there is a balance in the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF) of £3.26 billion, and of this £136 million is unallocated. Over £4.2 billion has been committed to projects by distributors with varying degrees of firmness.

  The National Lottery Funding Decision Document, published on the 3 July, sets out a number of proposals aimed at reducing the balances held by distributors. These include issuing guidance on balance management to distributors, and revising the Financial Directions distributors operate under in order to speed up the funding of smaller, low risk projects. Copies of this has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the building of the new Wembley Stadium. [120523]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the progress of the Wembley Stadium project. [124488]

  Mr. Caborn
  Wembley National Stadium Ltd. are making good progress in the construction of the English National Stadium at Wembley. Construction is on track for opening as planned in 2006.

  OFCOM
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on OFCOM's responsibilities in relation to independent production quotas. [123826]

  Estelle Morris
  The Communications Bill (Clause 275), as amended on Report in the House of Lords), requires OFCOM to include conditions in the licences of all licensed public service channels (Channels 3, 4 and 5) in order to secure that at least 25 per cent. of the time allocated to the broadcasting of qualifying programmes on that channel is allocated to the broadcasting of a range and diversity of independent productions. Conditions will also permit OFCOM to direct that a public service channel that falls short of the quota must make up the shortfall in the subsequent year or years. The Bill also gives OFCOM a range of powers to enforce compliance with these conditions.

  Paragraphs 1 and 7 of Schedule 12 to the Bill, in conjunction with clause 337 and intended amendments to the BBC's Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, will produce similar effects in relation to the BBC and the Welsh Authority.

  Under Clause 355 of the Bill OFCOM are required to carry out an annual factual and statistical review. As part of that review, OFCOM must consider what it is appropriate to achieve by conditions and duties under section 275 and paragraphs 1 and 7 of Schedule 12 and the effectiveness for that purpose of the conditions and
  714W
  duties for the time being in force. OFCOM must also consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend to the Secretary of State that he exercises any of his powers under that section or those paragraphs, including the power to provide that the quota be met by "value" instead of, or as well as, by "broadcasting time".

  School Sport
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Department for Education and Skills on increasing the time spent on sport in schools. [124489]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets regularly with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to discuss issues of mutual concern. These include the Public Service Agreement Target, shared by both departments, to enhance the take-up of sporting opportunities by 5 to 16-year-olds by increasing the percentage of school children who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high-quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum from 25 per cent. in 2002 to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  Sporting Excellence
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures are in place to implement sporting excellence at a regional level. [122836]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England works to develop performance and excellence in sport through support to governing bodies of sport, the six national sports centres and the English Institute of Sport. Sport England has reviewed its operations and business strategy. It now has clear business objectives aimed at getting more people involved in sport a and physical activity, retaining more people in sport and getting more success at the highest level. The regions will have more responsibility for funding decisions through their Regional Sports Boards.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff the Department and each Agency and non-departmental public body for which the Department is responsible had in each year since 1997; and what the cost of those staff was in each of those years. [122251]

  Mr. Caborn
  Data on staffing levels in the Civil Service is collected from Departments and Agencies twice-yearly, in April and October. Headline figures are published under National Statistics guidelines via a press notice. Those for October 2002 were published on 27 February 2003.

  A copy of the press notice, accompanying media brief and supporting tables is available on the World Wide Web at www.civil..service.gov.uk/statistics. Copies of these documents are also placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  More detailed information on the Civil Service is published annually in 'Civil Service Statistics', copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The last

  715W
  edition, based on April 2001 data, was published in June 2002. The next edition, based on April 2002 data, is due to be published at the end of July 2003.

  The Cabinet Office publishes information on non-departmental public bodies in its annual publication `Public Bodies'. The information includes details of the number of staff employed by each NDPB at 31 March each year. 'Public Bodies 2002' was published in January 2003. Copies of 'Public Bodies' published each year since 1997 are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Details of staff costs are contained in the annual accounts of the Department and the individual agencies and bodies. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Assets Recovery Agency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) assets and (b) goods seized by the Assets Recovery Agency in each month since January, broken down by (i) value and (ii) country of origin; and if he will make a statement. [122613]

  Caroline Flint
  I understand from the Director of the Assets Recovery Agency that providing the information in the form requested would risk identifying some or all of the subjects of the cases under investigation, contrary to orders of the court. Since the Agency assumed operational powers on 24 February this year, four orders have been obtained from the High Court in London and Belfast in connection with civil recovery proceedings under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to freeze property in the UK as follows:

  Property

  Value (£)

  Four bank accounts

  173,800

  One bank account

  1—

  Cash (four separate cases)

  232,703.10

  Investment/Premium Bonds (four separate cases)

  163,321.31

  Eight items of real property

  1,843,513

  Eight items of real property

  1—

  Stocks and shares (two separate cases)

  1—

  One vehicle

  10,000

  Total (excluding those assets yet to be valued)

  2,423,337.41

  1 Value of asset(s) to be determined during course of investigation.

  No assets have yet been frozen or seized by the Assets Recovery Agency in connection with proceedings under Parts 2, 4 or 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set for the Assets Recovery Agency; and if he will make a statement. [122614]

  Caroline Flint
  Targets for the Assets Recovery Agency are included in the Agency's Business Plan 2003–04, which has been prepared by the Director and approved by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Plan will be published on 9 July.
  716W
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money held by Saddam Hussein's regime has been seized by the Assets Recovery Agency; and if he will make a statement. [122615]

  Caroline Flint
  The Assets Recovery Agency has not seized any funds belonging to Saddam Hussein or his regime.

  In accordance with the guidance given to the Director by the Home Secretary, the Agency will normally investigate cases only on the basis of a referral from the law enforcement or prosecution authorities.

  The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483, passed on 22 May, requires that all funds, financial assets or economic resources of Saddam Hussein, key members of his regime and their families, be frozen and transferred into the Development Fund for Iraq to be used for the benefit and welfare of the Iraqi people.

  Capita
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that information Capita gain from accessing the Police National Computer is confined within the Capita organisation itself and is not related to persons or bodies other than those who have made an authorised application to Capita. [123658]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: The power in Schedule 29 to the Criminal Justice Bill that would enable the Secretary of State to delegate to another person his functions under Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 is discretionary. No decision has been taken to delegate the Criminal Records Bureau's functions which would allow a private sector provider access to the Police National Computer.

  In the event that the Government decided to delegate any functions of the Criminal Records Bureau which would allow a private sector provider access to sensitive personal information, the delegation would be subject to sufficient safeguards to protect such information from improper disclosure. Furthermore, under new section 124A of the 1997 Act, inserted by paragraph 11 of Schedule 29, it would be an offence for any person to whom the Secretary of State had delegated functions to disclose any personal information obtained in connection with those functions. There are certain exceptions, including where the disclosure is made in the course of the person's duties.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charges of(a) racial, (b) sexual and (c) disability discrimination have been made by staff of the Commission for Racial Equality against the Commission in each of the last 10 years. [123344]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I am advised by the Commission that records are held from 1998. Since that period 23 cases have been brought against the Commission for Race Equality (CRE) involving allegations of either sex,
  717W
  race or disability discrimination or a combination of these types of claims. 15 of these claims were withdrawn. Please see breakdown as follows:

  (a) Race: 18

  (b) Gender and race: 4

  (c) Disability: 1

  Convicted Mothers
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken to implement the recommendation in the Halliday Report 'Making Punishments Work' which states that dependent children should be taken into consideration when sentencing mothers. [122955]

  Paul Goggins
  The Halliday report 'Making Punishments Work' advocated maintaining the principle of equal treatment and that there should be no preferential treatment between men and women offenders in sentencing. However, this does not mean the same sentences are necessarily right for different groups who may be differently affected. It is legitimate for a court to take into account the impact of a sentence on other people—including dependent children—as one part of the overall picture. The report recommended the establishment of a body with the power to issue guidelines on sentencing issues. The Government accepted this recommendation by proposing the setting up of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which forms part of the Criminal Justice Bill at present before Parliament. The sentencing of mothers with dependent children is likely to be an issue which the Council will consider as part of its overall work.

  Correspondence
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will direct the Immigration and Nationality Department to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Wrexham of 17 January in respect of Mr. Sarkwat Jalal Salih. [123289]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to my hon. Friend's letter on 12 February 2003. A further copy of the reply was sent to him on 3 July.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will direct the Immigration Service Border Control and Enforcement Department in Liverpool to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Wrexham of 2 June 2003 in respect of Mr. Marawen Salladen Abdulstar. [123290]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration Service Border Control and Enforcement Department in Liverpool wrote to my hon. Friend on 2 July 2003.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (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; [117206]
  718W
  (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; [117222]

  (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; [117238]

  (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. [117254]

  Caroline Flint
  There are limited areas in the Justice and Home Affairs Council which are subject to qualified majority voting (QMV). Since 1999 and for those measures in Title IV of the Treaty on the European Community subject to QMV where the UK has opted into their adoption, no measures have been adopted with the UK abstaining, outvoted or part of a blocking minority. All measures in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union are adopted by unanimity. Information for the years 1997–99 is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) local authorities and (b) voluntary organisations of the Criminal Records Bureau's decision to increase the cost of standard and enhanced checks. [121724]

  Paul Goggins
  Responsibility for paying the fee for a criminal record disclosure rests with the individual applicant, although it is open to the employer to reimburse the cost. Checks will remain free in the case of volunteers (saving the voluntary sector an estimated £10 million in 2003–04). I have placed in the Library a Regulatory Impact Assessment which assesses the impact of the fee increase across all sectors.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal record checks were carried out by employers in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham, (b) Shropshire and (c) England in each year since 1997; how much the checks cost them; and how many volunteers were checked for criminal records by organisations in (i) Shrewsbury and Atcham, (ii) Shropshire and (iii) England in each year since 1997. [121727]

  Paul Goggins
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Table 1 shows total numbers of police checks undertaken by forces in England in those financial years for which information is available, under arrangements agreed at national level by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), in relation to

  persons working with children;

  proprietors and managers of residential care homes and nursing homes;

  civilian fine enforcement officers; and

  applicants for taxi and private hire vehicle drivers' licences.

  719W

  Table 1

  Total number of checks

  1997–98

  746,986

  1998–99

  748,856

  1999–2000

  835,563

  2000–01

  849,053

  Table 2 shows total numbers of police checks on volunteers undertaken by forces in England (some are national organisations and may include checks conducted in Wales) on behalf of vol untary organisations and channelled through the Voluntary Organisations Consultancy Service (VOCS), taken from the annual report of VOCS in relation to the calendar year indicated:

  Table 2

  Total number of checks

  1997

  9,796

  1998

  10,558

  1999

  10,533

  2000

  11,476

  2001

  12,448

  2002

  12,661

  Under ACPO policy, forces undertook checks under arrangements agreed nationally free of charge.

  In the 2002–03 financial year, its first year of operation, the Criminal Records Bureau issued 6,463 Disclosures in response to applications countersigned by registered bodies in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and in the 2003–04 financial year, up to 27 June, has issued 1,557. The corresponding figures for England and Wales as a whole were 1,442,000 and 473,745. Not all of these Disclosures were issued at the behest of employers. Figures are not available in respect of Shropshire. The fee for a Disclosure was £12 until 1 July 2003, when the fee for a Standard Disclosure became £24, and for an Enhanced Disclosure, £29. Disclosures for volunteers are issued free of charge.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) local authorities, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) children's charities were consulted about the proposed increases to disclosure fees for standard and enhanced disclosures by the Criminal Records Bureau; and how many organisations consulted supported an increase in fees; [122767]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the impact on the children's charity sector of proposed increases to disclosure fees for standard and enhanced disclosures by the Criminal Records Bureau. [122769]

  Paul Goggins
  In order to maintain an even demand for the Disclosure service, it was not possible to consult in advance of the fee increase being announced.

  Responsibility for paying the fee for a criminal record Disclosure rests with the individual applicant, although it is open to the employer to reimburse the cost. Checks will remain free in the case of volunteers (saving the voluntary sector an estimated £10 million in 2003–04). I have placed a copy in the Library.

  EU Legislation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by the Department over each of the last five years. [120839]

  Caroline Flint
  EC Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states without the need for further incorporation into national law. However, some Regulations may require UK measures to make them workable and enforceable.

  Over the last five years, one Regulation has required such implementation by the Home Office: the Council Regulation concerning the establishment of 'Eurodac' for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention. The legislative changes required to implement the Eurodac Regulation were made in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, effective from 11 December 2000, by virtue of the Immigration and Asylum Act (Commencement No 8 and Transitional Provision) Order 2000. Implementation was completed when the centralised Eurodac fingerprint database became operational on 15 January 2003.

  Two other EC Regulations for which the Home Office has responsibility have also been adopted in the last five years but have not required implementation in the UK:
  Council Regulation 2220/2000/EC of 28 September 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 302/93 on the establishment of a European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
  Council Regulation 24247/2001//EC of 6 December 2001 on the development of the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II).

  Extradition
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under the new extradition treaty with the United States, a US legal team will be required to give evidence to a British court; and whether these extradition arrangements are reciprocal. [123754]

  Caroline Flint
  The new extradition Treaty was signed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and United States Attorney General John Ashcroft in Washington on 31 March.

  When it comes into force it will provide that extradition requests from the United States will, like those from Council of Europe countries, not have to be accompanied by 'prima facie evidence'.

  In accordance with the United States constitution extradition requests to the United States will have to be accompanied by sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition is sought.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are in place to ensure that foreign legal teams have sufficient evidence to apply for the extradition of a British citizen. [123755]

  Caroline Flint
  Under current arrangements, with the exception of those requests made by the UK's 43 partners under the Council of Europe's European Convention on Extradition 1957, ratified by the UK in 1991, all extradition requests to the UK, have to be
  721W
  supported by 'prima facie evidence'. This must be evidence sufficient to warrant the trial of the arrested person if the extradition crime had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court of committal.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the human rights implications of proposals to allow extradition proceedings to occur without evidence submitted to a British court from the prosecuting foreign legal team. [123756]

  Caroline Flint
  Since the United Kingdom ratified the European Convention on Extradition (ECE) in 1991, other countries which are also parties to the ECE, of whom there are now more than 40, have not had to submit 'prima facie' evidence to accompany their extradition requests.

  We do not believe that this has human rights implications but the Extradition Bill, which is currently before Parliament, makes it clear that we can not extradite in any case where extradition would be incompatible with the Convention rights of the person whose extradition is sought.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extradition arrangements exist between the EU member states and the United States; and what plans there are to change them. [123757]

  Caroline Flint
  The UK's extradition relations with the United States are currently governed by the 1976 bilateral treaty (amended in 1986). We cannot speak for our European Union partners, but all have bilateral treaties with the USA.

  The European Union has no extradition relations with the USA at present. However, the European Union and the USA signed bilateral mutual legal assistance and extradition treaties on 25 June 2003. These will come into force in the UK, once the EU and US agree to put them into force and the UK withdraws its declaration that it will not be bound by the agreements until it has completed its constitutional procedures. This declaration means that any necessary legislation will need to be in place before the agreements can be applied to the UK. The EU decision to bring the agreements into force, like the decision to sign, is subject to unanimity.

  The EU/US extradition agreement has no significant impact on UK/US extradition relations, but, for example, ensures that all other member states have extradition relations with the USA based on dual criminality and a penalty threshold, rather than a list of offences.

  Gambling
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a Gaming Bill. [124453]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  We will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits. We also intend that Parliament should have an opportunity to give our proposals pre-legislative scrutiny, and plan to publish draft clauses to that end.

  Interface with Faith
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason Gurdwaras and Sikh organisations in Wales have(a) been excluded from the review of the Government's Interface with Faith Communities and (b) not been included in the mapping exercise. [123608]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The scope of this Review is England-only, though the devolved Administrations are represented at meetings of the Review Steering Group and may in due course decide to conduct similar reviews.

  Juvenile Prisoners
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the imprisonment of(a) female and (b) male juveniles in adult prison establishments will end. [122714]

  Paul Goggins
  On 1 July 2003, 101 young women aged 16 and 17 were in units with young adults aged under 21 or specialist medical and mother and baby facilities catering for adults and juveniles. By the end of the year we expect all the 16- year-olds to have been moved from Prison Service custody; the Prison Service will continue to hold the 17-year-olds for the time being.

  There are currently no male juveniles in adult prison establishments.

  Less-than-lethal Weapons
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use is being made in the UK of lessthan-lethal weapons technology in tackling crime, terrorism and other illegal activity. [123027]

  Ms Blears
  The police currently have at their disposal the L21A1 baton round for use in dealing with violent situations where there is a significant threat to life. This will include incidents of serious public disorder and circumstances where a resort to conventional ammunition may be the only other alternative.

  In addition, the Association of Chief Police Officers is undertaking a limited operational pilot of Taser in five police force areas. The pilot will allow the police to explore, in greater detail, the potential benefits of the new technology.

  For use in a wider operational role, CS Spray has been available to UK Police forces since 1996. Following its introduction, there was a marked decrease in officer injury rates.

  The UK has well-tried and tested contingency plans developed over many years for responding to a wide range of terrorist threats. The Government does not disclose specific security measures to counter the terrorist threat.

  Paedophiles
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for specialised treatment centres for paedophiles to replace the Wolvercote Centre. [124127]
  723W
  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: As part of the development of a wider accommodation strategy for offenders, the National Probation Directorate is considering how treatment of the sort which was provided by the Wolvercote Clinic may best be provided in dedicated residential facilities. As yet we have no confirmed plans as to the number or the location of such facilities.

  Resources are currently being concentrated on delivering accredited, non-residential treatment programmes for sexual offenders in the community and for those in prison.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many treatment centres are available to treat paedophiles; and how many paedophile patients these centres can treat at any one time. [124128]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: There are no residential facilities funded by the Home Office which are dedicated to the treatment of adults convicted of sexual offences against children. However, each of the 42 Probation Areas in England and Wales delivers accredited sex offender treatment programmes in the community. In addition to the 2,000 places on these programmes provided this year, 920 places are provided on accredited sex offender programmes which run in prisons.

  In developing an accommodation strategy for offenders generally, the National Probation Directorate is considering what sort of residential facilities for treating sexual offenders in the community may be required.

  Passports
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what compensation was paid by the Post Office to the UK Passport Service for passports lost in the post in each of the last five years; [123510]

  (2) what guidance is issued to post offices to ensure the secure handling of passports en route from UK Passport Service offices to applicants; [123511]

  (3) what action he is taking to minimise the risk of passports being stolen in the post; [123512]

  (4) how many passports were reported lost in transit by private postal and courier companies in each of the last five years. [123513]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: In early 2003 the UK Passport Service (UKPS) completed a "Review of Alternative Delivery Mechanisms" in the wake of continuing problems with passports being reported as lost in the post and the concern that these lost passports might subsequently be used for the purposes of identity fraud. As a result of this review UKPS have determined that in future all valid UK passports will be delivered by secure delivery to the customers home address. A tender exercise is currently under way to select a suitable supplier and UKPS expect to announce a chosen supplier in August. Implementation is currently planned for early 2004.
  724W
  The UK Passport Service rarely use private postal and courier companies as the bulk of passports are delivered to customers by Royal Mail Group. Private couriers are occasionally used in 'emergency situations', however there have been no reported instances of any passports lost by such couriers.

  For each passport reported lost in the post UKPS receive compensation of £26.00 from Royal Mail Group. Between 1999 and 2002 there were 11,733 passports reported lost in the post and compensation has therefore totalled £305,058.

  There is no specific guidance provided to Post Office Ltd. with regard to the secure delivery of passports to customers. UKPS do however regularly meet with Royal Mail Group to discuss security arrangements within the postal system and measures have been put in place to anonomise envelopes and maximise the secure transmission of passports from UKPS sites to customers.

  Police
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there are per head of population in each of the basic command units that make up the Avon and Somerset constabulary area. [123583]

  Ms Blears
  The information in the table is based on police strength in the Basic Command Units at 31 March 2002, as set out in the reply of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 589W, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes).

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  Basic Command Unit

  Police officers per 100,000 population1

  Bath and North East Somerset

  134.5

  Central Bristol

  348.9

  North Bristol

  184.4

  North Somerset

  107.4

  Somerset East

  99.9

  Somerset West

  121.1

  South Bristol

  188.8

  South Gloucester

  107.6

  1 Population figures are from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and are the latest available for mid-year 2001

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in the London borough of Barnet in 1997; and how many there are now. [123891]

  Ms Blears
  Information has not been collected on a regular basis about the number of officers deployed to Basic Command Units within force areas. The deployment of resources between the London boroughs and other specialist operational and support units of the Metropolitan Police Service is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Sir John Stevens QPM).

  I would however refer my hon. Friend to the reply of 2 December 2002, Official Report, column 589W, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) to the hon. Member for Southwark,

  725W
  North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), setting out police strength for each Basic Command Unit for each force in England and Wales as at 31 March 2002.

  Current London borough division boundaries were introduced in 2000 following changes to Metropolitan Police District boundaries with Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey on 1 April 2000. Barnet Division did not exist in its current form in 1997 and was affected by the boundary changes with Hertfordshire in 2000. Realistic comparisons of borough strength cannot therefore be made.

  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes his Department has made to police disciplinary procedures in the last five years; and what representations he has received from chief constables on reforming police disciplinary procedures. [122881]

  Ms Blears
  The current misconduct regulations were introduced on 1 April 1999. These are the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 and the Police (Conduct) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1999, which replaced the existing Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 and the Police (Discipline) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1985. The new Regulations represent a change in emphasis from a discipline code of specific offences to a code of conduct against which an officer's behaviour can be assessed to see whether or not it matches up to the standards expected of a police officer.

  Regulations and Guidance on police misconduct procedures are kept under review by the Police Personnel Procedures (PPP) Working Group, which was set up by, and is a sub-group of, the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales. All police interests are represented on the PPP Working Group, which includes a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Since the current misconduct regulations were introduced in April 1999 the following amendments have been made:
  The Greater London Authority Act 1999 (Consequential Amendments) (Police) Order 2000 (SI 2000/1549) removed references to the Assistant Commissioner from the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 and amended the Police (Conduct) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1999 consequential on the fact that the Home Secretary ceased to be the police authority for the Metropolitan Police.
  The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Consequential Amendments) (Police Ranks) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3888) inserted in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 various references to chief superintendents, consequential on section 125 of the 2001 Act, and inserted in the Police (Conduct) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1999 a reference to a deputy chief constable, consequential on section 123 of the 2001 Act. Regulation 5(4) amended regulation 18(3) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999 to provide that at a disciplinary hearing, the two officers who assist the presiding officer need not come from the same force as the officer concerned.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there are per head of population on the Isle of Man; and what the equivalent figures are for(a) England and (b) Wales. [123390]
  726W
  Ms Blears
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Police officers per 100,000 population

  Isle of Man Constabulary1

  England2

  Wales2

  Police Officers

  322.3

  240.2

  244.2

  Civilian Support Staff

  65.5

  109.8

  105.5

  Total Police Service Personnel

  387.9

  350.0

  349.7

  1 Information provided by the Isle of Man Constabulary via the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

  2 England and Wales figures, based on police strength at 31 March 2002 and Office for National Statistics (ONS) mid-year 2001 population figures. Police strength for England and Wales excludes police officers seconded to National Crime Squad (NCS), National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and central services such as Centrex.

  Prisoner Re-offending
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set for prisoner re-offending rates. [124034]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: The Home Office Public Service Agreement (published in the White Paper '2002 Spending Review, Public Service Agreements 2003–2006' (Cm 5571, July 2002) set a target to reduce re-offending by five per cent for young offenders and for adults sentenced to imprisonment or sentenced to community sentences. Progress against this target is measured using reconviction rates, as set out in the 'SR2002 Public Service Agreement Technical Notes' (presented to Parliament in March 2003).

  Progress against the proceeding Public Service Agreement Target 10, set in 2000, was reported in Home Office Online Report 16/02.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the prisoner re-offending rates were in each of the last five years. [124036]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: Two-year `un-adjusted? reconviction rates for prisoners discharged from custody are available for 1994 to 1998. These were 56 per cent. in 1994, 58 per cent. in 1995, 57 per cent. in 1996, 58 per cent. in 1997 and 59 per cent. in 1998. These rates are published in 'Prison Statistics-England and Wales 2001?.

  Reconviction rates for offenders discharged from custody have also been published according to the requirements of the Governments Public Service Agreement (PSA) 10 target. These are adjusted to take out convictions for offences committed prior to discharge, giving a reconviction rate of 55.3 per cent. for the first quarter of 1999. The equivalent figures for the first quarter of 1997 and 1998 are 56.8 per cent. and 55.7 per cent. respectively.

  Neither set of rates indicate trends in rates over time, as they make no allowance for changes in the characteristics and criminal histories of offenders given custodial sentences. To do this a predicted rate is used. Comparisons between the actual and predicted reconviction rates for 1999 show that the actual rate was 1.9 per cent. lower than predicted, equating to 3.3 per cent. fewer offenders reconvicted, as set out in the Home Office On Line Report 16/02.
  727W
  Reconviction rates for more recent periods are not yet available.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers are working within the Greater London area. [123968]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is as follows:

  London

  Number of probation staff1,2

  Senior Probation Officers

  182.7

  Probation Officers

  756.2

  Trainee Probation Officers

  110.0

  Probation Service Officers

  331.4

  Total

  1,380.3

  1 Figures given as full-time equivalent.

  2 Figures as at 31 December 2001, the figures for 2002–03 are currently being processed and analysed and will be available in due course.

  Note:

  Figures obtained from data collected for RDS Probation Statistics 2001

  Public Events (Police Participation)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given(a) the Metropolitan police and (b) other forces on the participation in uniform by off-duty police officers in public events; and what representations he has received on the participation of police officers in (i) the Lesbian and Gay Pride March in London and (ii) Europride March in Manchester in 2003. [123425]

  Ms Blears
  No guidance has been issued by the Home Office on the question of off duty officers wearing uniform at a public event. The Gay Police Association asked the Home Office for permission to put the "could you" police recruitment advertising, logo on polo and rugby shirts, which would be worn by police officers and their friends and family, at the Lesbian and Gay Pride March in London and the Europride March in Manchester. Permission was granted.

  Sex Offender Treatment Programme
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners serving sentences in London prisons have completed a sex offender's treatment programme within the last 12 months. [123310]

  Paul Goggins
  64 prisoners serving sentences in London prisons completed a sex offender treatment programme in the 12 months up to 31 March 2003.

  Sexual Offences
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individual convictions there were for sexual offences in the last five years; and how many of those convictions have resulted in sentences of four or more years. [124125]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: The information requested is contained in the table.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in the autumn.
  728W

  Number of persons convicted at all courts for sexual offences1 and the number sentenced to immediate custody for four years or more, England and Wales 1997 to 2001

  Number of persons convicted

  Number sentenced to immediate custody for four years and over

  1997

  4,523

  718

  1998

  4,567

  789

  1999

  4,304

  753

  2000

  3,943

  875

  2001

  3,823

  814

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions have taken place between his Department's officials and representatives of Tamil community groups in Sri Lanka; and(a) when and (b) where such discussions took place. [123311]

  Beverley Hughes
  There have been none this year.

  Terrorist Profiling
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 20 May 2003,Official Report, columns 764–65W, on terrorist profiling, whether the pilot group has met; and what their timetable is for taking this work forward. [121961]

  Caroline Flint
  The pilot group held its first workshop on terrorist profiles at the headquarters of the German Federal Police on 24 and 25 June. The United Kingdom was represented at this workshop by officers from the Metropolitan Police and Security Service. The workshop involved a preliminary exchange of methodologies and there was an agreement to exchange further information in advance of another meeting to be arranged in the near future.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of women in prison are serving a sentence because of non-payment of fines; and how many of them had as an original offence the non-payment of the TV Licence Fee. [123514]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: On 30 April 2003, the number of females in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales was 4,432. There were three female fine defaulters, which represents 0.07 per cent of the total female prison population. None of the three female fine defaulters were in prison for defaulting on the payment of a fine for using television without a licence.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were issued in each of the last three years, broken down by country of application. [123502]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: The information is contained in the following table.
  729W

  All applications approved including group workers— period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002

  Approved

  Afghanistan

  18

  Albania

  138

  Algeria

  151

  Angola

  27

  Antigua

  17

  Argentina

  804

  Armenia

  35

  Australia

  8,489

  Azerbaijan

  74

  Bahamas

  21

  Bahrain

  8

  Bangladesh

  1,156

  Barbados

  171

  Belarus

  188

  Belize

  5

  Benin

  5

  Bhutan

  2

  Bolivia

  16

  Bosnia-Herzegovina

  42

  Botswana

  144

  Brazil

  754

  British Dependant Terr

  17

  British National Overseas

  475

  British Overseas Citz.

  27

  Brunei

  26

  Bulgaria

  1,375

  Burkina Faso

  4

  Burundi

  1

  Cambodia

  2

  Cameroon

  137

  Canada

  3,780

  Cape Verde

  2

  Cayman Islands

  1

  Central African Republic

  4

  Chad

  2

  Chile

  126

  China, People's Republic of

  4,587

  Colombia

  436

  Comoros

  1

  Congo

  353

  Costa Rica

  17

  Croatia

  215

  Cuba

  223

  Cyprus

  120

  Czech Republic

  829

  Djibouti

  1

  Dominica

  60

  Dominican Republic

  13

  Ecuador

  42

  Egypt

  492

  El Salvador

  8

  Eritrea

  3

  Estonia

  88

  Ethiopia

  42

  Fiji

  36

  Gabon

  6

  Gambia

  92

  Georgia

  120

  Ghana

  1,733

  Grenada

  40

  Guatemala

  6

  Guinea

  17

  Guinea-Bissau

  5

  Guyana

  170

  Haiti

  12

  Honduras

  3

  Hong Kong (British)

  199

  Hong Kong (Chinese)

  379

  Hungary

  851

  India

  31,820

  Indonesia

  303

  Iran

  341

  Iraq

  60

  Israel

  578

  Ivory Coast

  28

  Jamaica

  1,515

  730W

  All applications approved including group workers— period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002

  Approved

  Japan

  4,104

  Jordan

  194

  Kazakhstan

  138

  Kenya

  993

  Kosovo

  8

  Kuwait

  31

  Kyrgyzstan

  13

  Laos

  2

  Latvia

  225

  Lebanon

  281

  Lesotho

  19

  Liberia

  4

  Libya

  147

  Lithuania

  709

  Macedonia

  69

  Madagascar

  3

  Malawi

  166

  Malaysia

  3,326

  Maldives

  6

  Mali

  85

  Malta

  199

  Mauritania

  4

  Mauri tius

  713

  Mexico

  329

  Moldova

  64

  Monaco

  2

  Mongolia

  27

  Montenegro

  1

  Morocco

  122

  Mozambique

  14

  Myanmar

  70

  Namibia

  60

  Nauru

  4

  Nepal

  332

  New Zealand

  3,492

  Nicaragua

  5

  Nigeria

  2,914

  North Korea

  2

  Oman

  20

  Pakistan

  4,006

  Palestine

  25

  Palestinian Authority

  3

  Panama

  18

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  Paraguay

  14

  Peru

  91

  Philippines

  12,778

  Poland

  2,098

  Puerto Rica

  8

  Qatar

  2

  Romania

  935

  Russia

  1,981

  Rwanda

  11

  Samoa

  2

  San Marino

  1

  Saudi Arabia

  99

  Senegal

  217

  Serbia

  31

  Seychelles

  66

  Sierra Leone

  160

  Singapore

  566

  Slovakia

  281

  Slovenia

  109

  Soloman Islands

  1

  Somalia

  12

  South Africa

  13,715

  South Korea

  748

  Sri Lanka

  732

  St. Helena

  18

  St. Kitts

  1

  St. Lucia

  56

  St. Vincent

  38

  Stateless

  7

  Sudan

  128

  Surinam

  0

  Swaziland

  35

  731W

  All applications approved including group workers— period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002

  Approved

  Switzerland

  353

  Syrian, Arab Republic

  151

  Tadzikhistan

  5

  Taiwan

  232

  Tanzania

  122

  Thailand

  872

  Togo

  8

  TONGA

  25

  Trinidad an Tobago

  742

  Tunisia

  60

  Turkey

  885

  Turkmenistan

  9

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  1

  Uganda

  140

  Ukraine

  673

  United Arab Emirates

  39

  United Kingdom

  3

  United States of America

  23,018

  Uruguay

  51

  Uzbekistan

  45

  Vanuatu

  2

  Venezuela

  143

  Vietnam

  58

  Yemen Republic of

  3

  Yugoslavia

  213

  Zaire

  15

  Zambia

  572

  Total

  154,443

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Home Office staff were in post dealing with work permit applications on 1 June(a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002 and (d) 2003. [123503]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: The numbers of staff in post considering work permit applications on 1 June of the years 2000 to 2003 are as follows:

  Number

  (a) 2000

  1113

  (b)2001

  1206

  (c)2002

  240

  (d)2003

  271

  1 The figures for 2000–01 are staff dealing with work permit applications in the Department for Education and Employment. The work permit consideration function transferred to the Home Office on 7 June 2001.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Unpaid Fines
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what percentage of fines were unpaid in(a) magistrates courts and (b) Crown courts in (i) Chesham and Amersham and (ii) Buckinghamshire in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [123908]

  Mr. Leslie
  Magistrates? Courts Committees (MCCs) have a responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed by both the magistrates courts and the Crown court. Debt collected includes not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not yet possible to separate out only fines from the total so the figures provided here include all the elements above.

  Data are collected centrally at MCC level, rather than at court level. The payment rate for the Thames Valley MCC in 2002–03, that is the percentage of the total amount collected over the amount imposed, was 69 per cent. On that basis, the percentage of fines unpaid was 31 per cent.

  In addition, the Thames Valley MCC accounting system is unable to identify the percentage of fines unpaid in the Chesham and Amersham satellite magistrates court. Information from the Thames Valley MCC indicated that the payment rate in 2002–03 for the Central Buckinghamshire Petty Session Area, which includes Amersham, was 65 per cent.

  General Election Participation
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what percentage of UK citizens who live abroad participated in the last general election. [123597]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimates that there are around 15.5 million UK citizens living abroad, but not all of these will be eligible to register to vote as overseas electors. In February 2001, 11,496 UK citizens were registered to vote as overseas electors. However, no central record is kept on which of those electors chose to vote in the general election that followed in June that year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he has made to assist in the development of free trade unions in Iraq. [123876]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are working through the Coalition Provisional Authority in partnership with the Iraqi people to develop a free and democratic society respectful of human rights and freedom of expression.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe (Mr. MacShane) is working with the hon. Member and others to encourage the establishment of one of the key political institutions in any democracy: a trade union movement.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe today met British trade union officials to discuss support for trade union's in Iraq.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about keeping the British veto in the areas covered by the draft European Constitution; and if he will make a statement. [123877]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government have received many representations on the Convention's proposals. We look forward to receiving many more once the final text of the Convention's draft is published in the next few days. More QMV is essential to push through our solutions to Europe-wide problems in key areas, such as asylum and immigration. But there are areas on which we would not be prepared to move from unanimity. We would not agree to any changes on foreign policy, defence, taxation or social security which threatened the national interest.

  EuroMed Process
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in respect of the EuroMed Process at the recent Thessaloniki European Council meeting. [123878]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Council welcomed the outcome of the Euro-Mediterranean Mid-Term Ministerial Meeting in Crete in May and agreed that the EuroMed Process was a key tool for enhancing the EU's relationship with the Arab world.

  European Council
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reform of the Presidency of the European Council. [123879]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government supports the proposals made by the Convention for a full-time European Council Chair, which would give its work greater continuity and coherence. We believe that reform is essential to enable the enlarged EU to work effectively.

  Zimbabwe
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the latest situation in Zimbabwe. [123880]

  Mr. Mullin
  The political and economic situation in Zimbabwe remains serious. The state continues to use violence and intimidation against its opponents. Formal dialogue between the ruling ZANU (PF) and opposition MDC has not started. The leader of the opposition, Morgan Tsvangirai, now faces two treason charges. The economy continues to spiral downwards. The World Food Programme estimates that nearly half the population, 5.5 million Zimbabweans, will depend on food aid this year.

  Responsibility for the present state of Zimbabwe lies squarely with its present Government. Together with the rest of the international community, we will continue to provide humanitarian relief, will work to sustain Mugabe's isolation and highlight his abuses of fundamental human rights and will continue to promote a prosperous and democratic future for the people of Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the situation in Zimbabwe on the rest of southern Africa. [123881]

  Mr. Mullin
  The situation in Zimbabwe continues to have a negative impact on other countries in southern Africa. The crisis there is damaging regional economies and has adversely affected their interest rates, inflation, foreign direct investment and tourism. A study by the Zimbabwe Research Initiative in May estimated the total cost to the combined Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries to have been at least US$1.88 billion at the end of 2002. Zimbabwe's neighbours are also suffering damage to local production from the influx of cheap Zimbabwean goods, unpaid Zimbabwean debts, an increase in largely unskilled migrants, and the cross border spread of foot and mouth disease.

  Consul-General (San Francisco)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the Consul-General?s house in San Francisco has been sold. [123882]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Consul-General's house failed to match the key performance indicators by which we judge whether to retain estate assets, particularly because it was significantly overscale.

  United Nations
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Germany concerning its policy on the United Nations. [123883]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have regular discussions at all levels with Germany on UN issues, not only as important partners in the UN, but also as current members of the UN Security Council.

  Leyla Zana
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the re-trial of Leyla Zana and her three colleagues in Turkey. [123885]

  Mr. MacShane
  We welcome the Turkish reforms which allow for the re-trial of cases in line with ECHR rulings and the subsequent decision to re-try Leyla Zana and her co-defendants. We are monitoring the trial closely and co-ordinate with EU Partners to ensure that all hearings are attended.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that he received before the recent conflict. [123887]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the evidence given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is included in their report, "The Decision to Go to War in Iraq", Volume II Written Evidence (HC 813-11), published on 7 July 2003.

  Burma
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Burma. [123888]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The situation in Burma is of grave concern to this Government. We have repeatedly called on the Burmese authorities to release immediately Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other National League for Democracy members detained on or since 30 May 2003. The regimes responses to events so far have been unacceptable. The UK will ensure that pressure is maintained and increased on the Burmese regime to move irreversibly towards democracy and respect for human rights.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects of the decision by member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations to allow Burma to take over the presidency of the organisation in 2006; and what discussions he has had with ASEAN about this decision. [124514]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are concerned that Burma is to take over the presidency of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2006. We take advantage of our regular bilateral and multilateral contacts with all ASEAN nations to discuss Burma related issues, most recently on 17 June 2003 at the ASEAN Regional Forum. We welcome the recent joint statement from the ASEAN Foreign Ministers, which looked forward to the early lifting o f restrictions placed on Aung San Suu Kyi. We hope that this will lead to more action on behalf of ASEAN members in the future. We believe that the ASEAN nations have an important role to play in encouraging substantive change in Burma.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the action to be taken by the authorities in occupied Cyprus if Famagusta port is to be reopened; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123165]

  Mr. MacShane
  The question of the status of Famagusta port is one for the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future status of Sovereign Base Area Cyprus after the Republic of Cyprus accedes to the EU. [R] [123170]

  Mr. MacShane
  Following Cyprus' accession, the UK's Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) will remain outside the EU, with technical adjustments to ensure the continued smooth functioning of the relationship between Cyprus and the SBAs.

  The arrangements are set out in a Protocol to the Treaty of Accession, which was signed on 16 April.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what respects the Annan plan for a Cyprus settlement is incompatible with the Acquis Communautaire; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123171]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Commission has stated repeatedly that there is no incompatibility of the UN proposals with the acquis communautaires. Commission officials worked in close co-ordination with the UN team over the drafting of the UN plan. The EU has affirmed on a number of occasions, most recently at Thessaloniki European Council, that it will accommodate the terms of a settlement, in line with the principles on which the EU is founded.

  Furthermore, a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the UN plan, before May 2004, would allow a re-united island to be a member of the EU. This is the EU?s express and strong preference.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the fiscal and financial arrangements in the Annan plan on the economy of the proposed Greek Cypriot component of Cyprus should the Annan plan be implemented in its current form; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123172]

  Mr. MacShane
  We believe the UN plan for a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement in Cyprus to be fair and balanced, including on matters of fiscal and financial arrangements. The proposed Greek Cypriot state is currently the richer of the two constituent states that would make up the United Cyprus Republic. This would inevitably lead to some disparity of contributions, as in any democratic state.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions remain on people wishing to cross the Green Line in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123173]
  737W
  Mr. MacShane
  Upon crossing the Green Line, Greek Cypriots travelling north are required to show their passports to the Turkish Cypriot authorities. Their details are logged and checked on return. They are permitted to bring their cars with them, provided they take out Turkish Cypriot third party insurance, and they are allowed to stay for up to three nights in hotels, but not in private accommodation.

  Turkish Cypriots travelling south are required to show exit visas north of the Green Line, and then a Republic of Cyprus passport or ID card, or a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" ID card (in which case their details are logged), when they cross. They are allowed to bring their cars for a period of up to 48 hours.

  The Cyprus Government does not permit Turkish citizens to cross from the north to the south, nor does it permit any person who has entered the island of Cyprus through a port of entry in the north to cross to the south.

  The British Government welcomes the relaxation of restrictions on freedom of movement across the Green Line. However, such measures are not a substitute for a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the UN plan.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the number of people who have crossed the Green Line in Cyprus(a) north to south and (b) south to north; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123174]

  Mr. MacShane
  The latest figures available record that, as of 21 May, 292,017 Greek Cypriots had crossed to the north, and 142,253 Turkish Cypriots had crossed to the south. Some of these may be repeat visits. Reports continue of thousands of Cypriots crossing each way every week, particularly at weekends.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the impact of the opening of the Green Line in Cyprus on the prospects for a Cyprus settlement; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123175]

  Mr. MacShane
  The celebratory scenes of Greek and Turkish Cypriots crossing the Green Line for the first time in 29 years have proved that Greek and Turkish Cypriots can live together peacefully.

  The British Government welcomes any moves that increase contacts between the two sides and improve the climate on the island. However, these measures are no substitute for renewed negotiations in the search for a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the UN plan, in line with the recommendations in the United Nations Secretary-General's report of 1 April 2003 to the UN Security Council, endorsed by UNSCR 1475.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what package of measures has been put forward by the EU to assist Turkish Cypriots in occupied Cyprus; how these measures will be administered; what his assessment is of these measures; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123176]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Commission released, on 3 June, a package of measures designed to promote economic development in the north of Cyprus and bring it closer to the EU.
  738W
  The package includes 9 million euros of financial assistance to boost economic development, through developing infrastructure in the north, introducing grant schemes for Small and Medium Enterprises and conducting feasibility studies on the economic integration of the north of Cyprus into the EU, after a political settlement. The package further includes 3 million euros to bring the north closer to the EU, through information activities on the EU and the acquis. Finally, the package includes proposals on trade, in particular that the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce could be given the authority to issue movement certificates for goods going from the north of Cyprus to the south

  Technical talks on the implementation and administration of these proposals are ongoing in Brussels. However, we are urging both sides to work closely with the Commission to implement these measures and deliver the best possible results for Turkish Cypriots.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures have been taken by the Republic of Cyprus to assist Turkish Cypriots resident in occupied Cyprus; what assessment he has made of these measures; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123177]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 30 April the Cyprus Government released a Memorandum on Government Policy vis-a-vis the Turkish Cypriots, detailing proposed measures designed to give the Turkish Cypriots, in the absence of a settlement and where possible, the same rights as those enjoyed by the Greek Cypriots.

  These proposed measures include the establishment of an Office of Turkish Cypriot Affairs; the facilitation of the issuing of travel documents, ID cards and birth certificates by the Republic of Cyprus to Turkish Cypriots; the facilitation of the employment of Turkish Cypriots; measures to enable goods for personal consumption to be carried from the north to the south; the facilitation of freedom of movement from the north to the south; the introduction of direct dialling between the south, the north and Turkey; measures regarding Turkish Cypriots missing from the 1960s and 1970s; the participation of Turkish Cypriots in elections for local authorities in the south; measures regarding the teaching of Turkish to Greek Cypriots, and Greek to Turkish Cypriots; the provision of free medical treatment to Turkish Cypriots in the south when referred by a doctor in the north; and various measures regarding cultural events and activities.

  The Government of the Republic of Cyprus has already implemented many of these measures and is looking at ways of implementing the remainder.

  The British Government welcomes measures designed to help normalise life on the island. However, we believe that Confidence Building Measures are in no way a substitute for a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the UN plan, and for a reunited island being a member of the EU.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he plans to make to the authorities of
  739W
  occupied Cyprus on ensuring fair balance in the broadcast media for the elections in occupied Cyprus this year; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123178]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Government will be watching developments closely and will make any representations that they consider necessary and appropriate.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Turkey concerning the refusal of Turkey(a) to allow Republic of Cyprus-flagged vessels to use Turkish ports and (b) to enter into a customs agreement with the Republic of Cyprus; what assessment he has made of the implications of these refusals for Turkey's application for EU candidate status; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123179]

  Mr. MacShane
  This is a matter for the EU Commission, which regularly reminds Turkey of her obligations on both of these points.

  Turkey was granted EU candidate status at the Helsinki summit of 1999.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to send observers for the elections in occupied Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123182]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government firmly believe that it is important that the forthcoming elections in the north of Cyprus are seen to be free and fair. We would certainly consider sending observers if invited to do so.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to ensure the elections in occupied Cyprus will be conducted fairly; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123183]

  Mr. MacShane
  The elections in the north of Cyprus come at a critical time for the future of Cyprus and the prospects for a permanent and comprehensive settlement. It is clearly in the interests of all concerned that they should be seen to be conducted freely and fairly. We urge the Turkish Cypriot authorities to ensure that this is so.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of how many residents in occupied Cyprus are(a) Turkish Cypriots, (b) settlers from Turkey, (c) descendants of settlers from Turkey, born in Cyprus and (d) foreign nationals; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123190]

  Mr. MacShane
  The number of residents in each of these categories is a matter of dispute between the various parties concerned and no authoritative estimates are available.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure the electoral roll for the elections in occupied Cyprus is fairly compiled; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123191]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have observed closely the legal and other action that has taken place in the north of Cyprus in recent months to challenge the validity of the 740W
  existing entries on the electoral roll. We believe that the credibility of any election result depends, among other things, on the credibility of the electoral roll on which it is based.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of the number of Turkish troops in occupied Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123192]

  Mr. MacShane
  The 1960 Treaty of Alliance allows for there to be 950 Greek troops and 650 Turkish troops on the island of Cyprus. The actual numbers of Greek and Turkish troops are a matter of dispute between the various parties concerned. No authoritative figures are available.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what(a) action he is taking and (b) advice he is giving to prevent UK citizens resident in occupied Cyprus in dispute with Greek Cypriots visiting the property with a claim to ownership; [123193]

  (2) what advice he is giving to UK citizens resident in occupied Cyprus in the event of a Greek Cypriot visiting the property suggesting it belongs to him; and if he will make a statement. [123196]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our High Commission in Nicosia has encouraged British residents in the north of Cyprus to act in the spirit of the times, and to accord visiting Greek Cypriots the same courteous welcome that they have generally received from Turkish Cypriots.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to persuade the Government in occupied Cyprus to remove its requirement on visitors from the Republic of Cyprus to produce passports when crossing into the occupied areas; and if he will make a statement. [123194]

  Mr. MacShane
  We will continue to encourage both sides in Cyprus to work together to eliminate any difficulties which the welcome relaxing of restrictions on freedom of movement might cause.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he is giving(a) to UK citizens resident in occupied Cyprus in property where the title is uncertain owing to possible Greek Cypriot ownership and (b) to potential purchasers from the UK of property in occupied Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [123195]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our general advice to prospective buyers, found on the FCO's website and given in response to telephone queries, is that non-recognition of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", and the possibility of a future political settlement, could have implications for those considering buying property in the north. They should appraise themselves fully of the situation and seek legal advice.

  We continue to believe that property issues will only be fully resolved through a comprehensive settlement based on the UN plan.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken to prevent UK citizens resident in occupied Cyprus crossing into sovereign base areas; in what
  741W
  circumstances they will be prevented from doing so; in what circumstances they will be permitted to do so; and if he will make a statement. [123197]

  Mr. MacShane
  In line with commitments made to the Republic of Cyprus in the 1960 Treaty of establishment, provided they have entered the island of Cyprus through an internationally recognised port of entry, British nationals have freedom of access and communication to and through the Eastern Sovereign Base Areas (ESBA) from the north. No action is being or will be taken to prevent them from doing so. However, any person who has entered the island of Cyprus through an unrecognised port of entry is considered to be an illegal immigrant by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. It has been Government policy since 1974 to respect the Republic of Cyprus' immigration policy. The relaxing of restrictions on freedom of movement across the Green Line has required SBA authorities to check and monitor people and vehicles entering and leaving the ESBA. Therefore, some people who might have previously crossed in contravention of SBA law are now no longer able to do so.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reported incidents there have been of violent confrontation as a result of people crossing the Green Line in Cyprus(a) north to south, in the south and (b) south to north, in the north; and if he will make a statement. [123206]

  Mr. MacShane
  There has been one minor violent incident, in which a Turkish Cypriot visiting the south was attacked and received hospital treatment. The alleged attackers are the subject of a police investigation.

  However, this one exception proves the rule that the Green Line crossings in general have been peaceful and celebratory, proving that Greek and Turkish Cypriots can live together peacefully.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the evidence he has received of smuggling(a) into and (b) out of the Sovereign Base Area, Cyprus of (i) drugs, (ii) humans and (iii) other contraband material (A) before the relaxation of the Green Line restrictions and (B) since; and if he will make a statement. [123209]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Sovereign Base Areas have appropriate measures in place to prevent the passage of contraband goods across SBA boundaries. The SBA checks and controls mirror those of the Republic of Cyprus.

  Increased quantities of uncustomed goods (mainly tobacco products and alcohol) have been seized by SBA Customs at the crossing points in the Eastern Sovereign Base Area (ESBA) since the relaxation of crossing restrictions across the Green Line and the subsequent necessity of checking every vehicle. So far no drugs have been detected.

  In early 2001, there were five incidents of prohibited immigrants attempting to cross into the ESBA directly from the north. There have been no further incidents since then.
  742W
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure freedom of movement for Cypriot citizens in Cyprus and in the EU; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123211]

  Mr. MacShane
  Cypriots holding Republic of Cyprus passports will be able to enjoy free movement throughout the EU from 1 May 2004.

  Some restrictions on freedom of movement within the island of Cyprus are likely to continue as long as Cyprus remains divided. We are urging the two sides to resume negotiations on the basis of the UN plan, in order to secure a comprehensive settlement and enable a reunited Cyprus to be an EU member.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to replace Lord Hannay with a new special representative to Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123212]

  Mr. MacShane
  None at present.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Ministerial Statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, on 4 June 2003, Official Report, column 22WS.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the conditions which should be met by the leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus before negotiations for a settlement can be resumed; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123213]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Government remains committed to UNSCR 1475, which endorsed the view of the UN Secretary- General, that both sides should unequivocally state that they are ready to commit to resumed negotiations on the basis of the UN plan, and that they should commit to finalising the plan without changing its basic principles or essential trade-offs, and to putting it to referendums on both sides of the island.

  The Greek Cypriot leader, Mr. Papadopoulos, gave such a commitment at The Hague earlier this year. The Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash, has refused to do so.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the UN on the possible reopening of Famagusta port; and if he will promote its reopening. [R] [123410]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) today (UIN 123165).

  EU (Official Languages)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for Turkish Cypriot EU citizens applying for jobs with the EU Commission, in the event of Turkish not being an official language of the EU; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123164]
  743W
  Mr. MacShane
  The Republic of Cyprus has specified to the EU that its official language is Greek. Any Cypriot citizen applying for jobs within the Commission would have to work with the official languages of the Union.

  In the event of a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the UN plan and consequent EU membership by a reunited Cyprus, it is likely that Turkish would become an official language of the EU. In that way, the current anomalous situation would be resolved.

  We are urging both sides to resume negotiations and commit to securing a settlement on the basis of the UN plan.

  GCHQ
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2003,Official Report, column 936W, on GCHQ, whether any computers are missing. [123616]

  Mr. Straw
  The audit of GCHQ's 2001–02 account revealed that certain items (including computers) held on the asset register could not be located. Such cases have been investigated and all items satisfactorily accounted for.

  In some cases, the items had been (correctly) disposed of; the remainder were in use but not in their original location. In these cases, the Fixed Asset Register had simply not been updated to reflect the true position. Other investigations have shown that a few items, mainly of portable computing equipment (not on the Fixed Asset Register) made available to staff for authorised work away from the office cannot be located and may have been lost or stolen. GCHQ's security division has, however, carried out appropriate investigations and concluded that no classified material has been compromised as a result.

  The process of reconciling GCHQ's physical holdings of equipment with the Register continues, with regular communication with the National Audit Office on progress and plans for future work.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what welfare concerns his Department has raised with the US authorities concerning the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay. [122612]

  Mr. Straw
  We are very conscious of the importance of safeguarding the welfare of the British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Officials have visited them on five occasions. In addition to checking on the overall living conditions, we have raised individual health concerns of the detainees with the United States authorities. We have also raised the issues of delays in mail and the amount of exercise the detainees are allowed.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to co-ordinate the government resourced projects aimed 744W
  at supporting the reform process in Indonesia with the timber projects being undertaken by governments in (a) the EU and (b) outside the EU. [124166]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's support to forest sector reform in Indonesia is primarily through the Multi-stakeholder Forestry Programme. This started in July 2000. It helps build capacity within civil society and government to promote reforms. Associated with this programme is a Memorandum of Understanding signed in April 2002 between the Governments of Indonesia and the UK to address the serious problem of illegal logging and associated trade.

  Some other donor-supported programmes in Indonesia have similar aims. China, Norway and Japan have recently signed co-operation agreements with Indonesia that are similar to the Indonesia-UK Memorandum of Understanding. An agreement between Indonesia and the EU is in preparation.

  We recognise that actions under these agreements need to be co-ordinated. A Donor Forest Forum provides policy guidance. It reports to the broader Consultative Group on Indonesia.

  At an operational level we work with other donors to identify gaps, overlaps and opportunities for collaboration. Those involved, in addition to the UK, include local managers of programmes supported by the Asian Development Bank, Canada, the European Union, Germany, the International Tropical Timber Organisation, the Netherlands, Norway, the United States and the World Bank. One example of joint action is UK co-operation with a US-funded programme to design a system for tracking legally harvested logs. We foresee further opportunities as the plans supported by other donors are implemented.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the UK's speech to the IAEA Board of Governors meeting of June 2003 in the Library. [123492]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am placing in the Libraries of the House, a copy of the statement made by the UK Governor to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the IAEA Board of Governor's meeting, on 18 June 2003 in response to the IAEA Director General's report to the Board on the implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in Iran. A copy of this statement is also available at http://www.fco.gov.uk/ Files/kfile/IAEA.pdf.

  Chechen Fighters
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence the Government have collated that Chechen fighters were involved in action against(a) US and (b) British forces in (i) Iraq and (ii) Afghanistan. [122750]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: According to US military sources, US forces engaged a number of irregular fighters from the Middle East,

  745W
  North Africa and Chechnya near Baghdad in April 2003. These sources were quoted in several media reports at the time.

  A small number of Chechen fighters reportedly took part in fighting near Bagram, north of Kabul, and Mazar-e-Sharif. We cannot, however, confirm this.

  UK Arms Exports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are in place to monitor the end-use of UK arms exports; and what proposals he has to improve these. [121140]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government are committed to carrying out end-use monitoring where it will genuinely add value to our efforts to minimise the risk of misuse and diversion. FCO posts have standing instructions to report any misuse of UK-origin defence equipment.

  The Government keep its procedures in this area under review, and look at the systems employed by other countries. If practicable ways are identified in which they might be improved, these will be reflected in our future actions.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how animal welfare informs her policy on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. [122661]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Animal welfare issues have long been included among the EU's WTO negotiating priorities. At Doha, the EU was successful in ensuring that the issue of farm animal welfare could be taken into account as part of the current Agreement on Agriculture negotiations.

  Reaching agreement on changes to WTO rules explicitly to allow countries to limit imports of goods based only on the way in which a product was made (for instance whether the production method took account of animal welfare standards) remains extremely difficult. Many WTO members, developing countries in particular, are highly suspicious of the EU's motives and fear that animal welfare production standards will be used as an excuse for covert protectionism. The EU continues to raise this issue in all relevant WTO for in order to try and build trust and understanding for the EU's position. We see discussions on farm animal welfare in the current Doha trade round as a helpful step to building trust and understanding for the EU's position on broader animal welfare standards.

  Business Start-ups
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the business start-up rates were in(a) Merseyside, (b) the North West and (c) the UK in 2001–02; and how many survived for a year. [124205]
  746W
  Nigel Griffiths
  Business start-ups are measured officially by VAT registrations. The latest year for which VAT registration data is available is 2001.

  VAT Registrations 2001

  Number

  Rate per 10,000 adults

  United Kingdom

  175,455

  37

  North West

  17,565

  32

  Merseyside Metropolitan County1

  3,370

  30

  1 Excludes Halton UA

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1980–2001, Small Business Service.

  One-year VAT survival data is available for 2000 but not yet for 2001.

  They show a greater-than-average survival rate for businesses in Greater Merseyside.

  VAT Survival Rates: Businesses still registered for VAT 12 months after registration

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  91.4

  North West

  90.6

  Greater Merseyside2

  92.4

  2 Includes Halton UA

  Source:

  Small Business Service

  Intellectual Property Laws
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to ensure that intellectual property laws in the UK do not inhibit access to drugs in developing countries, with particular reference to the treatment of HIV and AIDS. [121319]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A UK intellectual property right for a drug gives no rights over use of the drug in another country.

  Intellectual Property Rights are territorial; patents in one country are not enforceable in another (although there are some regional agreements, such as the European Patent Convention). This means that any effects of intellectual property rights in the UK on access to medicines will be indirect.

  The effect of intellectual property rights on access to medicines in developing countries has attracted significant attention recently.

  Instead, the issue is primarily one of the effects of intellectual property rights in developing countries themselves—and international agreements, such as the World Trade Organisation's Trade-related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO TRIPs) Agreement, which require these rights to be available. A specific concern at present is changing the effect of TRIPs to enable countries with insufficient manufacturing capacity to make effective use of compulsory licenses for needed pharmaceuticals. All WTO members committed to solving this problem at the Ministerial Conference in

  747W
  Doha in 2001. This change would not require the UK to change its own laws, and the Government has made no commitment to do so.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts have been secured by British companies for reconstruction work in Iraq; what discussions she has had with(a) the Prime Minister and (b) the US Administration about such contracts; and if she will make a statement. [123201]

  Ms Hewitt
  British companies are not required to notify us when they have secured contracts for reconstruction work in Iraq. However, we are aware that three companies have publicly acknowledged winning such contracts and believe that a number more have been successful but have not publicised their details.

  The Cabinet and Ad Hoc Ministerial Group on Iraq has regular discussions on all aspects of our policy towards Iraq, including reconstruction.

  I have discussed Iraq with Andrew Natsios of US AID. My right hon. and noble Friend, the then Minister for Trade visited Washington on 15 and 16 May 2003 when she held talks with US AID, the State Department and, the US Army Corps of Engineers on redevelopment work in Iraq.

  Small and Medium-sized Businesses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to reduce the regulatory burden of small and medium-sized businesses. [124461]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Economist Intelligence Unit (E.I.U) studied the business environment, including regulation, in 60 countries. The Unit found that the Netherlands, the USA and Britain take the top three places.

  Among the measures that help us keep the UK ahead of other countries are:

  Extended the flat rate VAT scheme, to relieve red tape burdens on 700,000 SMEs who have had their paperwork and compliance costs cut by up to £1,000 a year, removed automatic late payment penalties for VAT, reduced the corporation tax starting rate from 10 per cent. zero so that 150,000 companies will no longer pay and tax, cut the small companies rate from 20 per cent. to 19 per cent., benefiting over 335,000 companies.

  Removed the statutory audit requirement for all companies with a turnover up to £1 million benefiting up to 150,000 small companies since July 2000 with potential savings of up to £180 million a year.

  Start-up Rates
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the start-up rate for businesses is in(a) Merseyside, (b) the North West and (c) England. [124440]
  748W
  Nigel Griffiths
  Business start-ups are measured officially by VAT registrations. The latest year for which VAT registration data is available is 2001.

  VAT Registrations 2001

  Number

  Rate per 10,000 adults

  England

  154,280

  39

  North West

  17,565

  32

  Merseyside Metropolitan County1

  13,370

  30

  1 Excludes Halton UA

  Source:

  Business start-ups and closures: VAT registrations and de registrations 1980–2001, Small Business Service.

  Trade Rules
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the OECD guidelines for multilateral enterprises are; and what the Government's policy is on these guidelines. [124373]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ("the Guidelines") are recommendations addressed by adhering countries to multi-national enterprises. They represent a framework of principles of good conduct for multi-national companies in their business activities, designed to help ensure that they act in harmony with the policies of the countries in which they operate and that they consider the views of other stakeholders (for example in respect of social and environmental issues). The Guidelines aim to promote and develop a sustainable approach to business conduct and to build an atmosphere of confidence and predictability between business, labour, governments and society as a whole. It is intended that companies use the Guidelines as a benchmark when developing their own codes of conduct and should be seen as a minimum required standard of behaviour. Further information can be obtained from www.oecd.org

  The Government supports the OECD Guidelines, which are an integral part of the Government's policy towards Corporate Social Responsibility. There are expectations of business, in respect of environmental and social responsibility and in high standards of corporate governance, wherever they operate. The Guidelines can have a positive impact on the contribution by businesses in these areas.

  UK-Russia Bilateral Trade
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress was made in discussions on bilateral trade with President Putin during his recent visit. [123889]

  Ms Hewitt
  I was very pleased to attend the Energy Summit at Lancaster House, which was addressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Putin who both welcomed the increased trade and investment between our two countries.

  During the State visit, Deputy Prime Minister Kurdin and I had a very fruitful meeting where we discussed a range of trade related issues, including increased UK/ Russia trade and economic co-operation. We both

  749W
  warmly welcomed the BP investment, announced at the Energy Summit, which helps to make the UK the largest foreign investor in Russia.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Domestic Violence
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Minister for Women when she expects that the outcome of the Government study into the costs of domestic violence will be published. [121943]

  Ms Hewitt
  The research report is scheduled for publication in autumn 2003.

  Temporary Agency Workers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women how many women are employed as temporary agency workers in all Government departments; and what proportion this represents of(a) all those employed as temporary agency workers and (b) the total work force of Government Departments. [118408]

  Ms Hewitt
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many affordable homes have been built in Battersea since 1997. [123672]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, we understand that there have been 499 affordable housing acquisitions and completions between 1997 and 2001 within the London borough of Wandsworth.

  Allotments
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the review of(a) the temporary status of allotments and (b) the 30 year limit relating to allotments. [123833]

  Keith Hill
  These issues were examined by research commissioned by the then Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Local Government Association in 2000, and guidance is provided in the final report "Growing in the community: a good practice guide for the management of allotments". It advises that temporary allotment sites of more than 30-years-old could be re-designated to statutory status on a voluntary basis, however, such sites will not automatically be converted to statutory status.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department is doing to promote the wider use and provision of allotments. [124120]
  750W
  Keith Hill
  The Government's objectives on public spaces are set out in "Living Places: Cleaner, Safer, Greener" (October 2002). The document contains our proposals for improving the quality of urban green spaces including allotments. Revised planning policy guidance note 17: Open Space, Recreation and Sport (June 2002) provides a more strategic framework for planning for green spaces.

  In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has published "Growing in the community: a good practice guide for the management of allotments (2001)", and "Allotments: a plot holders' guide (2002)" to provide advice to allotment authorities and current and potential allotment plot holders.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment his Department has made of the age range of those who occupy allotment plots. [124122]

  Keith Hill
  No specific assessment has been made of the age range of plot holders.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many allotment plots there were in each year since 1973; [124123]

  (2) what statistics he collates on usage of allotment sites. [124121]

  Keith Hill
  The "English Allotments Survey 1997", commissioned by the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, provides estimates of the numbers of allotment plots in England for four specific years. The survey estimates that in 1970, there were 532,964 plots; in 1977, 497,793 plots; in 1978, 479,301 plots; and in 1996, 296,923 plots. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently announced plans to commission a full update of the English Allotments Survey this year. Disposal of statutory allotments are also administered and monitored by the Government Offices for the regions.

  Asthma
  Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidelines have been issued to local authority swimming pools concerning the possible link between chlorinated water and asthma. [118158]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive have issued general guidance, 'Managing health and safety in swimming pools' (ISBN 0-7176-1388-7). A copy is available in the Library.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects the review of compulsory purchase policy to be published. [123267]

  Keith Hill
  The policy statement, "Compulsory Purchase Powers, Procedures and Compensation: The Way Forward", was published on 18 July 2002, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Demographics
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many households there were in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [122846]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is as follows:

  Thousand

  Number of households

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Ireland

  1991

  19,213

  1,128

  2,052

  n/a

  1992

  19,392

  1,136

  2,067

  n/a

  1993

  19,592

  1,146

  2,085

  n/a

  1994

  19,818

  1,156

  2,102

  n/a

  1995

  20,032

  1,164

  2,119

  n/a

  1996

  20,186

  1,170

  2,136

  n/a

  1997

  20,364

  1,178

  2,153

  n/a

  1998

  20,540

  1,186

  2,170

  n/a

  1999

  20,743

  1,190

  2,186

  n/a

  2000

  20,972

  1,200

  2,203

  n/a

  20011

  20,451

  1,209

  2,192

  n/a

  1 Figures are the most recent best estimates from the 2001 Census. Figures up to 2000 are derived from earlier mid-year population estimates, hence the apparent falls in household numbers between 2000 and 2001.

  Departmental Policies (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the impact on the Battersea constituency of his Department's housing and planning policies and actions since April 2001. [123669]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has called in three planning applications in the last two years where it was considered that a planning application conflicts with the guidance and advice on the provision of affordable housing in PPG3—"Housing", and Circular 6/98—"Planning and Affordable Housing". The affordable housing policy in Wandsworth council's draft revised Unitary Development Plan (UDP) has also been objected to.

  Growth Area Assessments
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the three regional planning bodies will complete their growth area assessments in respect of the Milton Keynes and South Midland Study; and when the sub-regional spatial strategy will be published for public consultation. [123974]

  Keith Hill
  The East of Englund, East Midlands and South East England Regional Assemblies have completed their growth area assessments and have prepared draft alterations to Regional Planning Guidance. These draft alterations have been endorsed by the East Midlands and South East Regional Assemblies and will be considered by the East of England Regional Assembly on 9 July 2003. The Regional Planning Guidance Alterations are due to be launched for public consultation on 18 July 2003.

  Housing
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact 752W
  (a) redundant guest houses and (b) houses in multiple occupation have on regeneration in (i) coastal resorts and (ii) Morecambe. [120472]

  Keith Hill
  The Government have made no assessment of the impact of redundant guest houses and houses in multiple occupation have on regeneration (i) coastal resorts and (ii) Morecambe.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of blocks of multistorey flats over 10 floors high in England; and where they are located. [121818]

  Keith Hill
  This information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of multi-storey blocks that have been demolished and replaced with lower density dwellings in the last five years. [121820]

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

  Local Authority Housing PFI Projects
  David Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Local Authority Housing Pathfinder PFI projects. [123335]

  Keith Hill
  Of the eight Local Authority Housing Pathfinder Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects originally approved, two have so far signed contracts. Manchester city council and the London borough of Islington both signed contracts in March of this year for the refurbishment of council houses and the provision of housing services. Officials are working with the remaining authorities to ensure that further pathfinder projects are signed between now and March 2004. It has been a long process for those involved, but based on their experience, schemes that follow will be able to proceed at a much quicker pace.

  Regional Assemblies
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of conducting regional assembly referendums for(a) the north-east, (b) the north-west and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber; what factors he used to estimate the cost in each case; and if he will break down the cost in each case by factor. [123269]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The cost of a referendum will depend on the population of the region concerned, whether there is a traditional ballot vote or an all-postal vote, whether a poll is combined with, for example, local authority elections on the same day and decisions taken by the Electoral Commission on, for example, financial support for the designated "yes" and "no" campaigns. It is therefore too early to make a firm estimate of the costs.

  Assuming a projected cost of £1 per elector, the total cost of a regional referendum would be around £2 million in the north-east, £5 million in the north-west and £4 million in Yorkshire and the Humber.
  753W
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether additional funding will be given to regions which vote in favour of an elected regional assembly as compared to those regions which reject the option of an elected regional assembly. [124179]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Chapter 5 of the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions" (Cm 5511), sets out the funding arrangements for elected assemblies.

  Elected regional assemblies will take responsibilities for programmes that are currently carried out at regional level and their funds will be calculated on the same basis as other regions.

  Government grant will meet part of the administration costs of elected assemblies and extra money will be available to reward elected assemblies which achieve or exceed targets agreed with central Government. This money will not be taken from regions without an elected assembly.

  Regional Planning Guidance
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many responses have been received by the Government Office East Midlands on the Revised Regional Planning Guidance for the East Midlands from(a) local authorities, (b) health authorities, ( c ) hon. Members,
  (d) parish town councils, (e) members of the public, (f) businesses and (g) others. [123926]

  Keith Hill
  In total 216 responses have been received on the Draft Revised Regional Planning Guidance for the East Midlands. The breakdown of responses is:

  (a) Local authorities: 60 responses

  (b) Health authorities: 0 responses

  (c) Hon. Members: One response

  (d) Parish town councils: 43 responses

  (e) Members of the public: 18 responses

  (f) Businesses: 52 responses

  (g) Others: 42 responses

  Shared Ownership Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government have to allow owners and tenants of Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership schemes to gain right to buy discounts when purchasing the full share of their home. [123471]

  Keith Hill
  Shared owners are not eligible for the right to buy scheme for social tenants. The Government have no plans to allow shared owners who purchased their home under the Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership (DIYSO) scheme to buy further shares in their property with the benefit of a discount equivalent to that provided under the right to buy. Shared owners already benefit from the public subsidy in providing the scheme and pay a subsidised rent.

  However, DIYSO and the right to buy scheme are two of the schemes being examined by the Home Ownership Task Force, that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in the Sustainable Communities Plan on 5 February 2003. The Task Force is looking at the whole range of programmes aimed at helping people into home ownership. It will
  754W
  examine who is being helped through current initiatives, to what extent these initiatives free up social tenancies for other occupants, and the scope for better targeting and design. The Task Force is expected to report in the autumn.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the number of people who are affected by asbestosis. [117108]

  Mr. Browne
  Disablement benefit awards under the Industrial Injuries Scheme for new cases of asbestosis each year in Great Britain from 1999 to 2001 (the last three years for which data are available) numbered 407, 447 and 461. Deaths in Great Britain with asbestosis specified as the underlying cause of death currently number around 70 per year. Figures for the total number of people suffering from asbestosis at any one time are unavailable.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 155W, on asbestos, if he will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [122956]

  Mr. Browne
  A list of the buildings, which have been identified as containing asbestos, has been placed in the Library. Over the last fifteen years, the Department and its predecessors have been proactive in identifying these buildings and have either sealed or removed the asbestos as necessary.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will estimate the average clearance times for attendance allowance new claims in areas(a) piloting the new claim form and (b) using the standard claim form; [122686]

  (2) how many new attendance allowance claims using the new claim form have been made in pilot areas; and of that number how many were successful; [122687]

  (3) how many applications for reconsideration and appeal against attendance allowance decisions based on new form applications were made in the pilot areas; [122688]

  (4) what evaluation he has made of claimants' views on the new attendance allowance claim form being used in pilot areas; and if he will place a copy of the results in the Library. [122689]

  Maria Eagle
  The new attendance allowance claim form was piloted in one section of Bristol Disability Benefits Centre from March 2002 and extended in September 2002 to all those requesting a claim form from the Disability and Carers Service in the area covered by Bristol DBC. The pilot was further extended to Glasgow DBC in March 2003. The average clearance time1 for attendance allowance claims processed by

  755W
  Bristol DBC in the period October to December 2002 was 22.6 days. For the same period, the national average clearance time for attendance allowance claims was 24.1 days. The evaluation results of the Glasgow test are not yet available.

  For the period October to December 2002, the breakdown of new claims awards at Bristol was: higher rate—3,160 (35.9 per cent.); lower rate: 3,917 (44.5 per cent.); and disallowed—1,722 (19.6 per cent.). For the corresponding period in 2001, the award rate was: higher rate—3,142 (33.7 per cent ); lower rate—4,500 (48.2 per cent.); and disallowed—1,691 (18.1 per cent.).

  For the period October to December 2002, there were 323 applications for a reconsideration and 124 appeals at Bristol Disability Benefit Centre2. For the corresponding period in 2001, the figures were: 352 applications for a reconsideration and 178 appeals.

  A representative sample of customers (374) was contacted to obtain their views about the new claim form. Results show that 75 per cent. found the form easy to complete and that 25 per cent. did not. Of those that found the form easy to complete (282), 57 had no help to complete the form; 123 had help from family and friends; and 123 received help from various external agencies. Of the 25 per cent. (92) who experienced difficulty, 15 completed the form unaided; 46 were assisted by family and friends; and 31 received help from various external agencies. There is no comparable data for customer perception of the previous claim form. We will ensure that a copy of the final analysis of the pilot is placed in the Library when the evaluation is complete.
  1 We are unable to provide separate data for claims decided using the new claim form, as they are not treated separately from the rest of the new claims upon receipt. From September 2002, approximately 96 per cent. of new claims were made using the new claim form. The figures reflect all new claims in areas using the new claim pack as well as the old one, which remains available externally.
  2 Reconsiderations reduced by 8.2 per cent. in the test and appeals by 33.3 per cent. National comparisons for the same period showed a marginal increase in reconsiderations by 1.8 per cent. and a decrease in appeals of 3.8 per cent.

  Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assumed rate of income from savings is used to establish eligibility for(a) minimum income guarantee and (b) pension credit; and if he will make a statement. [123297]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Under pension credit the assumed rate of income from savings will be set at £1 in £500 for savings above £6,000. This is half the rate currently assumed in the minimum income guarantee (MIG) of £1 in £250. In addition, this assumed income will be rewarded. Overall this means that savings will be treated five times more generously than under MIG.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what evaluation he has made of the new disability living allowance claim form being used in the Glasgow pilot area; and if he will place a copy of the result in the Library. [122690]
  756W
  Maria Eagle
  The trial at Glasgow has a broader scope than simply a test of a new disability living allowance claim form. It aims to test a shortened claim form that is personalised to the needs of the customer and a revised process for determining claims which is supported by a new prototype IT system. This enables customers to receive fuller information about the basis of the decisions made. The full test started in January of this year and the evaluation work is scheduled to be complete by September 2003. Once this work has been finalised, we will ensure that a copy of the findings are placed in the Library.

  Health and Safety
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many reported workplace incidents have taken place in the construction industry in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [122975]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 1 July 2003]: The following table shows the number of reported injury incidents (divided between fatal and non-fatal) that have arisen in the construction industry since 1997.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Fatal injuries

  86

  68

  87

  113

  85

  Non-fatal injuries

  14,930

  14,610

  15,656

  14,820

  14,671

  The following table shows the number of reported dangerous occurrences in the construction industry since 1997.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Dangerous occurrences

  966

  1,153

  1,245

  1,228

  1,075

  Through the Construction Priority programme the Health and Safety Executive is seeking to secure improvements in the industry's health and safety record.

  Hepatitis C (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received from(a) the First Minister of Scotland and (b) the Secretary of State for Scotland since 13 June 2003 concerning the compensation of hepatitis C victims in Scotland. [124129]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: My right hon. Friend has regular contact with both the First Minister of the Scottish Executive and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on a number of issues.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many claimants of(a) incapacity benefit and (b) severe disablement allowance who moved into work in 2001–02 registered for the 52 week linking rule; and how many of them reclaimed benefit under the terms of the rule in the following 52 weeks; [119913]
  757W
  (2) what assessment he has made of the incentive effect of the 52 week linking rule for incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance claimants. [119914]

  Mr. Browne
  We are ensuring that the benefit system encourages and promotes work where possible. In 1998 we extended linking rules to cover 52 weeks (2 years for people receiving disabled persons tax credit/working tax credit). During the consultation on the Green Paper 'Pathways to Work' (CM 5690) we received a number of comments on the operation of these rules. Some respondents felt that this provision was difficult to access and in light of these comments, we will ease the notification process to allow people to notify the department over the phone when they start work. The information is in the table.

  People with incapacity benefit (IB) and severe disablement allowance (SDA) claims ending in the period shown with the reason given as a return to work, and those who subsequently reclaimed benefit within 52 weeks

  People with IB/SDA claims ending between 1 March 2001 and 28 February 2002, with the reason given as a return to work

  People subsequently reclaiming IB/ SDA within 52 weeks

  Incapacity benefit

  25,300

  2,400

  Severe disablement allowance

  800

  1100

  1 Numbers are based on a very few sample cases; they are therefore subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a guide to the current situation only.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  5 per cent. samples of the incapacity benefit computer system, which exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the 100 wards in the UK with the highest number of people on Incapacity Benefit. [122839]

  Maria Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Jobcentre Plus (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list the Jobcentre Plus centres it is intended to open in North Wales; and if he will make a statement; [117521]

  (2) how many Jobcentre Plus centres have been opened in Wales. [117522]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Llwyd dated, July 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the opening of Jobcentre Plus offices in Wales. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  We are progressively extending the new integrated Jobcentre Plus office network across Great Britain over the next three years. These offices are delivering a single, integrated service to people of working age, with a clear focus on work. They provide an active and responsive service to help people find jobs, and give advice on the full range of help and support available to them.
  758W
  During 2002–03, we successfully introduced the Jobcentre Plus model in eighteen offices across Bridgend Rhondda Cynon Taff and South East Wales districts. As part of our plans to extend the new integrated Jobcentre Plus model throughout Wales, we will be implementing Jobcentre Plus in North West Wales and Powys district during 2003–04. Our current plan is to complete the rollout of Jobcentre Plus across Wales by early 2006.
  The District Manager is currently working on the detailed plans for the North West Wales and Powys district. At this stage, I cannot confirm the exact locations for Jobcentre Plus offices as this is subject to the current planning and consultation process. The District Manager wrote to you, other local MPs, Assembly Members, staff, trade unions and other local stakeholders on 14 February to inform you of his proposals and to seek your comments on them.
  I hope this is helpful.

  KPMG
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many contracts his Department has awarded to KPMG since 1997. [113692]

  Maria Eagle
  From the establishment of the Department for Work and Pensions in 2001–02, the Department has let five contracts to KPMG under its management consultancy framework agreements. Before April 2001 contracts were awarded by Executive Agencies of the then DSS and by the Employment Service as Executive Agency of the then Department for Education and Employment. Information about these contracts was not collated centrally and could not now be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Lost Working Days
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Answer of 17 June 2003,Official Report, column 157W, on lost working days, if he will provide a breakdown for days lost through (a) sickness and (b) other reasons. [121900]

  Maria Eagle
  Pursuant to my written answer on 17 June 2003,Official Report, column 157W, the figures provided were for the average days lost per person through sick absence only.

  Information on the average days lost for other reasons is in the table. The information is based on the number of staff in post on the 31 of March in each year.

  Average number of days lost per person

  Reason

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003

  Unauthorised

  2.16

  0.23

  Paid special leave

  0.78

  0.80

  Unpaid special leave1

  7.93

  7.86

  Maternity leave

  3.30

  3.54

  1 Includes staff on career breaks.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the extent of delays in processing claims for means-tested benefits. [121495]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Targets for clearance times for both income support and jobseeker's allowance new claims is 12 days, while the target for actioning income support changes of circumstances is four days. The latest
  759W
  statistical information available confirms that on average these targets are being met. The average clearance time for a new claim to income support is 10.39 days and for jobseeker's allowance 10.71 days. The average clearance time for income support change of circumstances is 2.40 days.

  Statistics on actual clearance times indicate that 76.19 per cent. of all income support claims are cleared within the 12-day target with 91.78 per cent. of jobseeker's allowance claims cleared within the same period.

  The target for clearance of a minimum income guarantee claim is 10 days while the target for actioning minimum income guarantee changes of circumstances is four days. The latest statistical information available confirms clearance time of 12.4 days for minimum income guarantee claims and 3.5 for minimum income guarantee changes of circumstances.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what help is available under the benefits system for those who are recovering from mental health problems and who wish to enter work; and if he will make a statement; [119934]

  (2) what evaluation is being undertaken of pilots on access to employment for people recovering from mental health problems; and if he will make a statement. [119935]

  Maria Eagle
  We are ensuring that the benefit system encourages and promotes work where possible, and provides greater security for those for whom work is not an option. We also have a wide range of programmes such as WORKSTEP that have proved successful in helping people with disabilities, including mental health problems, secure work where they are ready and able to do so.

  The new permitted work rules, introduced from April 2002, provide a stepping stone to full-time work for people receiving incapacity benefit (IB). Anyone claiming IB can now work for up to and including £20 a week for an unlimited period, or work for less than 16 hours a week and earn up to and including £67.50 a week for 26 weeks. People with conditions that may be unlikely to improve over time, such as those with severe mental health problems, will continue to be able to work and earn up to £67.50 a week for as long as they are receiving IB. People on incapacity benefits can also do as much voluntary work as they like without affecting their benefit entitlement.

  These arrangements have enabled people with many different disability-related barriers to work, including those with mental illness, to move successfully into jobs. However, there are a number of initiatives and pilots taking place looking at improving access to employment and job retention for people with a range of health conditions, including mental health.

  The Incapacity Benefit Reform Pilots, due to start in October 2003, aim to provide a range of help to people with health conditions to move off benefits through achieving sustained employment. An independent evaluation of each pilot will be conducted using a range
  760W
  of methodologies. Each evaluation will assess the overall impact of each pilot, and will also provide a range of quantitative and qualitative data on the success of each pilot in helping those with mental health conditions to gain and retain employment.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what criteria are used to select those pensioners to whom his Department plans to write about the introduction of pension credit before October. [121311]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Pension Service has begun to write to pensioner households to explain pension credit and to invite applications. The order in which households are contacted has been designed to produce a controlled build up of applications, evenly distributed throughout the UK. The households to be contacted before October represent a cross section of the pensioner population, including pensioners of all age groups and likely levels of eligibility for pension credit. By June 2004, all pensioner households will have been contacted. All those who apply before October 2004, if they are entitled, will receive payment as though they had claimed at the very start, or to the first day they could have qualified if this is later.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people eligible to receive pension credit; and what take-up targets his Department has been set. [122692]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 30 June,Official Report, column 83–4W.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which Departmental Information Technology system will be used to support pension credit; and if he will make a statement. [122694]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Pension Credit will be paid through the Income Support Computer System. This is a tried and tested system that currently pays the minimum income guarantee to 1.8 million pensioners. It has been enhanced to enable it to handle Pension Credit.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the Pension Service will be writing to every pensioner household about the pension credit between April 2003 and October 2003, as referred to on page 2 of the June 2003 edition of the Appeals Service External Newsletter. [123033]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The statement in the Appeals Service External Newsletter to which the hon. Member refers is incorrect. The Pension Service began to send mail packs about pension credit to pensioner households in April 2003 and will complete this process by June 2004. People currently in receipt of the minimum income guarantee were informed at the beginning of this year that they will be converted automatically to pension credit. Online versions of the newsletter are now correct. A correction will also appear in the next edition of the newsletter, to be published in September.
  761W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how he will identify the names and addresses of men aged between 60 and 64 when distributing pension credit personal direct mail packs. [123325]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The names and addresses of men aged between 60 and 64 have been identified from data held by the Department, in the same way as those of other people who may be entitled to pension credit.

  Pension Service
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many telephone calls on average have been received per day by(a) the Norwich Pension Service office and (b) Pension Service offices across the UK in the last three months; [121499]

  (2) what the average length of time for completion of a new claim for means-tested benefits is (a) at the Norwich Pension Service office, (b) at the Pension Service broken down by county and (c) across the UK; [121496]

  (3) what the average length of time is for written correspondence relating to claims for means-tested benefits to be dealt with by (a) the Norwich Pension Service office and (b) Pension Service offices across the UK. [121498]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The customer service standards have been published in The Pension Service Business Plan. They have been set to ensure pensioners receive their entitlements on time.

  Across England, Scotland and Wales the average number of calls received per day in the last three months was 65,546 and at Norwich pension centre 2,554.

  The average length of time for completion of a minimum income guarantee claim by Norwich Pension Centre is 16.4 days and across England, Scotland and Wales is 12.4 days. Figures are not held by county as the Pension Service is organised by Government Office regions.

  The average length of time for completion of correspondence relating to claims for minimum income guarantee by Norwich Pension Centre is 5.3 days and across England, Scotland and Wales is 3.5 days.

  Our aim is to continue to improve the service we provide and to balance telephony and processing performance.

  Poverty
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the impact of the(a) minimum income guarantee and (b) pension credit on pensioner poverty. [124196]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government wants all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement. The Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), introduced in April 1999, has boosted the income of the poorest pensioners. Since April 2003 a single pensioner is nearly £18 a week better off in real terms than in 1997 from the MIG rises. A pensioner couple is nearly £28 a week better off. We also want everyone who is entitled 762W
  to this help to get it now, and as a result of our national MIG take up campaign over 150,000 pensioners are £20 a week better off.

  Pension Credit when it is introduced in October 2003 will go even further and for the first time reward, not penalise, those pensioners who have saved for their retirement. Pensioner households entitled to Pension Credit will be £400 a year better off on average. Following the introduction of Pension Credit the average pensioner household will be over £1,250 a year better off than in 1997 due to the Governments personal tax and benefit changes. To ensure maximum take up of Pension Credit we are writing to pensioner households to explain Pension Credit and invite applications. In addition around 1.8 million people in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee have been advised they will be transferred automatically to Pension Credit. There will also be regional and national TV and press advertising.

  Senior Departmental Posts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior departmental posts were advertised in each year since June 1999; and how many of those were advertised in the Scottish press. [120666]

  Maria Eagle
  Senior posts are defined as those posts that are covered by open competition to the senior civil service.

  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed on 8 June 2001 from parts of the former Department of Social Security and parts of the former Department for Education and Employment. The figures prior to 8 June 2001 are in the table and relate to the Department of Social Security only.

  Number of posts externally advertised

  June 1999 to March 2000

  3

  April 2000 to March 2001

  7

  April 2001 to March 2002

  11

  April 2002 to March 2003

  29

  April 2003 to June 2003

  5

  None of the adverts were placed in specific Scottish newspapers as the circulation of the national press includes Scotland.

  Stakeholder Schemes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of companies which, under the regulations introduced on 8 October 2001,(a) are obliged to provide and (b) have so far failed to offer access to a stakeholder scheme; and what plans he has to ensure that employers who have not complied with the requirement to offer a stakeholder scheme do so. [123323]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We estimate that around 350,000 employers are required to provide their staff with access to a stakeholder pension scheme. Latest data from the Association of British Insurers show that 344,983 employers had designated a stakeholder pension scheme by the end of March 2003. This indicates a compliance rate in excess of 90 per cent.
  763W
  The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) is responsible for regulating compliance with the workplace access requirements for stakeholder pension schemes. OPRA follows up all reports to it of non-compliance and will take action where compliance has not been achieved. OPRA also takes action to seek out non-compliance through surveys of employers, and by following up any employers that it knows, through its general pension duties, have closed down their company scheme and may therefore become required to offer staff access to a stakeholder pension scheme.

  Stress
  Mr. Henry Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what regulatory impact assessment his Department has made of the Health and Safety Executive's new code of conduct on stress at work; [121266]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the cost to business of compliance with the Health and Safety Executive's code of conduct to combat stress in (a) financial terms and (b) lost man hours. [121267]

  Mr. Browne
  The Health and Safety Executive have not launched a new code of conduct on stress at work. On 16 June 2003, they published draft management standards on work related stress seeking feedback to inform their development. They are currently being piloted and the final standards will be published after consultation. The standards will be a voluntary yardstick by which employers can measure how well they are managing stress in the workplace. Information collected during the consultation phase will be used to inform development of the Regulatory Impact Assessment.

  Sustainable Development
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment is made(a) of the environmental impact and (b) against sustainable development criteria of bids for grants awarded by his Department; who makes any such assessment; and whether these assessments are published. [119128]

  Maria Eagle
  Although the Department for Work and Pensions provides grants in-aid to certain third parties such as the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA), the Disability Rights Commission, Independent Living Fund and Motability, it does not issue grants which are open to the external bidding process other than those made to individual benefit recipients as part of social security provision. The specific nature of the Department's grants make it inappropriate to conduct any assessments of environmental impact or sustainable development criteria.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate his Department's expenditure on winter fuel payments over the last five years; and what money was made available for investment in programmes to achieve affordable warmth over the same period. [123490]
  764W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Expenditure on Winter Fuel Payments in Great Britain over the past five years

  £ million (cash)

  Winter

  Expenditure

  1998–99

  194

  1999–2000

  759

  2000–01

  1,749

  2001–02

  1,692

  2002–03

  1,712

  The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy sets out a wide range of programmes to contribute to tackling fuel poverty by improving the comfort of vulnerable households. These include Warm Front and the Energy Efficiency Commitment 2002–05 under which energy suppliers must focus 50 per cent. of their energy saving target on low-income families.

  In England, the main Government expenditure is through the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, now marketed as Warm Front. It is estimated that from April 1998 to March 2003, approximately £577 million has been spent on Warm Front grants. Similar schemes operate in Scotland and Wales.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of extending the winter fuel payment to the poorest and most vulnerable households who qualify for cold weather payments; and whether his Department plans such a measure. [123491]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Most people receiving income support including minimum income guarantee or income-based jobseeker's allowance who are aged 60 or over already receive winter fuel payments.

  If winter fuel payments were extended to other people who meet the criteria for cold weather payments, regardless of whether the temperature fell low enough to trigger payment of a cold weather payment to that household, the additional annual cost would be around £300 million.

  We have no plans to extend the winter fuel payment scheme.

  Note:

  Figure rounded to nearest £50 million and calculated from administrative data.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to transform the winter fuel payments into a universal benefit; and if he will make a statement. [123493]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The winter fuel payment scheme was introduced to help the most vulnerable older people meet their heating costs during the winter months. The payments are already available to almost all people aged 60 or over.

  Workplace Health and Safety
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on steps being taken by his Department to reduce the number of(a) deaths and (b) injuries suffered by working people at their place of employment. [118220]
  765W
  Mr. Browne
  The 'Revitalising Health and Safety' strategy encourages people to work together to achieve significant reductions in the incidence of injury and ill health in the workplace. It sets targets to be achieved by 2004 to:

  reduce the number of working days lost by 15 per cent.

  reduce the rate of cases of work-related ill health by 10 per cent.

  reduce the rate of fatalities of major injuries by 5 per cent.

  achieve double these improvements by 2010.

  Work being done includes concentrating on eight priority programmes, identified as the greatest causes of work-related deaths, injuries and illness, and the sectors with the worst health and safety records. In addition, HSC/E is working in partnership with organisations, to promote innovative activities. One such initiative is the food sector's 'Recipe for Safety' where accident levels have fallen by more than 24 per cent. over 12 years.

  Further details of work will be available in the Business Plan for 2003–04. A copy will be placed in the Library when it is published later this year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average level of staff absenteeism was in each of the Northern Ireland Departments in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [123795]

  Mr. Pearson
  A detailed analysis of sick absence rates for non-industrial staff in the 11 Northern Ireland Departments for 2001–02 has already been published and is accessible on the Department of Finance and Personnel's website at: www.dfpni.gov.uk/publications. The statistics for 2002–03 are not yet available. Comparable figures for industrial civil servants are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of people employed at each grade of the Northern Ireland civil service are(a) Protestants, (b) Roman Catholics and (c) neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic. [122633]

  Mr. Pearson
  I would refer the hon. Member to Appendix 1 of the 8th Report of the Equal Opportunities Unit, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of the publication of the 2001 Departmental Report. [112806]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The cost of the publication of the 2001 Northern Ireland Office Departmental Report (excluding staff time in preparation of data) was £6641.18.

  Disability Rights
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in ensuring full accessibility for people with disabilities to Government Offices in Northern Ireland. [122354]

  Mr. Pearson
  A programme of works is under way that aims to ensure that both the Northern Ireland civil service and Northern Ireland Office office estates are compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by October 2004; this will include full accessibility for people with disabilities, including both staff and members of the public.

  East Down Institute of Further and Higher Education
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the long-term future of the East Down Institute of Further and Higher Education centre in Kircubbin. [123468]

  Jane Kennedy
  Any decision on the future of Kircubbin centre is entirely a matter for the Governing Body of East Down Institute of Further and Higher Education, which must take decisions in light of its financial responsibilities. The Institute has advised that it is committed to continuing to provide a range of provision at its Kircubbin centre.

  EU Peace Initiative
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which groups, organisations and bodies have benefited from funding from the Peace I and Peace II programmes since 1996 in the constituency of South Down; what financial amounts were allocated to each group; for what projects; from which sectors of the Special European Union Programme for Peace and Reconciliation funding came; and what sums were provided. [122444]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information requested will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Individual Learning Account
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the five top earning providers from the individual learning accounts scheme in Northern Ireland, and the amount paid to each organisation. [121532]

  Jane Kennedy

  Provider

  Amount Paid (£)

  ITT Consultancy, Belfast

  319,581

  Fermanagh Training Ltd, Enniskillen

  297,300

  CTRS Community College, Enniskillen

  217,040

  Marketlink Europe Ltd, Chester

  210,682

  Pitman Training (Savage and Company), Belfast

  174,479

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to attract further inward investment projects to East Belfast. [123701]

  Mr. Pearson
  Internationally, Invest Northern Ireland promotes and markets the Northern Ireland business proposition as a whole. While the siting of investments is ultimately a decision for investing companies, Invest NI does make use of incentive packages to promote investment into Targeting Social Need (TSN) areas.

  In recent years the shift in Foreign Direct Investment flows towards service industries has increasingly focused new investment on metropolitan areas, in particular the central business areas of regional cities, and this has resulted in major investments in Belfast along the River Lagan, most of it in the financial services sector.

  It is planned that a number of important high profile business delegations from the United States and elsewhere will visit Belfast between now and the end of 2003 and areas of East Belfast such as the Titanic Quarter and the Northern Ireland Science Park will feature prominently in their programmes. These exciting new developments in East Belfast will further increase the attractiveness of this constituency as a location for investors.

  Job Losses (County Fermanagh)
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have been lost in County Fermanagh in the last five years. [124407]

  Mr. Pearson
  It is not possible to determine the number of jobs lost in County Fermanagh However in the last five years, there have been 1,022 redundancies confirmed to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in the Enniskillen Job Centre Area.

  Over the five-year period May 1998 to May 2003 the number of claimants in Fermanagh District Council Area fell from 2,274 to 1,566 (31.1 per cent.). The claimant count rate fell by 2.4 percentage points (from 6.9 per cent. to 4.5 per cent.) over the same period.

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many terrorist prisoners have been released since the Good Friday Agreement; and how many have since been re-arrested. [121170]

  Jane Kennedy
  To date (25 June 2003), 447 prisoners convicted of scheduled offences have been released early under the Good Friday Agreement.

  Details are not held centrally regarding the numbers of these persons re-arrested—information is held in relation to those charged with criminal offences while they were on licence. 33 licensees have been charged with further offences committed during their licence period.

  Universities
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) academics and (b) other staff were employed by (i) the Queens
  768W
  University of Belfast and (ii) the University of Ulster, broken down by gender, within the salary bands (A) less than £20,000, (B) £20,000 to £29,999, (C) £30,000 to £39,999, (D) £40,000 to £49,999, (E) £50,000 to £59,999, (F) £60,000 and above in the last five financial years. [123797]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information on academic and academic related staff employed at Queen's University, Belfast and the University of Ulster is collected and provided to the Department for Employment and Learning by the Higher Education Statistical Agency (HESA). Information on non-academic staff is not available within the Department. Information on salary bands is provided by HESA in a format which relates to academic years.

  The attached tables provide salary information of academic and academic related staff employed over the last five academic years.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many university places were available in Northern Ireland in 2002–03; how many students left Northern Ireland for universities(a) elsewhere in the UK, (b) in the Irish Republic and (c) in Europe in 2002–03; and how many students took a university placement in Northern Ireland from (i) elsewhere in the UK, (ii) the Irish Republic and (iii) the rest of Europe. [122536]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Employment and Learning sets an annual upper limit, known as the Maximum Student Number (MaSN) on the number of home and EU students who may be enrolled on full-time undergraduate courses and on postgraduate courses of initial teacher training (ITT). The MaSN does not, however, apply to non-EU overseas full-time undergraduate students or those for whom a National Health Bursary may be payable. For 2002–03, the combined MaSN total for the Northern Ireland universities was 22,941, including a 1 per cent. flexibility margin.

  The only Departmental constraint on postgraduate places applies to those applying for postgraduate awards.

  There is no prescribed limit on part-time undergraduate places.

  Information on the take up of places in 2002–03 will not be available within the Department until mid-December 2003.

  Town Centres (Regeneration)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the strategy for the regeneration of town centres. [123783]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department for Social Development is preparing a Town Centre Reinvigoration Strategy which will aim to create attractive and distinctive town centres that will be a source of civic pride, accessible to all and the location for a wide range of retail, service, administrative, residential, leisure and cultural facilities for surrounding urban and rural communities. The Strategy will address this aim by:improving the co-ordination of public policies that impact on town centres;

  769W
  offering incentives that will stimulate development in town centres; and
  putting in place the administrative arrangements that will make sure the policies and incentives actually deliver better town centres.

  The Strategy will be part of a comprehensive approach to regeneration that also aims to renew the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods and increase social cohesion. To this end, the town centre reinvigoration strategy will be closely linked to the Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, which was published on 24 June 2003.

  The Department for Social Development has set a target of publishing the Town Centre Reinvigoration Strategy by March 2004.

  World Summit on Sustainable Development
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which United Kingdom commitments arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development(a) have been incorporated into the Department's existing delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements and (b) will be incorporated in its delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements in advance of the 2004 Spending Review. [113884]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Programme for Government of the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Executive included acknowledgement of, and commitment to, Sustainable Development issues and this has been reflected in the 2002/03 Service Delivery Agreements of the Northern Ireland Office and individual Northern Ireland departments.

  Although the devolved institutions are currently suspended the overall policy and practice of reflecting sustainable development issues and commitments continues under the current interim arrangements.

HEALTH

  Drug Rehabilitation
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment methodology is used to measure the value of money given by residential rehabilitation for drug addicts. [119267]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not currently available. Residential rehabilitation has been shown to be one of a number of effective forms of drug treatment but it is particularly difficult to identify and compare outcome measures for chronic, relapsing disorders. In trying to evaluate value for money a range of factors need to be considered that acknowledge the complexity of harms and the natural history of the disorders.

  The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA) is investigating this issue and will be publishing guide costs for different types of treatment service in due course.

  AIDS
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned on the 770W
  likelihood of passing on the AIDS virus through sexual intercourse while wearing a condom; and if he will make a statement. [123978]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: High quality, systematic review of the evidence relating to condom effectiveness has shown that consistent use of condoms is highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV1. On the strength of this evidence we have not felt it necessary to commission additional research. We do recognise, however, that factors such as condom failure mean that condoms do not provide 100 per cent. protection from infection, but when used correctly, they can substantially reduce the risk. Advice on the effective use of condoms is, therefore, provided through our national sexual health promotion and HIV prevention activities.
  1 Weller S. Davis K. Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003. Oxford: Update Software; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention. July 20, 2001—http://www. niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

  Cockle Industry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Food Standards Agency decision to restrict the operations of the cockle industry. [122195]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA)?s monitoring programme to detect marine biotoxins in shellfish, including cockles, exists to protect public health. The toxins which are tested have the potential to cause illness, which in some cases may be serious or life-threatening. The DSP test is approved as the standard reference method and is widely used in Europe.

  Temporary Prohibition Orders (TPOs), are placed on beds where tests for shellfish biotoxins are positive. Affected areas remain closed until two consecutive negative test results taken a week apart are observed.

  Atypical results in tests for DSP have been observed in some samples of cockles and mussels in England, Wales and Northern Ireland since 2001. The FSA has put in place a programme of research work to investigate the cause of the atypical response to the DSP test and to assess its implications for human health. In the meantime, on the basis that the affected shellfish produce neurological symptoms that lead to death in mice within a few minutes, the FSA considers that the shellfish could be harmful and recommends the placing of TPOs on the affected beds in line with standard practice for known biotoxins. The FSA is keeping this policy under review and will use findings from the research work to determine whether its existing policy should be maintained. It expects most of the research to be completed later this summer.

  The majority of harvesting areas are open most of the time. In order to reduce the impact of the temporary cockle-bed closures on fishermen, while still protecting public health, the FSA has divided harvesting areas into zones, so that harvesting can continue from beds where tests results are negative.

  Commission far Public Patient Involvement in Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the duty of consultation on NHS bodies to the Commission for Public Patient Involvement in Health. [124404]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no plans to extend the duty on the national health service to involve and consult the public, as contained in section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, to the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH). The CPPIH is not a NHS body and, as it is not responsible for the delivery of any health services, such a duty would not be appropriate. However, we do expect the CPPIH to seek a wide range of views to inform its work when appropriate.

  Commission for Social Care Inspection
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he will issue regarding the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Audit Commission co-operating with each other with respect to the exercise of their respective functions under Clause 79 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122928]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Audit Commission are expected to co-operate effectively in the exercise of their respective functions. In the event that this is not the case, the Secretary of State will use the power to give them guidance, to the extent necessary in the circumstances.

  Condoms
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the reliability of condoms in preventing(a) the spread of sexual diseases and (b) pregnancy. [123301]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A high quality, systematic review of the evidence relating to condom effectiveness has shown that consistent use of condoms is highly effective in preventing pregnancy and transmission of many sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, gonorrhoea and chlamydia1. Condoms, when used consistently and correctly are estimated to be up to 99 per cent. effective in preventing pregnancy and 80 per cent. effective in reducing HIV incidence2. As a result the promotion of condom usage is strongly encouraged as a risk reduction strategy through the Department of Health's sexual health promotion activities.
  1 (Weller S, Davis K Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochane Library, Issue 2, 2003. Oxford: Update Software; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention. July 20, 2001 http://www.niaid. nih. gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf.
  2 (Weller S., Davis K. Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochane Library, Issue 2, 2003. Oxford: Update Software).

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people suffered from cystic fibrosis in(a) 1980, (b) 1990, ( c) 2000 and (d) 2003; [124338]

  (2) how many people suffered from cystic fibrosis in (a) England, (b) Tyne and Wear, (c) South Tyneside and (d) the Jarrow constituency in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990, (iii) 2000 and (iv) 2003; [124339]

  (3) what percentage of the population suffers from cystic fibrosis; [124340]

  (4) what the average life expectancy is of a sufferer of cystic fibrosis; and what it was in (a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 2000. [124342]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the incidence of individual conditions like cystic fibrosis is not collected centrally. Research evidence however, shows that around one child in 2,500 is affected by this condition. Separate information is not available for Tyne and Wear, South Tyneside and Jarrow.

  Children born with cystic fibrosis do not have a normal life expectancy, though it is improving all the time. Currently, the average survival is more than 30 years, but with the best treatment, children have a greater than 80 per cent. chance of living into their late forties.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much does the NHS spend on cystic fibrosis in 2002–03; and how much this was expressed as a sum per head of population. [124341]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Primary care trusts (PCTs) receive unified allocations to cover the costs of hospital and community health services. The level of funding made available for cystic fibrosis is therefore a local decision. It is for PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds.

  Fluoridation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of fluoridation as a public health measure to combat dental health problems; and which areas have been identified for possible fluoridation. [120629]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government wishes to empower health communities to make well-informed choices about improving oral health including the option of deciding whether to fluoridate their water. We are particularly attracted by the potential fluoridation offers for reducing inequalities in oral health. The Chief Medical Officer and Chief Dental Officer are considering the implications of the recent Medical Research Council report, "Water Fluoridation and Health", for the development of Government policy on fluoridation. It would be for primary care trusts and strategic health authorities (SHAs) to decide whether to consult on fluoridation. New schemes could be introduced only where a majority of the population were in favour.
  773W
  The Government have received representations from the water industry, requesting that the legislation on fluoridation be amended to make SHAs solely responsible for deciding, where their populations are in favour, that a new fluoridation scheme should be introduced. We tabled a relevant amendment to the Water Bill on 2 July 2003, for debate on 9 July before third reading of the Bill in another place.

  Food Supplements
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on food supplements with reference to safety and labelling; and what actions he intends to take to ensure that his policy objectives for the regulation of food supplements are met within the European Union regulatory framework. [120083]

  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 Government, represented by the Food Standards Agency, is pressing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for an urgent, substantive meeting with relevant parties to discuss dossier requirements and expects a positive response soon. The European Commission supports this move. The objectives of such a meeting would be to explain problems faced by the UK food supplements industry resulting from the omission of nutrients and nutrient sources from the Annexes to the Food Supplements Directive; and to explore the potential for simplified dossiers to be presented for vitamin and mineral sources with a long history of safe use and the potential for read-across between dossiers for substances which are likely to have similar toxicological profiles.

  The Government continue to press its view on maximum limits in the European Union at every opportunity. That is that maximum limits for nutrients in food supplements should be based on risk assessment and set at levels which protect public health, but which neither unnecessarily limit consumer choice nor unduly restrict trade.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, dated 24 March, to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on the Food Supplements Directive. [121173]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on Friday 4 July.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the effect of the Food Supplements Directive on British(a) manufacturers, (b) suppliers and (c) retailers of food supplements; and if he will postpone the implementation of the provision of the Statutory Instrument which transposes the directive. [122802]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) consulted widely during negotiations on the Food Supplements Directive and, more recently, on the draft Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003. The FSA has produced Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) on both the directive and the implementing 774W
  regulations. The RIAs summarise the FSA's assessment of the impact of the legislation on the food supplements industry in England

  The United Kingdom has to implement t he directive by 31 July 2003. If we did not do so this would be a serious breach of our obligations under the European Commission treaty and would attract infraction proceedings by the EC under Article 226 against the UK and would risk heavy fines. Other member states may also initiate action under Article 227.

  The implementing regulations make use of all the flexibility available to us in the directive, that is, they permit continued sale of food supplements in the UK until 1 January 2010 where relevant criteria are met; they do not require notification of new products placed on the market; and they prohibit trade in non-compliant products from 1 August 2005.

  Glivec
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of Glivec for leukaemia sufferers following the National Institute for Clinical Excellence provisional recommendation. [123347]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The consultation period for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's (NICE) provisional recommendations on Glivec for the first line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia has closed and NICE is now in the process of preparing its final guidance. It would be inappropriate to comment in advance of the publication of NICE'S final recommendations, which are expected to be published in the autumn.

  Health and Social Care Bill
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with regard to clause 62 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, what he intends by a reasonable time. [121174]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We would expect the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) normally to enter and inspect premises at a time agreed with the owner.

  However, where an unannounced visit takes place, it will be for CHAI to decide what is a reasonable time under the right of entry in Clause 60 (formerly Clause 62) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, and given any particular circumstances in the case in question.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if personal records inspected under the right of entry will be covered by the Data Protection Act 1998 under clause 63 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; and if the person for whom the records are held will have the right to be informed that their records have been inspected and that copies have been taken which will be removed from the premises. [121177]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) will be subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) as is currently the case for the Commission for Health
  775W
  Improvement, National Care Standards Commission and Audit Commission, the bodies from which CHAI is composed.

  CHAI will be required to provide "fair processing information" to persons whose records are inspected under clause 61, unless:
  there is disproportionate effort in doing so;
  they are satisfied that the subjects have already been adequately informed; or
  in the case of an investigation of an individual, to do so would prejudice the investigation.

  Under the DPA 1998, organisations that will be subject to CHAI or other inspections must also ensure that patients are made aware that their records may be accessed by CHAI and the reasons why this may be necessary.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will put in place safeguards to ensure(a) that only records relevant to an inspection are inspected and (b) that an individual's right to privacy is protected under clause 63 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121180]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Subsection (1) of clause 61 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill establishes that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) may access records that it considers are necessary or expedient for the purpose of its functions under chapter 3 of the Bill. It will be for CHAI to decide what information is relevant to its inspections.

  This will ensure that CHAI will not be able to inspect records unless it considers that they are relevant to the exercise of its functions. A body will have recourse to the courts if CHAI exercises its powers in an inappropriate way.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for deciding what constitutes a prescribed person under Clause 65(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121184]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Regulations to be laid by the Secretary of State will provide a definition of a prescribed person and the prescription of such times and places as an explanation will be required.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether, under Clause 60(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, there is to be a scale of fees for different cases or classes of case that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will charge in respect of its reviewing and investigating functions; [121189]

  (2) if he will list the information the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will require a person or body to provide to enable it to determine its fee under Clause 60 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121195]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It will be for the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) to determine what information it may require for the purpose of determining the fee payable by a person or body under 776W
  subsection 57(1) (formally section 60(1)) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.

  Under section 57(4) (formally section 60(4)), fees that CHAI may wish to apply in respect of its reviewing and investigating functions may include provision for different fees to be paid in different cases or different classes of cases related to specified functions.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, under Clause 60 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, the National Assembly for Wales will be able to charge a fee for its reviewing and investigating functions in the case of a cross-border strategic health authority. [121191]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Assembly for Wales will not be able to charge a fee for its reviewing and investigating functions in the case of cross border strategic health authorities, since such authorities do not exist. Provision is made for the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI), not the Assembly, to levy fees on cross border special health authorities. This is specified under section 57(1) (formally section 60(1)) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.

  Hospital Food
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the most recent measurements are from the Phase I Better Hospital Food Programme's six key targets; [121618]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2003, Official Report, column 1211W, on hospital food, what the most recent figures are for 2003 of the Stage I Better Hospital Food Programme 6 key targets. [123097]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The figures will be made available shortly.

  Measles
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence of measles has been in each primary care trust in London in each of the last five years. [119870]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the number of notifications of infectious diseases are collected through the notifications of infectious diseases system (NOIDS). The Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, part of the Health Protection Agency, is responsible for administering the NOIDS system. It is also responsible for collating information on laboratory confirmed cases.

  The number of laboratory confirmed cases of measles between 1997 and 2002 in London are shown in the table. Information has been provided for London, rather than by primary care trust, as the numbers are small. The data for 2002 is provisional and is therefore subject to change.

  Year

  Number of cases in London

  1997

  20

  1998

  13

  1999

  51

  777W

  Year

  Number of cases in London

  2000

  50

  2001

  25

  2002

  198

  Milk Welfare Scheme
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the Milk Welfare Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [124032]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: The consultation paper setting out the Government's intention to reform the Welfare Food Scheme, "Healthy Start: proposals for reform of the Welfare Food Scheme", was published in October 2002. The Government published a summary of the responses received on 16 March 2003. Copies of both documents are available in the Library and are also available on the Department of Health's website at www.doh.gov.uk/ healthystart. The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which is before Parliament, contains the required legislation to reform the Welfare Food Scheme.

  Mobile Defibrillators
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to expand the distribution of mobile defibrillators into(a) public buildings, (b) aeroplanes and (c) other areas. [119566]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The second phase of the Department of Health's national defibrillator programme was completed in November 2002. 679 automated external defibrillators (AEDs) have been installed across a total of 109 sites in England, including airports, railway stations, bus/coach stations, ferry ports and one shopping centre.

  In July 2000, the NHS plan made a commitment to provide 3,000 AEDs in public places throughout England. The Department of Health is working in partnership with the New Opportunities Fund and the British Heart Foundation to take this forward.

  Muscular Dystrophy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffer from(a) muscular dystrophy and (b) carry the muscular dystrophy gene. [122452]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the incidence of individual diseases and on the number people carrying a particular gene is not held centrally.

  Myeloma
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding was available for research into a cure for myeloma in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement about future funding. [122028]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry 778W
  via the Office for Science and Technology. The MRCs expenditure on research on myeloma is shown in the table.

  Year

  £

  1998–99

  410,000

  1999–2000

  390,000

  2000–01

  360,000

  2001–02

  420,000

  2002–03

  not available

  The MRC has also supported two major myeloma studies: Myeloma VII and Myeloma VIII. Because the MRC has changed the way in which information is kept about funding of trials, the figures in the table do not include spend on these two studies. The MRC has recently awarded £1 million to the Myeloma IX trial involving 1,600 patients. This trial will evaluate a number of different therapies and modalities of treatment used and being developed for myeloma, to provide information on their impact on response rates, survival and quality of life.

  The MRC funds a considerable amount of basic underpinning research which is excluded from site-specific figures. As a guide, the MRC spent £75 million on cancer research in 2001–02. In addition, research classified as undertaken in one site may well have implications in another—leukaemia would be a relevant example in the case of myeloma.

  The Department of Health meets the national health service support costs of research funded by the MRC and research charities. In 2000–01, an estimated £73.2 million was spent on cancer research through research and development allocations to NHS organisations. Management of the research supported by these allocations is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department.

  Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it cost the Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust to place the article, 'We're making breakthroughs every day', in the Nursing Times on 17 June. [122400]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The 'Making Breakthroughs' advertisement placed by the Nottinghamshire Healthcare National Health Service Trust in the Nursing Times of the 17 June cost £4,900. The advertisement was aimed at attracting a significant number of high quality applicants to vacant nursing posts within the trust. Previous experience has shown that similar advertisements have had a high impact and deliver return on investment. Early evidence suggests the 17 June advertisement will be similarly successful.

  Obesity
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what obesity management treatments are available on the NHS; and what plans the Government have to increase these. [118965]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has issued guidance on the anti-obesity drugs orlistat and sibutramine, treatment
  779W
  with which should be accompanied by specific concomitant advice, support and counselling on diet, physical activity and behavioural strategies. In July 2002 NICE also issued guidance which confirmed that surgical intervention was an appropriate treatment in some cases for the treatment of morbid obesity, when other options have proved unsuccessful. There are also 10 national health service obesity clinics in England.

  In 2001, the Department of Health published a National Quality Assurance Framework on Exercise Referral Systems. The document offers guidance to primary care and fitness professionals, who work together to offer tailored exercise and physical activity programmes to patients whose health would benefit from increased exercise.

  National service frameworks (NSFs) have been introduced—for example, for coronary heart disease (CHD), cancer, older people, diabetes and mental health—which set out the national standards that should be expected for treatment and services. The forthcoming NSF for children will address the health and social care needs of all children and will include the promotion of healthy eating and physical activity. Under the new arrangements for the NHS as outlined in "Shifting the Balance of Power", primary care trusts (PCTs) allocate funding from their own devolved budgets to deliver national targets and milestones and to meet local priorities.

  The NHS Priorities and Planning Framework for 2003–06 includes targets on reducing CHD and diabetes. One of these targets requires practice-based registers and systematic treatment regimes, including appropriate advice on diet, physical activity and smoking, to cover the majority of patients at high risk of coronary heart disease, particularly those with hypertension, diabetes and a body mass index greater than 30 (i.e. people who are obese).

  NICE and the Health Development Agency are also undertaking collaborative work to develop guidance on the identification, prevention and management of obesity and maintenance of weight reduction.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps the Government take to inform the public about weight loss options; [118967]

  (2) what information the Government issues regarding proven and unproven weight loss programmes; [118968]

  (3) what research the Government have undertaken to evaluate the different weight loss programmes available in the commercial market; [118969]

  (4) what research the Government have undertaken into the long-term effects of commercial weight loss programmes. [118970]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  An evidence-based approach is being taken to tackle the prevention and management of obesity.

  The Health Development Agency (HDA) will publish its review of effective interventions for the prevention and treatment of obesity later this year. A systematic review carried out by the University of York in 1997 indicated that effective interventions for obesity include diet, physical activity and behavioural strategies for
  780W
  adults in combination where possible. The health technology assessment programme, a national programme of research established and funded by the Department of Health research and development programme, currently includes a systematic review of obesity treatments which will update the 1997 review, publication of which is expected in January 2004. Commercial programmes which meet the inclusion criteria of these reviews will be assessed.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), collaborating with the HDA, have been tasked by the Department to develop guidance on the identification, prevention and management of obesity and maintenance of weight reduction.

  Novel diets can be a variation of a "very low calorie diet" (VLCD): one which provides approximately less than 800 calories per day. A Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA 1987) report on VLCDs highlighted that a major criticism of them is that individuals frequently re-gain any weight lost after the diet has ended. A 1998 report by the Royal College of Physicians on the "Clinical management of overweight and obese patients" supported the findings of the COMA panel.

  Primary care has a particularly important role in the prevention and management of obesity. Local action is being delivered through the national service frameworks, which aim to improve standards of care, and the Priorities and Planning Framework.

  The Department has also funded the British Dietetic Association, as part of their "Weight Wise" campaign, to undertake project work on consumer messages and communication methods relating to weight management. The Department also contributed to the funding of the charity Weight Concern (through a Section 64 grant) to develop a "toolkit" on obesity for health professionals to use with patients in a group setting.

  The Food Standards Agency supports projects relating to diet and nutrition and promoting the uptake of a healthy balanced diet in order to maintain a healthy weight throughout life and have an important role in providing consumers with information on healthy eating.

  Patients Forums
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public patient involvement forums he expects will be functioning by the end of 2003; and how many people will be sitting on each forum at the end of 2003. [124401]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The intention is that all patient and public involvement forums will be set up and able to carry out their functions by 1 December. It is likely that, initially, each forum will have a minimum of seven members. This is the figure included in the draft patient forum regulations that are subject to current consultation.

  Psychosis
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on how the target
  781W
  for reducing the average waiting time for untreated psychosis to three months, as proposed in the NHS Plan, will be met; [121582]

  (2) what the latest average waiting time for untreated psychosis is in England; and whether the NHS Plan target of all young people who experience a first episode receiving the early and intensive support they need will be met by 2004. [121583]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health is committed to the establishment of 50 early intervention teams by December 2004, to provide treatment and active support in the community to 7,500 young people and their families with the aim of reducing the period of untreated psychosis, prevent initial problems, and improve long-term outcomes. Positive progress is being made towards the achievement of the target with 24 early intervention teams established to date.

  Information on the duration of untreated psychosis is being collected as a routine measure as from 1 April 2003, on a quarterly basis as part of local delivery plan reporting. Data for the first quarter should be available in August.

  Ritalin
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each primary care trust aged(a) 0 to 15 years, (b) 16 to 59 and (c) 60 and over have been prescribed Ritalin in each of the last five years. [123766]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not available in the form requested. However the figures in the table show the total number of prescription items of Methylphenidate Hydrochloride dispensed in the community in England in each of the last five years. The majority of prescription items of Methylphenidate Hydrochloride are for the brand Ritalin.

  Number of prescription items of Methylphenidate Hydrochloride dispensed in the community in England—1998–2002

  year

  Thousands

  1998

  126.6

  1999

  158.0

  2000

  186.2

  2001

  208.5

  2002

  254.0

  Source:

  Prescription cost analysis data from the Prescription Pricing Authority

  In 2002, around 91 per cent. of the 254,000 prescription items were dispensed in the community to children—children under 16 and young people aged 16 to 18 in full-time education. An estimated 1 per cent. of the items were dispensed to people aged 60 and over with the remainder being dispensed to other adults. These proportions have been similar in recent years.

  SARS
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome. [122451]
  782W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As of Friday 27 June 2003, there had been 8,450 cases of sever acute respiratory syndrome and 810 deaths reported from 29 countries. The United Kingdom reported four probable cases, all of whom have recovered.

  Sexual Health
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to launch a dedicated national service framework for sexual health; and if he will make a statement. [123452]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: The report on sexual health published by the Health Select Committee on 11 June recommended that a national service framework for sexual health be developed. We are currently considering all of the recommendations in this report and the Government will publish a full response in due course.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that access to high-quality sexual health services and drugs is(a) made a priority and (b) resourced as part of the new general practitioner's contract. [123453]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: General practice plays a crucial role in the delivery of sexual health services. The new general medical services contract includes a new patient services guarantee to ensure patients have full access to all the range of services they currently enjoy, backed-up by a gross investment guarantee that will see investment in primary care increase by one-third by 2005–06.

  Patients will therefore not only continue to obtain contraceptive services and screening for sexually transmitted infections where appropriate, but primary care trusts will also be able to commission more specialised sexual health services that deliver services in line with the national strategy for sexual health and HIV.

  Skin Cancer
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to alert people to the dangers of skin cancer and over-exposure to UV radiation. [121685]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A new sun awareness initiative, "SunSmart" was launched on 27 March by Cancer Research UK to make the public aware of the dangers of exposure to the sun. The campaign is based on the successful SunSmart campaign in Australia. The campaign has received funding of £120,000 from the United Kingdom Health Departments this year. We will evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign later in the year, with a view to deciding on future funding and campaigns.

  The SunSmart campaign consists of: a poster and leaflet for the public; Cancer Research UK website redesign and links to other stakeholders; branding and design of SunSmart; Cancer Research UK commissioned research at Centre for Social Marketing; and a part-time health promotion consultant at Cancer Research UK for the duration of the campaign.
  783W
  The campaign's aim is to increase the profile of the issue of skin cancer and methods of effective sun protection.

  The key objectives are to increase knowledge of the causes of skin cancer, to increase awareness of actions that can be taken to prevent skin cancer and to influence positively attitudes to sun protection.

  Subject to further funding, longer-term aims are to reduce sunlight exposure through changes in behaviour and environment, to increase the proportion of people reporting with early stage disease and decrease the proportion of people presenting with late tumours.

  The campaign's key messages have been disseminated by way of an alert to the campaign and mailshot pack of posters and leaflets to all GP surgeries and health promotion units nationally, an alert to the campaign and mailshot to secondary schools with 3,500 leaflets and posters; and a series of press events over summer 2003 with leaflets and posters targeted in cities and seaside resorts.

  We developed the "SunSafe" web pages last year, which were designed with children in mind, on the Department of Health website at www.doh.qov.uk/sunsafe. These will continue. Sun awareness information is also contained on the Wired For Health website at www.wiredforhealth.qov.uk/teaching/sun/intro.html.

  We continue to fund annually the Meteorological Office to provide the daily UV index in the media on the TV, radio and Meteorological Office website.

  The Department of Health also provides core funding to the National Radiological Protection Board, which has expertise on ultra violet radiation issues.

  Special Advisers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the staff of his Department, including special advisers, are seconded from pharmaceutical companies. [124131]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: The Department has no central records of any secondments from the private sector.

  Smoking
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated percentage of(a) boys and (b) girls who smoke regularly was in each year since 1997. [122396]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The available data are shown in the table.
  784W

  Prevalence of regular cigarette smoking among secondary school pupils aged 11 to 15, by gender—England, 1998 to 2002

  Percentage

  Boys

  Girls

  All pupils

  1998

  9

  12

  11

  1999

  8

  10

  9

  2000

  9

  12

  10

  2001

  8

  11

  10

  2002

  9

  11

  10

  Note:

  Regular smokers are those who smoke at least one cigarette a week, on average.

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistical Press Notice: "Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2002: Provisional Results". Available at http://www.doh.qov.uk/public/ spnmar03-smokinq.htm

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has undertaken into the numbers of children and young people who smoke; what plans he has to reduce these numbers; and if he will make a statement. [123054]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The 1998 White Paper, "Smoking Kills", set a target to reduce smoking among 11-15 year olds from 13 per cent. in 1996 to 9 per cent. by 2010, with a fall to 11 per cent. by 2005.

  Among 11-15 year olds, smoking prevalence has remained unchanged since 2000 at 10 per cent. and we are on course to meet our target for reducing smoking. Within the adult group—16–19 year olds, data (collected from a different source) show that for young men figures increased in 1998. For young women, there has been a marked improvement in 2000. The figures indicate an overall fall in prevalence in England. Measures the Government is taking to tackle teenage smoking are:
  a comprehensive ban on advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products: The cigarettes smoked most by children are also those most heavily advertised;
  tough enforcement on under-age sales: on 13 September 2000 the Government launched an Enforcement Protocol with local authorities to ensure that the existing legislation on under-age sales is properly enforced;
  the Government supports proof of age card schemes which protect shopkeepers and children alike;
  tougher new restrictions on siting of cigarette vending machines;
  an extensive health education campaign aimed at smokers and non-smokers;
  fiscal policy: the high price of cigarettes is a particular disincentive for young people.

  Prevalence of regular cigarette smoking among secondary school pupils aged 11 to 15, by gender—England, 1996 to 2002

  (Percentages)

  Year

  1996

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Boys

  11

  9

  8

  9

  8

  9

  Girls

  15

  12

  10

  12

  11

  11

  All pupils

  13

  1 I

  9

  10

  10

  10

  Notes:

  Regular smokers are those who smoke at least one cigarette a week, on average.

  Source:

  The Department of Health Statistical Press Notice, 'Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2002: Provisional Results'. Available at: http://www.doh.qov.uk/public/ spnmar03-smokinq.htm
  785W

  Prevalence of smoking cigarettes among adults, England, 1996–2001 aged 16–19 and by gender

  (Percentages)

  19961

  19981

  19982

  20002

  20012

  Men

  25

  30

  30

  30

  24

  Women

  32

  33

  33

  28

  31

  All persons

  29

  31

  31

  30

  28

  1 Unweighted

  2 Weighted

  Notes:

  1. Up until 2000, data on the prevalence on smoking from the General Household Survey were only available every two years.

  2. Data for 1998 onwards were weighted to compensate for under-representation of people in some groups: earlier figures were based on unweighted data, and are not therefore directly comparable.

  3. Respondents who answered "yes" to the question "Do you smoke cigarettes at all nowadays?"

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics: General Household Survey 2001, published as, 'Living in Britain: Results from the 2001 General Household Survey'. Available at: http://www.statlstics.qov.uk/nb2001/index.html

  Sunblocks
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will reclassify high factor sunblock as a medicine. [123353]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The decision as to whether a particular product is a medicinal product is made by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, using the definition of that term in Article 1 of Directive 2001/83, relevant legal precedent and its own published guidance. Products, which are presented to the consumer for treating or preventing disease, would be classified as medicinal products. Sunburn is an adverse medical condition and direct or implied product claims to treat or prevent sunburn would bring the product within the definition of a medicinal product, regardless of the product's level of sun protection factor. Products that modify physiological function could also be classified as medicinal products.

  Certain creams or lotions with a sun protection factor of 15 or above, which are not licensed or marketed as medicines, may be assessed by the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances (ACBS) as being regarded as drugs for the management of specific conditions. Products so recommended by the ACBS may be prescribed under the National Health Service.

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 118W, ref 121295, if he will list the scientific evidence on which the answer is based; and if he will make a statement on the procedures developed by the World Health Organisation. [123494]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Scientific evidence that should be taken into account in the safety assessment include: composition, effects of processing and cooking,786W
  transformation procedure, the genetic modification event, protein expression of the novel DNA (including function, potential toxicity and potential allergenicity), potential secondary effects from gene expression, and potential intake regulatory impact.

  The safety assessment of genetically modified (GM) food is undertaken by independent scientists on a case by case basis in accordance with the European Commission guidelines that accompany the EC Novel Foods Regulation (EC/258/97). Regulation 1852/2001 requires the European Commission to publish the data, which supports each GM food application made under EC 258/97.

  Several organisations (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Food and Agriculture Organisations of the United Nations), including the World Health Organisation have agreed that the assessment procedure for GM foods requires an integrated and stepwise, case-by-case approach.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons his Department does not intend to publish the findings of the report which it commissioned on the legality of xenotransplantation from Professor McLean and Dr. Williamson at the University of Glasgow. [123334]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA) advises my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, on issues about xenotransplantation (transplantation of live animal organs and cells into humans). The Department of Health commissioned a series of three reviews on different aspects of xenotransplantation on behalf of the UKXIRA between 1999 and 2001. The first two—on infection and on physiology—were published 2001 and 2002. A third review, on the legal and ethical aspects of xenotransplantation, was commissioned from Professor Sheila McLean, of the University of Glasgow, who was also a member of the UKXIRA from 1997 to 2002.

  The UKXIRA has considered the review and concluded that it made some useful discussion points and that the summary of the research papers should be placed on the UKXIRA website. While there are no plans to publish Professor McLean's whole review as a Department of Health/UKXIRA document, Professor McLean is free to publish it if she wishes.

  Private Sector Operations
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people classed as self pay undertook operations in the private sector in each year since 1997, broken down by type of operation. [122791]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not collect information on the number of patients having operations carried out in the private sector, nor on the source of funding for those operations.

TREASURY

  Statistics Commission
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  The Statistics Commission's annual report and accounts, covering the 2002–03 financial year, are being published today, having been laid before both Houses of Parliament. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Commemorative Coins
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that the following commemorative coins should be issued in 2005:A pair of crown pieces for the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar and the death of Nelson;
  A two-pound coin for the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot;
  A fifty pence piece to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the publication of Samuel Johnson's dictionary of the English language.

  Collector versions of these coins will be at a premium above face value and, during the course of the year 2005, the coins will also become available at face value from banks and post offices.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Legal Services Ombudsman Annual Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  The Legal Services Ombudsman has today published the twelfth Annual Report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Pakistan (Travel Advice)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stale for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin)
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has changed its travel advice for Pakistan with effect from 7 July 2003.

  We previously advised British Nationals other than those of Pakistani origin:
  against all but essential travel to Pakistan for which there is a compelling reason and where they have confidence in the security arrangements for the entire visit;
  against holiday travel to Pakistan and, to leave Pakistan unless they have a compelling reason to stay and unless they also have confidence in their security arrangements.
  46WS
  We are now advising British Nationals:
  against holiday travel unless they have family contacts there;
  if they are travelling to Pakistan for professional or holiday reasons, they should be very careful about, and confident of, their personal security arrangements throughout their visit.

  Our previous advice was drafted against the backdrop of escalating tensions between India and Pakistan in 2002, a number of terrorist attacks against Western targets (including Pakistani Christian institutions) in 2002 and unrest in Pakistan following coalition action in Afghanistan and, more recently, in Iraq.

  We reviewed this advice taking into account the recent improvement in India/Pakistan relations, post-conflict stabilisation efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, the action taken by the Pakistani authorities against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Pakistan and the relative decrease in the number of terrorist attacks against Western targets thus far this year.

  We believe that our advice needs to reflect these improvements, but without underplaying the risks to the British public. Our advice continues to underline that Pakistan remains a hostile environment for Western interests. It also underlines the serious risk of terrorism throughout Pakistan and the risk of indiscriminate attacks against Western targets.

  Visibly Western targets and individuals are more vulnerable to attack than British citizens of Pakistani origin and our advice makes this clear. We are therefore advising British nationals against holiday travel unless they have family contacts in Pakistan. Our advice also highlights the need for all visitors travelling to Pakistan (for business, holiday, visiting family or other purposes) to be very careful about, and confident of, their personal security arrangements throughout their visit.

DEFENCE

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The following key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency for financial year 2003–04:

  Title

  Details

  Target

  KT 1—Financial Performance 1

  The measurement of DARA's ROCE.

  To achieve a minimum average ROCE of 6 per cent. over the first three years of trading (FY01/02-FY03/04 inclusive).

  KT 2—Financial Performance 2

  The measurement of value of contracts won.

  To achieve order intake to the value of at least £160 million.

  KT 3—Quality

  The measurement of attributable major customer concerns received from DM DARA's customers.

  To have no more attributable major customer concerns than the baseline set on DARA's performance of FY 01/02, less 10 per cent.

  47WS

  Title

  Details

  Target

  KT 4—Efficiency

  The measurement of the reduction in unit production price of a representative basket of DARA outputs.

  To achieve a cumulative reduction price of 7 per cent. in real terms, of the basket of products (weighted by value of annual task quantity), baselined from FY01/02.

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The following Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of ABRO for Financial Year 2003–04. The targets build on the high standards of service already provided by the Agency:

  KEY TARGET 1:
  To achieve at least a 6 per cent. average Return On Capital Employed (ROCE) over the first three years of trading (FY 2002–03-2004–05).

  KEY TARGET 2:
  To complete delivery of 100 per cent. of the planned revenue projection (£150 million) in each of the next five years (FY 2003–04-2007–08).

  KEY TARGET 3:
  To introduce and have operational the new Material Management System (MMS) and to have detached from the Equipment Support Provision and Procurement Administration, Supply System by 31 March 2005. (A milestone has been set for FY 2001–04—the MMS pilot is to be operational at ABRO Bovington by 31 March 2004).

  KEY TARGET 4:
  To reduce the average equipment repair price, across the programme by 4 per cent. in the second year and by 12 per cent. over three years against the 2002–03 baseline.

  KEY TARGET 5:
  To maintain a closing order book of at least £80 million and total sales of £150 million for FY 2003–04, and to maintain this level over the next five years (FY 2003–04 to 2007–08).

  Operation Telic Medal
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The House will be aware of the desire to issue a campaign medal to service personnel and entitled civilians engaged on operations in Iraq and supporting areas, collectively known as Operation Telic.

  I am pleased to confirm that Her Majesty the Queen has approved the award of a specific campaign medal to mark this operation. The detailed eligibility criteria for this award are being determined and will be published in due course.

  Armed Forces Recruitment (Ethnic Minorities)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  In 1998 we instituted a series of recruitment goals to ensure that appropriate levels of recruitment from Britain's ethnic minority communities 48WS
  took place. Running for four years, the goals aimed at increasing the recruitment of ethnic minority young people incrementally by 1 per cent. each year until the Forces reached 5 per cent. In the event the outcome for 2001–02 was a very creditable 4.4 per cent., although this figure contains a large number of Commonwealth nationals recruited in this country. Given the nearness to publication of the National Census, and therefore access to new and up-to date- research data, an interim goal of a further 1 per cent. from the previous year's outcome was agreed.

  We have found that quite significant numbers of young people travel to the United Kingdom and join the Armed Forces, particularly the Army, which has the greatest number of trades open requiring relatively low security clearances. An internal provisional estimate of the recruiting outcome for 2002–03 makes this clear:
  Royal Navy—2.01 per cent. UK national and 1.06 per cent. Commonwealth recruited in UK.
  Army—2.8 per cent. officers and 2.4 per cent. other ranks UK nationals and 5.3 per cent. Commonwealth recruited in UK.
  Royal Air Force—2.47 per cent. overwhelmingly UK nationals.

  All figures exclude Commonwealth personnel joining as the result of RN and Army in-country selection team visits. All figures have yet to be statistically validated.

  The numbers of Commonwealth nationals of all ethnic backgrounds seeking to join the Armed Forces is a clear indication of the success of our race equality policies in recent years. Although we welcome the resulting increase in the diversity of the Forces, we should not forget that the original intention of the recruitment goals was to increase the proportion of UK ethnic minority recruits; this remains the objective today. Accordingly, the aim for the next three years is for each Service to increase incrementally each year the proportion of UK ethnic minority recruits by at least 0.5 per cent. with the tri-Service aim of reaching 5 per cent. as soon as possible. We will in addition seek to report the numbers joining from the Commonwealth in order to maintain the transparency of the recruiting process.

  These proposals have been discussed and agreed with the Commission for Racial Equality.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Independent Race Monitor
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before the House a copy of the annual report produced by Mary Coussey, the independent Race Monitor, under section 19E of the Race Relations Act 1976, together with his response. The Race Monitor has a statutory duty to report to Parliament via the Home Secretary on Ministerial authorisations made under section 19D of the Race Relations Act enabling immigration staff to discriminate on the basis of nationality or ethnic or national origin in the exercise of their functions.

  Hazardous Materials (Detection Kits)
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The purpose of this statement is to confirm advice to businesses and inform the House of our view on the question of whether organisations should acquire their own equipment to detect chemical, biological or radiological materials as part of their contingency plans.

  The Government takes contingency planning for potential terrorist attack very seriously and is working with emergency services to ensure that they have the equipment they need to protect the public from the use of chemical, biological or radiological (CBR) materials. The Government are also ensuring that effective measures are in place to detect such substances on a routine basis, where required. Such equipment is regularly tested by independent scientists and by users in the relevant agencies, including the emergency services, to ensure that it is of the standard required. Staff are also well trained in its use.

  The Government's advice is, therefore, that other organisations, including businesses, leave the demanding and potentially dangerous job of detecting CBR materials to personnel in the emergency services and responsible agencies who are professionally trained in the necessary equipment. Any business considering measures to prevent or reduce the impact of terrorism should contact the counter-terrorist security adviser in their local police force who will be able to give further advice.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  President of Appeal Tribunals Annual Report 2002–03
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  I am pleased to publish today the third report by the President of appeal tribunals on the standard of decisions made on my behalf in cases which come before appeal tribunals. Of those cases where the appeal tribunal overturned or amended the decision the main reasons given were because new evidence was produced at the hearing, the tribunal took a different view of the same evidence or the presence of the appellant at the hearing shed new light on the existing evidence.
  50WS
  The President has highlighted some areas where improvements have been made since his last report. Some examples of these are; the increased use of the explanation and reconsideration routes to try and avoid an appeal, a general improvement in decision making and the agencies taking forward new initiatives.

  The President has suggested that the agencies should adopt a more flexible approach to decision making and encourage appellants to supply them with additional evidence which might prevent the case reaching an appeal hearing. I welcome the President's report which provides an independent view of the standard of decision-making in cases coming to the appeal tribunal.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library and are available on the internet at http://www.appeals-service.gov.uk/about_us/publications/ presidents_report0203/pres_rep03.pdf

  Performance Standards Fund
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  I am pleased to announce the first awards from the £200 million Performance Standards Fund. These total £33 million and will benefit 210 local authorities, who submitted applications for funding to support their local housing benefit improvement plans.

  These awards are the first step in the substantial investment we are making, as part of our housing benefit reform agenda. The performance standards fund of £200 million over three years represents the single biggest investment in housing benefit since the scheme began in 1988. We have established the fund to target additional resources in a focused way to help local authorities bridge the gap between current performance and the performance standards for housing benefit administration we published last year.

  The priority for the first awards of funding is to improve performance in the speed and accuracy of processing of claims and the prevention and recovery of overpayments. Much of the additional funding is going to help with the recruitment and training of new benefit staff and investment in new IT systems. These awards demonstrate that we are committed to working in partnership with local government to improve their performance. In return, however, we expect real improvements in the speed and accuracy of claims processing.

  A full list of the successful applications has been placed in the Library. We expect to be announcing further awards during the coming year.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

NHS: Specialised Commissioning
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will require strategic health authorities to monitor and keep the Government informed about the progress being made regarding the formation of consortia to purchase specialised services; and whether they will give strategic health authorities the power to require primary care trusts to form consortia for the purchase of such services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, primary care trusts decide whether they wish to form purchasing consortia for specific specialised services. Overall arrangements for commissioning specialised services are performance managed by strategic health authorities. In turn, strategic health authorities are subject to a national process of assessment which will include their processes for strategically reviewing the commissioning of specialised services. There are no plans to change those arrangements.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this Question is about people with rare but serious conditions that are very expensive to treat? The Government seem to be failing some of them. Currently, only the combination of primary care trusts and consortia can handle these cases and cope with the expense. In my view, and according to that Answer, all the Government seem to be doing is making recommendations or guiding and advising. What they should be doing is demanding that primary care trusts establish consortia and requiring them to carry out that work. Without such a combination, these people will remain neglected, and that would be inexcusable. It is the Government's job to see that primary care trusts are not left to their own devices. They are reluctant to combine, but unless they do they cannot treat this small but vital number of very important cases, some of them people with life-threatening conditions.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's concerns. However, it is also true that the Government have tried to shift the balance of power—the title of the document published in 2002—to devolve more responsibility to a lower level. We have also issued guidance on the commissioning arrangements for specialised services to try to address some of the concerns expressed by my noble friend. However, we have not just issued guidance. A Department of Health survey showed that, in the first three years of their existence, regional
126
specialised commissioning groups had made significant advances in establishing commissioning arrangements for those specialised services. Those included in particular the eight national priority services, which I will not go into but which I am sure are well known to many noble Lords. The survey also looked at the commissioning arrangements for other specialised services and found very reassuring evidence that things were going in an extremely satisfactory manner.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this House last debated specialised services in April 2003. During that debate, the answers given were widely at variance with answers which have subsequently become available from John Hutton, the health Minister, and indeed from Ministers in this House. The guidance given in April clearly lacks the clarity needed by those who are now responsible for commissioning. Will the Minister undertake to reissue that guidance in a much clearer form?
Lord Warner: No, my Lords.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords. has any consortia of this kind for buying these services yet been formed? If so, how many?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the drift of the noble Lord's question. We do not collect a lot of information of this kind centrally, as I thought I had made clear. However, if he would like to write to me about particular concerns I shall be happy to make inquiries.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, if one accepts, as one must, that clinical research is a vital function of the National Health Service, can the Minister assure us that that will be preserved and enhanced in the arrangements that he has been talking about? There is no doubt at all that the results of research not only nourish but produce major developments in clinical care. Will he also take account of the parlous state of clinical academic medicine at the present time, which is very serious when one talks about the future of clinical research in the United Kingdom?
Lord Warner: My Lords, on the latter part of the noble Lord's question, I am aware of the concerns about academic medicine. Work is under way, particularly in relation to a number of inquiries—but that is rather wide of the Question. On the particular issues of research in relation to commissioning, nothing in these new arrangements for commissioning should damage the research interests.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, will the Minister explain what specific plans are in place to monitor the commissioning of cancer services given the need for the exceptional tracking exercise recently?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the arrangements for monitoring specialised cancer services are the same as for other specialised services; they are as indicated in my

127
earlier Answer to my noble friend Lord Ashley. It will be for the department to assess with strategic health authorities, when they assess their accountability, the performance in this area.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that primary care trusts also have strategic responsibilities not only in connection with specialist commissioning but in a wider area? Does he agree with me that, particularly in metropolitan areas, primary care trusts tend to think of their own corner and not of the strategic role they clearly have?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concerns. Primary care trusts have a responsibility in relation to their particular areas and in relation to specialised services, which go much wider. As I said, we have carried out a survey which, without being complacent, is rather reassuring about the way in which primary care trusts are tackling specialised services.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I wonder if the Minister could help us in this rather confused area. Who is responsible for, say, providing the services for children who need kidney transplants, and to whom are they accountable?
Lord Warner: My Lords, about 36 specialised service areas are defined. I am trying to skim down the list to see whether the services the noble Lord mentioned are included. My eyes do not immediately alight upon them so I do not think they are included. However, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what will the treatments be called? They used to be called supra-regional specialties and then out-of-area treatments. Will the money follow the patient?
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I tried to say earlier, they are called specialised services. A set of national definitions identifies those services—36 in all. They are covered by PCT consortia for commissioning where populations of 1 million or more are covered by those services. That is about as far as I can go.

Royal Mail: Transport Policy
2.44 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What evidence Postcomm will require from Royal Mail in order to determine whether it will be able to meet its performance after withdrawal of its rail freight services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, Postcomm is in the process of
128
considering the action plans Royal Mail has presented to it to underpin this year's service quality targets. I have no doubt that one of the issues it will be looking at will be the potential impact of implementing Royal Mail's multi-modal transport review.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Does he not agree that as Royal Mail is a government-owned company it should comply with government policy to use as much rail freight as possible rather than road? Should it not also in its appraisal use the Government's appraisal and methodology in comparing the benefits and the costs of road, rail and air for value for money, environmental benefit and performance? Will he ensure therefore that Postcomm requires the Royal Mail to do that as part of the review?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is for Postcomm to ask those questions. On the figures that I have the air and road only network results in fewer carbon emissions than the air, road, rail proposal. It also involves fewer lorry movements although more miles per annum. It is arguably a better environmental scenario.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is it not the case that Royal Mail anticipates that it will reduce its losses by some £90 million a year by switching from rail to road? Would it not be wrong to interfere with such a wise commercial judgment?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the figure of £90 million is the total savings from the total transport review. Transferring rail services to road will save about £25 million which is a substantial amount of money. It is a commercial decision for Royal Mail to take rather than the Government.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the situation not complicated by the incidence of VAT which is payable on rail freight but not on road movements by Royal Mail? Of the saving of £25 million, how much is accounted for by VAT?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the noble Lord asked that question on a previous occasion, this time I can give him the answer. The £25 million saving would come down to £19.5 million. It would nevertheless still be a very substantial saving. It arises because VAT is not paid on stamps. Therefore, VAT cannot be recovered from the railways. I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that we should charge VAT on stamps as a way of solving the problem.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, what has to happen before the Government acknowledge that such a decision is of major public interest and is much broader than purely a commercial cost matter?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in the past 25 years during which I have had any connection with

129
the postal service, I believe that Royal Mail has suffered enormously under all governments through Ministers and civil servants interfering in commercial decisions. It is not the intention of the DTI to continue with that tradition.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords—
Lord Renton: My Lords, will it be borne in mind—
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is the turn of this side.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that a number of my noble friends are perplexed by the answers that he is giving on this particular matter. What is the point of Labour Members of Parliament and Labour activists knocking on doors up and down the land and assuring people that we intend to move freight from road to rail when we are totally incapable of intervening on this occasion when the public utility is owned by the taxpayer? It is owned by us. We are the shareholders.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the amount of mail as a total percentage of freight is very small; it is about half of 1 per cent. The Secretary of State sets social and environmental targets against which Postcomm measures performance. However, as I suggested, in this particular case it is not at all clear that continuing with the rail freight operation is environmentally the best solution.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister said that it was correct not to intervene in a commercial decision, but has he seen discussion in the newspapers of proposals for a heavy congestion charge on the motorways? Up to 50p per mile is mentioned. As we are moving into an age of charges for transport on roads, what will happen then? Will the Post Office do its sums again and decide that it ought to go back to rail?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, the situation is that about 70 per cent of the future network connections—that is, the journeys that take place—will take place between 6.30 in the evening and 3 o'clock in the morning, when congestion is not a major issue.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I assume that the Minister will be aware that, on these Benches at least, there is great concern about these proposals. For example, how on earth will the situation be dealt with at Christmas time, when some 150 extra trains are brought into play to deal with the Christmas surge? Does he think that that can be handled by road, or maybe by air as well? It seems absurd.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is very difficult—which is why it has been such a disaster in the past—for Ministers and civil servants to try to control the operational arrangements of an industry of
130
this scale and complexity. It is simply not possible, nor do I think it desirable, for us to start imposing our judgment on how those operational services are run, at Christmas or at any other time.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will it be borne in mind that Royal Mail has always, so far, delivered first-class mail promptly? Will the Minister ensure that that continues?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clear service targets are laid down by Postcomm, and it is the job of Postcomm to measure the performance of Royal Mail against those. In looking at the action plans of Royal Mail, it will take into account whether, in its judgment, they will lead to the service standards that it has laid down.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Post Office meeting its performance targets at present? Two cheques have gone missing from my mail in the past three weeks?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord has had that particular problem, but I do not think it is relevant to the Question that we are considering.

Weapons of Mass Destruction
2.53 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent the Joint Intelligence Committee was consulted on the contents of the dossier on weapons of mass destruction.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee was responsible for the production of the September dossier. There was no attempt to override the judgment of the chairman at any point in the process. Intelligence was not inserted; neither was it exaggerated at the instruction of Ministers or special advisers. The Government welcome the Foreign Affairs Committee's conclusion on this point.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is not quite answering the Question. Did the Joint Intelligence Committee have sight of either version of the dossier? When the noble and learned Lord has answered that, perhaps he will go on to a further underlying question; namely, whether anything has been done to reassure the troops in Iraq, who must be rather upset by the squabble that is going on, which no one is going to win and in which everyone may come off a loser. Not only that, but will he, first, congratulate them on the achievement of getting rid of

131
Saddam and, secondly, will he make sure that they are given some clue as to what they are going to do next and how long they will be in Iraq?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on the latter point, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. Our troops in Iraq are carrying out their professional duties with their usual skill and calm attachment to duty. Going back to the Question, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee was responsible for the production of the dossier. I have authority to tell your Lordships that I believe the dossier was published on 24th September. On 23rd September—if we want to go to responsibility for the contents—the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee was actually at the printers checking the proofs.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House recall that some of us questioned whether or not the evidence presented in those dossiers at the time justified the conclusions that were reached? Does he also recall that, after the Falklands War—where there was much less questioning of the intelligence provided to the government beforehand—the government accepted that a judicial inquiry would clear the air? Do we not now need something that will very much clear the air?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, clearing the air is usefully done by attending to fact, not assertion. There has been a vast amount of false assertion put forward here—not necessarily knowing it to be false at the time, but without the grace to recognise that false assertions having been made, an apology might well be in order.
I go, if I may, to one or two conclusions of the FAC:
"We conclude that Alastair Campbell did not play any role in the inclusion of the 45 minutes claim in the September dossier".
"We conclude"—
this is conclusion 14, found at paragraph 86—
"that the claims made in the September dossier were in all probability well founded on the basis of the intelligence then available, although as we have already stated we have concerns about the emphasis given to some of them. We further conclude that, in the absence of reliable evidence that intelligence personnel have either complained about or sought to distance themselves from the content of the dossier, allegations of politically inspired meddling cannot credibly be established".
So we are waiting, I imagine, for an apology.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that the Intelligence and Security Committee is now conducting an investigation into this matter? Would it not be sensible to await the outcome?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is indeed, as my noble and learned friend indicated, considering this matter and it is going to be given the fullest possible assistance at the specific direction of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that, subject of course to the usual constraints of sensitive intelligence and on a basis to be agreed by that committee, the report will be published. My noble and learned friend
132
of course serves on that committee. It is a committee of absolute integrity, and I do respectfully suggest that those who make unsubstantiated allegations might well attend to the report that is about to be published.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, when did preparation of the dossier start?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the preparation of the dossier cannot be said to have started at any particular time. The Joint Intelligence Committee, as a number of your Lordships know, produces regular assessments. It was decided that a dossier should be produced. The responsibility for the production of that dossier was with Mr Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. I repeat: he had such a close involvement that he was actually checking the proofs, the final format and the final content on the day that the printing run was to start. on the day before publication.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Lord President has quoted from the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee—a number of whose members made clear that they could not give a full report because they did not have access to all the material. Endorsing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has said—who is a previous colleague of mine on the Intelligence and Security Committee—will the Minister confirm, first, reinforcing what he said, that no reasonable request from the Intelligence and Security Committee will be refused; and that material that was refused to the Foreign Affairs Committee will be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee? Will he further confirm that, having regard to the fact that virtually all these matters are now history and not subject to acute sensitive intelligence, the Government will raise no objection if, for part of its hearing, the Intelligence and Security Committee decides to sit in public?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I certainly give the assurance for which the noble Lord asks. He and I both had dealings together when he was a distinguished member of the ISC. So far as concerns the committee sitting in public, if the committee, having borne in mind the very sensitive ramifications which the noble Lords knows of as well as I, wished to sit in public, that, it seems to me, would be a matter for its own decision. I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord when he says that this is historic. He will know as well as I that, even if intelligence becomes historic, the danger to sources continues, sometimes for many years.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, have not the answers that the Leader of the House has given in reply to questions on this subject revealed the weaknesses of the Select Committee system? As the noble and learned Lord has ruled out a judicial inquiry, does he not think that we could learn from the American system of congressional committees? The American constitution, in I believe Articles 1 and 2, confers on those committees what the

133
constitution calls all the necessary powers in order to investigate effectively and to hold the executive to account. If there is not to be a judicial inquiry on controversial matters such as these, does the noble and learned Lord think that we could learn much from the American system when trying to correct the widely perceived imbalance that we have in this country between the power of the executive and the power of Parliament?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, whether we can learn from any other select committees in any part of the world, whatever the jurisdiction, is certainly worthy of consideration. The budgets of congressional committees of inquiry, whether in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, are very substantial and they have the benefit—some would say—of being assisted by qualified cross-examiners.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord share the reported view of the Foreign Secretary in relation to the second, February part of the report that it was a horlicks? In those circumstances does he feel that it was entirely consistent of the Foreign Secretary yesterday publicly to call on the BBC to offer an apology for its rather more circumscribed criticisms of the first September report?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Question concerns the first dossier and I responded to that. I was never quite sure what an "absolute horlicks" meant and I am still waiting to be told. The important question in relation to the apology is that assertions were made by the BBC that have proved to be wrong. If one looks at what was said in the dossier, to which the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred, the 45-minute issue is dealt with there. Journalistic ethics are an important part of a civil society. With great respect, it seems to me that if the BBC sometimes gets things wrong, it would not be a bad idea to say so.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I believe it is time to move on to the next Question.

Iraq: Post-war Security and Reconstruction
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions were held with the United States, prior to the military action against Iraq, about plans for post-war security and reconstruction.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government had a wide range of discussions with United States interlocutors on contingency plans
134
for post-war security and reconstruction if the Iraqi regime failed to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. At the Azores summit on 16th March, shortly before the conflict began, the Prime Minister and President Bush set out a vision for Iraq committing the coalition to work closely with inter alia the United Nations to ensure an appropriate post-conflict administration and to support the Iraqi people.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 14th February Mr Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, said:
"With Iraq … there has been time to prepare. We have set up a Post War Planning Office"?
That was echoed by the Deputy National Security Adviser who said that there had been extensive discussion over months between the United States agencies about the post-war planning. Can the Minister tell the House whether the United Kingdom was fully consulted at all stages and whether it raised any objections for what in retrospect now looks like a very complacent set of assumptions about what would happen to Iraq once the conflict was over?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness has mentioned what was said in America about United States planning. The Foreign Office, the MoD, DfID and indeed the DTI liaised extensively with each other and liaised also with United States counterparts in the State Department, the Pentagon, US Aid and other relevant United States authorities. From the outset it was very clear that coalition forces would be responsible for humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of any fighting and, of course, that UN authority would be needed for reconstruction.
The noble Baroness says that this has been characterised by complacency. I do not agree with that. There was a great deal of work to be done and there remains a great deal of work to be done. Two months after the end of decisive combat operations, I am bound to say that Iraq is already arguably better off than a number of post-conflict areas with which we have been associated in recent years.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the Government agree that the experience of Bosnia and Kosovo shows clearly that the first thing that needs to be restored is law and order and a system of justice? Can the noble Baroness tell the House what criminal and civil codes are now in force or in use in Iraq?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, to be honest I do not agree that it is solely law and order and civil justice that has to be restored. There are also the vital issues of food, of water, of electricity, of sustaining the basics of life itself. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I can assure him that, were those vital necessities not being delivered to the people of Iraq, I am absolutely certain that he would be one of the first to be on his feet making exactly that point to me. It is not a matter of just shaking his head, if I may

135
say so, because troops also have to be engaged in ensuring that those basic necessities of life are delivered.
As to what is happening on law and order and justice, policing is improving. There are now 33,000 Iraqi troops operating in Iraq; some 8,000 of those are in Baghdad; and there are also about 3,000 operating in Basra. The courthouses are starting to open: as I understand it, currently three in Baghdad and one in Basra. So the justice system is now starting to reassert itself.
Lord Judd: My Lords—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords to ask a question.
Lord Judd: My Lords, accepting the assurance of my noble friend that reconstruction is a matrix, as of course it is, nevertheless can she tell the House exactly what resources are being put into the redevelopment of the system of justice and of civil policing?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot quantify what is going in, in terms of money being spent. but I can tell your Lordships that the security situation is being controlled by coalition troops. The number of coalition patrols has increased and there are now around 2.500 patrols a day across Iraq, and I can tell my noble friend that 200 of those are jointly conducted with the Iraqi police. As of 24th June, Iraqi police were conducting their first patrols on their own, which is a major step in helping Iraqis to return to a self-policed environment. It is important that we are talking here not only about what the coalition is able to bring to security on the ground, but also increasingly about what Iraqi policemen are bringing to the security on the ground.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, given that the Government fought the war because they believed that there were weapons of mass destruction that may fall into the hands of extremist groups through Saddam Hussein's regime, why are the Government so calm, and indeed almost complacent, about the failure to enforce law and order which has resulted in looting and in all kinds of materials possibly falling into the wrong hands? What are the Government doing to ensure that we are not at risk of that happening if they believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if by the use of the word "calm" the noble Lord is trying to imply that the Government are complacent on this issue, I reject that entirely. I have just explained to your Lordships what is happening, with increased patrolling from coalition forces—some 2,500 patrols, as I have indicated, every day—and the increased provision for Iraqi policemen also to be involved.
136
Of course, the issue of finding weapons of mass destruction is very important, but I am bound to say to your Lordships that I think it has greater importance in the United Kingdom, perhaps in both Houses of Parliament and perhaps also in our press, than necessarily it does on the ground in Iraq. The majority of Iraqi people want to ensure that they are living in an environment where they can send their children to school, where they can be sure about their health, where they have secure policing and where they have access to food and water. I point your Lordships to the fact that yesterday, for example, there was the first meeting of the new Baghdad city council, a not unimportant issue. The noble Lord may shake his head and look exasperated. If the noble Lord does not believe that it is important that democracy is being established in the city of Baghdad then I beg to disagree with him.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords—
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the situation—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lords; we are well over time.

Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise: Treasury Review
3.10 p.m.
Lord Freeman Lord Freeman asked Her Majesty's Government:
What purpose is intended to be achieved by the Treasury review of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the primary focus of the review will be to make public service delivery more effective and efficient. It will examine the best organisational arrangements for delivering the Government's tax objectives. It will consider the case for changes in the law where necessary to allow the full benefits of particular arrangements to be realised, and it will pay particular attention to the need to ensure the continued effectiveness of the core business of revenue collection and administration.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, if it is confirmed by this review or otherwise that financial loss has been suffered by those who have applied for tax credits and not yet received payments due to inefficiencies in the system, will the Minister confirm that the Inland Revenue code of practice will definitely permit compensation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there has been a great deal of misrepresentation on this issue, although I can give the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, the

137
assurance that he seeks. It has been claimed that there has been a great deal of loss. There has certainly been delay in dealing with telephone calls and with correspondence. Anyone who has applied for tax credits and has shown his or her eligibility for tax credits will get the money which is due.
Lord Newby: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that one option being considered by the review is whether the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise might merge? Within that context, will the review be considering whether the extensive powers which are currently held by Customs officers might be extended to Inland Revenue officials?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to be answering a supplementary question which is about the original Question on the Order Paper. Yes, I can confirm that that is one of the options being considered. The matter of the potential merger of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise has been on the public agenda since a parliamentary committee of inquiry in 1862. It was last considered by the Government in 1993 and by the Treasury Select Committee in 1999. So this is not a new proposal, if indeed that is what emerges from the current review. But the question of the powers of Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue officials will undoubtedly be a part of the review.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, can my noble friend say who is to undertake the review and when it will report?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the review will be conducted by the Treasury and it will report in due course.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, in the discussion of this merger, has there not been an unattractive tendency lately to blame Inland Revenue officials for faults which really lie with Ministers—for example, the Chancellor landed the Inland Revenue with the task of administering tax credits, which have nothing to do with tax at all? As the Minister is aware, it was in your Lordships' House that it emerged that 90 per cent of all tax credit payments totalling £15 billion a year actually exceed the total tax liability of the recipient. In other words, they are not tax credits at all.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if there has been criticism of officials in the Inland Revenue, it has not come from the Government. The Chancellor has explicitly praised the Inland Revenue for the way in which it has taken on the very substantial additional tasks imposed on it by the tax credit regime.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, in reviewing the administration of tax, will this review also investigate the issue of fraud, particularly in respect of tax credits?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are continuing reviews on the issue of fraud, just as there are continuing reviews on, for example, failures of
138
prosecution for fraud, if that is to what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is referring. One such review being conducted by Mr Justice Butterfield will be reporting very shortly, probably next week. We shall be interested to see the findings.

Communications Bill
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Communications Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [General duties of OFCOM]:
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 8, at end insert "with due regard to the qualifications and limitations contained in paragraph 6A of Schedule 14"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 paves the way for Amendment No. 131 that is grouped with it, which I hope will provide the core of the debate that we are about to have. That amendment stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and is identical to an amendment which has being tabled at different stages of the Bill in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hussey and Lord Puttnam. The name of the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, does not appear on this amendment. As he is unwell, I did not think it right to disturb him to ask whether he would put his name to it. The name of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is not on the amendment for reasons which I fully understand and accept.
The Puttnam committee report had a tripod of recommendations, which it believed would immensely strengthen the Bill in providing essential protection for our communications industry against the predatory instincts of the global multi-media conglomerates. The first recommendation was that Ofcom should be able to test the totally unproven assertion that ITV would benefit from American ownership and American money before opening up our markets without any reciprocation on the part of the Americans.
Last week the Government were able to resist the amendment by 11 votes, with only half of Labour Peers supporting the Government and helped over the line by a three-line Whip from the Conservative Front Bench.
The second leg of the Puttnam tripod was the inclusion of a tough plurality public interest test. Thanks to the persuasive powers of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, the Government will be bringing forward amendments to insert such a test later today.
That brings us to the third leg of the tripod which is contained in this grouping before the House. The amendment seeks to put specific restrictions on the ownership of Channel 5 in terms of cross-media

139
ownership between print media, satellite and terrestrial television, which would—as did happen—as I said at Second Reading, create a grotesque concentration of power in any industry and in the communications industry would constitute a threat to our democracy.
I can already hear the Minister arguing that this amendment is no longer needed thanks to the tough new plurality clause which we are about to receive. But is that so? Not according to the Financial Times. On 3rd July, the day after the Puttnam plurality amendment was accepted, it quoted an unnamed senior DCMS official as saying that the amendment would not hamper the principle of allowing US media groups to bid for ITV or enabling newspaper publishers to seek control of Channel 5.
The media expert, Owen Gibson, in the Guardian said:
"Competition lawyers believe that the new test will be a significant hurdle to media owners wanting to branch out into other sectors. A lot will depend on how Ofcom, which under Lord Currie has promised to retain a 'light touch', chooses to interpret the public interest test".
So, there we have it: after today we are in the hands of the media lawyers and an untried regulator and an untested piece of legislation. That is why the House should take this final opportunity to have its say on the matter.
The plurality test provides Ofcom with a big and powerful gun. These amendments give a clear direction as to which way it should be pointed. Some people say that this is aimed at the ambitions of Mr Rupert Murdoch, but Tessa Jowell has told us at great length that this is not a Bill tailored to Mr Murdoch's ambitions. Furthermore, Mr Murdoch has said that he has no interest in Channel 5. So let us have no more about this being an anti-Murdoch amendment. It is aimed at thwarting any Australian/American multimedia conglomerate with significant press and satellite holdings taking such a stranglehold on the British media.
I know that asking Labour Members to vote with us today puts great strains on their loyalty. The Whips are very persuasive. I am a great fan of "24" on BBC2, which is an example of good American television. As devotees may know, in Sunday's episode the hero, Jack Bauer, was left in the hands of the world's most cruel and sadistic torturer, who, I understand, was on loan from the Government Whips' Office.
I ask Members on all Benches to ask themselves what they will answer in the future when asked about what they did to make sure that the right safeguards were in place. What if the plurality test does not prove as strong as we think it is? What if the noble Lord, Lord Currie, proves less robust in his interpretation than we would like? What if Mr Murdoch changes his mind and comes calling for Channel 5?
We all remember the impressive mea culpa of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the 1990 Act. What will noble Lords who today vote "Not-Content" say? "David Puttnam asked me not to vote"; "I thought the plurality tests would be enough"; "I was bullied by the Whips"; or will they say, "I used the one personal
140
power I had—my vote in the Lobby—to send a message to government, Ofcom and to the media moguls that we expect diversity and choice to be defended with vigour and this legislation to be interpreted robustly"?
As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, reminded us on Report, the media moguls have a record of challenging rather than complying with regulation.
Shortly before I entered the Chamber, I received an e-mail from a senior person in the television industry who asked me to put the following questions to the Minister. He said:
"If, as the Government is implying, the plurality test is the solution, that begs the question why the 20/20 rules are being retained for ITV. If the test is not enough for ITV—where the competition and plurality hurdles to Murdoch takeover would anyway be immense—it is disingenuous for Government to imply that the plurality test alone is enough for C5—where actually the competition and (as defined) plurality concerns may be surmountable.
Furthermore, the Government extending the 20/20 rule to ITN at the same time as introducing the plurality test. Again this suggests that the plurality test is not enough and gives a lie to the argument that it is too late in the day for extending the scope of 20/20.
Those points were made by an expert within the industry and it will be interesting to know what the Minister says about them.
Essentially, this amendment had its origin in the recommendation of the Puttnam committee, which said that if the Government believed that it is unacceptable for a major terrestrial channel, a major newspaper group and the dominant satellite network to be open to shared ownership, then the clearest and most straightforward way to achieve that was to maintain the prohibition on ownership of Channel 5 which presently exists.
The questions to be answered today are clear-cut and simple. Do the Government consider such a concentration of media power to be unacceptable? If so, why do they resist the most unambiguous and clear-cut way of preventing such an accumulation of cross-media power?
Listen carefully, my Lords, and if the answers are not convincing, I hope noble Lords from all Benches will join me in the "Content" Lobby today. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment No. 131 and I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on both the amendments in this group.
The noble Lord concluded his remarks with a quote from the Puttnam committee, which I was going to take as the simple proposition on which to base my speech. He referred to this being the clearest and most straightforward way to make sure that we did not have a major terrestrial channel, a major newspaper group and a dominant satellite network open to shared ownership.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, also observed earlier in his speech that the Government will argue that now we have a plurality test, these amendments

141
are superfluous. He said that the plurality test would depend upon the approach of the chairman of Ofcom and his hoard and on the effectiveness of the legislation. However, it is a little worse than that. It is actually going to depend on the attitude of Ministers and the action of Ministers. I want to say a little more about that.
Noble Lords must be clear that the purpose of the plurality test as it is about to be added to this Bill by the government amendments, which we will debate later, is not to impose a plurality test. The purpose is to enable a media plurality test to be carried out in the event of a qualifying merger.
According to the Minister on Report,
"a plurality test would, in principle, allow the Secretary of State to make a judgment on media mergers".
He went on to say:
"It will be for Ministers to determine whether the merger causes sufficient plurality concerns for it to be blocked, or for conditions to he attached".—[Official Report, 2/7/03; col. 914.]
Therefore the test is very conditional and it is all in the hands of Ministers. The test may be effective if Ministers decide to act, but that is a very big if. We know, because Ministers have told us, that the Government took the view that there were very good reasons for removing the restrictions on a major newspaper owning or controlling Channel 5, although in response to repeated questions since, it has emerged that the only difference they can spell out is the difference in size between Channel 3 arid Channel 5 at the present time.
We know that the Government intend to be restrictive in their use of this new plurality power. There is no guarantee that the Government would use it to prevent a major national newspaper owning Channel 5—the Minister made that perfectly clear on Report. I refer to his remarks in col. 915 of the Official Report of 2nd July 2003.
We are told the Government will publish guidelines setting out in more detail the areas where the test will generally be applied. I am not sure whether these guidelines have yet been issued. In any case, guidelines are only guidelines. Therefore, we have before us what might be termed the "if, maybe, possibly, and then again, possibly not" clause.
However, the arguments against allowing a newspaper which has a national market share of 20 per cent owning Channel 5 are immediate and compelling. They do not depend on some future increase in Channel 5's market share. Those arguments were put with great conviction, with admirable brevity and clarity and with unanswerable logic by my noble friend Lord Glentoran, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee. I agreed with everything he said then. He provided grounds enough to support the certainty of the amendment before we again fog it all with the uncertainty provided by the Government's plurality test.
There is a another compelling reason for Parliament removing the uncertainty. We know that there has never been a moment in the history of the modern media when its barons have not been prepared to exert
142
every pressure in support of their own interests. We also know that there has never been a time when the powers of media barons to exert pressures have been greater—greater perhaps than when Stanley Baldwin made his famous remark about "power without responsibility … the prerogative of the harlot down the ages".
As the Bill has gone through Parliament, pressure has been applied to both the Government and the Opposition to allow the giant oligarchies the maximum freedom to exploit their already great power. I am alarmed at the prospect that we leave all this uncertainty in the hands of Ministers, who will inevitably and unavoidably come under greater pressure, no matter which party is in power. That pressure will be political and financial to allow the great media moguls to have their way.
We should build certainty into the Bill. I therefore urge my noble friends to support this amendment and with it Amendment No. 131.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I accept the test that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has put before us; namely, when we go into the Lobbies today, we should be thinking hard about how in 10 or 20 years we shall answer for our vote in the light of developments. I accept the test and have thought hard about the subject as a result. I want to make only three brief observations.
First, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, described the committee's recommendations as a trifle. I do not see it like that. I believe that in the plurality test we have a solid pillar which requires little by way of gothic buttresses to be added to it. It is sufficient to stand.
Secondly, although there are dangers such as those described by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, there is another. That is that Channel 5 does not do very well. In five or 10 years' time, the only people who might he prepared to invest in it are those who would not on plurality grounds be ideal. The Minister at the time will be able to account for that, but we are legislating for five, 10, 15 or 20 years.
If Channel 5 goes belly-up due to the fact that no one is prepared to invest in it because the law we have passed allows no flexibility for changing circumstances, that might be regrettable, particularly for those who get pleasure from Channel 5. It is, after all, a channel contributing to plurality, but it has no guaranteed existence. That is a matter that this House should weigh.
I want, thirdly, to comment on a matter that weighs heavily with me. In my time in this House—it is short compared with most noble Lords—I have known no other Bill that has changed so much during the course of its passage here. The Government have been prepared to make many fundamental changes. Indeed, one only has to look at today's Marshalled List to see the number of government amendments. They have not been tabled because the Government have cocked things up, but tabled in response to the views put forward by this House.

143
Like many noble Lords, I know the kind of arguments that occur among Ministers when considering amendments which come from this House. Many people in another place and elsewhere say, "Oh, don't pay any attention to them"; or they say, "If you give them concessions, what's the good? They just want more. They are insatiable, that lot. Take them on. Ignore them". Perhaps the Licensing Bill is an example of that.
Thanks to my noble friend Lord Puttnam, we have achieved a remarkable result with this Bill. It is beyond what most of us would have believed. We are now right, particularly Members on this side of the House, to say, "The deal is done. It is a success. We have achieved the objectives we wanted to achieve and now we will support the Government through the rest of the Bill".
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I was a member of the Joint Committee and I must remind your Lordships that we put forward a modest proposal that Ofcom should consider this matter. The Government's concession is that Ministers should consider the position. I totally share the view of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that Ministers are subject to enormous pressure. The committee was united in the view that Ofcom should consider the position. It did not, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, recommend setting the situation in tablets of stone. It said, "Allow this body, which is neutral and not subject to political pressures, to consider the position".
I urge your Lordships to support Amendment No. 1 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Ministers are politicians and are subject to pressure. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell is right about that—he was one of them. I urge the House not to follow the honeyed words that we have just heard.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The plurality test, though useful, will not quite do the job, particularly if it is in the hands of Ministers to apply it. I was prepared to consider the plurality test when Ofcom, which one hoped would be independent of Ministers, had the application in its hands.
Media are political. We would do well not to be too confident about how culture stands up to anyone else's agenda. It does not stand up very well—it never has. I therefore consider it important to put in place as many bodies charged with considering the preservation of our culture which do not include Ministers. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I want briefly to support every word the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, has just spoken. In particular, I want to echo what was said by my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Pilkington. I do not believe that the plurality test stands on its own and I greatly hope that your Lordships will support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
144
I sadly add this. While I have every admiration for the way in which my noble friend Lady Buscombe has led the opposition to the Bill, I deeply regret this lacuna. I speak for myself and not for her. I suspect that she is under heavy pressure from some gentleman down the corridor, whose name I can never remember, who has given contrary instructions in this particular context. I can say only that I deeply regret that and I shall certainly disregard them with some happiness and support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I want briefly to make a point referred to rather vividly by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when we last debated the Bill; namely, that the extent to which tests of the complex and rubbery kind which are implicit in his Amendment No. 85, which introduces the plurality test, can be the subject of intense legal bombardment by well-financed and resourced would-be litigators, should not be under-estimated by this House.
While undoubtedly the concession made previously and the tabling of the plurality amendment is most important, I believe that the rigour which would be added to it by the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord McNally would carry the position much further. Amendment No. 85, introducing the plurality test, talks about,
"a sufficient plurality of persons with control of the media enterprises".
Media lawyers will lick their lips at the extent to which that will give them endless prospect for muzzling and befuddling the poor old lawyers who will be working for Ofcom.
I invite your Lordships to look at some of the other great regulators we have set up in the past 20 years. Let us take, for example, the Serious Fraud Office, which in the past five years has brought only a single prosecution for insider trading while everyone in the City knows that it is an hourly and daily event. Why? Because the criteria for the bringing of a prosecution and the range of legal guns levelled against the authorities if they try to prosecute are such as to make an insider trading prosecution a farce. I put that point to the House as a practical consideration.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I also wish to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. There are two points that I wish to make, both of which have been made already but they need emphasising. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed to the two tests that already exist and have been reaffirmed by the government amendment—the test of 20 per cent for both ITN and Channel 3. There really is no argument why the same restrictions should not apply to any would-be owner of Channel 5.
The second point is one that other noble Lords have expressed. It is about the involvement of Ministers. As noble Lords will know, I have always had a great concern about the telecommunications and contents side coming together—the techies and the fluffies—because there could well and truly be conflicts of

145
interest. Naturally, the Minister for Trade and Industry will be the one to be consulted. However, there are two Ministers who are to be responsible for this Bill. It is important to know that both would be consulted before any decision was taken.
Having said all that, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. We have had a tremendous response from the Government and we all applaud that. It is this continued worry that we wish to reinforce by testing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I would like to speak against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, despite the fact that I admire his work in this field. As he made a comment on the strength of Government Whips, I add to my admiration the way in which the Liberal Democrat Whips have gathered such a splendid force behind him. Not for the first time, the Liberal Democrats are extremely good at filling their Benches in support of this important amendment.
This Bill, which will be passed in the very near future, is one which will stand for a considerable period of time. If I concentrate on Amendment No. 131 which specifically deals with Channel 5 licences, it says anyone having a national newspaper market share of 20 per cent or more shall not be allowed to acquire Channel 5. That is concentrating on the now and near future. What my noble friend Lord Puttnam, the noble Lord. Lord McNally and others of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee were really concerned with was to make the Bill future proof. They were not just concerning themselves with the temporary moment. They were to consider life as we go ahead in which there will be huge numbers of channels of various kinds—terrestrial, satellite and others whose names we do not yet know. Things will not be the same in five or 10 years.
If we look at the amendment more closely, it is such an inflexible position to say 20 per cent. While that may be a significant figure at the present time, who knows what will be the right figure in years to come? Who knows whether it is desirable that an owner of 19 per cent should be allowed freely to acquire Channel 5? The noble Lord may say if' anybody does not fit the exact criteria of Amendment No. 131, then he may come within the plurality test which is to be introduced by the government amendment. It seems to me that the plurality test which has been moved before by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, but criticised by others today because of ministerial involvement, is much more future proof, much more sensible to put into a Bill which we hope will last for many years.
I cannot see a government of any complexion being particularly keen to have a communications Bill of any kind for years to come because of the difficulties of this one. Of course the plurality test involves Ministers because as noble Lords know, it fits into the structure of the Enterprise Act 2002. But that is not to diminish the role of the principal adviser on these matters— Ofcom. Its views would be known and made public. No government Minister with any sense, whether in an existing or future government, will override the
146
carefully reasoned advice of Ofcom—assuming it is carefully reasoned. I do not believe that Ministers will go off on a wild tangent of their own in a matter of this sort.
My noble friend Lord Puttnam, the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Crickhowell, and other noble Lords have promoted the plurality test for months. It is now shortly to be proposed by the Minister. This is something which can cater for all situations, for the future as well as the present. Having this extraordinarily inflexible amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord McNally put forward, is not necessary.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that I am not here because anyone suggested that I ought to be here. I am here because his suggestion that this very large Bill could be made future proof in the way he suggests, is certainly not borne out by experience of earlier attempts in 1990 and 1996 to regulate cross-media ownership for all time. I do not imagine the present Bill will have any greater success in longevity. What is quite clear from my recollection of those Bills is that if one seeks to set up a framework to protect diversity, it is necessary to have figures which the noble Lord characterises as arbitrary. Percentage wise, it has been done before and no doubt will be done again. The nub of the opposition has not come so much on the merits of the particular amendments before us as the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that somehow if we were to carry these amendments we would be chancing our arm too far, pressing our luck too far. The suggestion is that the response of the Government might be less rational as a consequence.
What has characterised the debate on this Bill has been the degree of dialogue between the Government and many other interested parties. With a Bill of such major importance and of such gargantuan extent, it seems entirely appropriate that that should be the approach. I recognise that the time available to consider these matters has been very great, but I do not believe it has been too much or that the Government are likely to abandon the approach that they have taken which is to consider these matters on their merits. As my noble friend Lord McNally said, this amendment was not put forward by the Puttnam committee as an alternative to the plurality clause. As I read the report, this was seen as a belt and braces measure necessary because of the importance of this issue. I cannot think that at this stage the judgment of what we would be doing if we carried my noble friend's amendments and that of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, would be any different in another place, where there is, properly, considerable unease about media concentration, not just now, but in the long term. Many of those engaged in this debate, and who will be engaged in further consideration of the Bill, took part in debate on the 1990 and 1996 Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, who participated in those debates, expressed concern about these matters at that time. I see no reason to believe that the

147
judgments of principle made then would be any less focused today. I hope that we will not shy away from our duty to provide the best framework possible and that we will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his colleagues in supporting my noble friend's amendments.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I concede that, at worst, it is a belt and braces measure and that the clause might not be necessary if the plurality test is strong enough. However, in a matter as important as media ownership, which is pivotal to the future of democracy in this country, I would rather—save in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—add a clause than take a chance on the issue not being caught. Given that there are already 400-odd clauses, I do not think that the rainforests will be endangered by the use of extra paper.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, that the amendment addresses a subject different from the plurality test. It addresses a specific. At Second Reading, I said in passing that I cannot see why people are treating Channel 5 differently from Channel 3; after all, both are terrestrial television services licensed by the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Why are we treating one differently from the other? Two reasons can be alleged. The first is audience size. Surely we all recognise that that could change. Channel 5 could end up with a bigger audience, particularly allied to media promotion from a national newspaper. Channel 3's audience could well decrease, so that argument does not hold water.
The only argument that bears examination is that, at present, Channel 5 does not cover the whole of the UK. At present, the channel covers over 75 per cent, but that could change. Why are we treating Channel 5 so much differently from Channel 3? If it is logical to impose restrictions for Channel 3, it is also logical to impose them for Channel 5. This clause is a specific. It is not an alternative to the plurality test; it is an addition to it to ensure that there is no possible doubt about what noble Lords mean. At the moment, I support the amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord McNally. Normally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on these matters, but I was tempted by his remark that he puts his faith in the fact that he could not foresee a situation in which Ofcom's serious views were rejected by Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was a very distinguished director of the Office of Fair Trading for a very long time. I do not know the full details of his history, but I would be very surprised if he was totally content with all the ministerial decisions put before him.
I support the views that the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, has expressed. Channel 5 must be regarded as a distinctive, separate case to be dealt with on its own merits. It is the fifth terrestrial public service channel in this country. It is true that, because of its lack
148
of total coverage and for other reasons, the public service regulator has given it a lighter remit than the other ITV channels. However, that will change.
I find Channel 5 rather good these days. Very often, I find programmes on the channel that interest me. I hope earnestly that its standards and coverage will improve. I see no reason why it should be treated separately from the ownership considerations that apply to the rest of the public service commercially-funded system in this country—the ITV system. For those reasons, it is wholly right that Channel 5, as the fifth channel of our public service broadcasting system, should be safeguarded as proposed by my noble friend Lord McNally.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, for some years now, I have been concerned about the increasingly close relationship between the Government and the media. We have seen it as an extreme form—nowhere near the one that we are discussing today—in Berlusconi, where there is almost a fusion between certain parts of the media and important parts of the government. That is what concerns me most. That relationship seems to be growing over time. We have never had that kind of relationship in this modern media age, but we are seeing it now. This is an opportunity for us to say, "Enough is enough". There comes a time when one must bring it to a halt.
Politicians now depend more than ever before, not so much on getting support from the media, but on avoiding unfavourable mentions from them. That has now become an important aspect of government and political life. We need greater safeguards to protect us from the increasing powers of these kinds of relationships. For that reason, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I wish to be very brief. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in congratulating the Government for making many moves in relation to the Bill. I do not think that it is the case, as the noble Lord. Lord Lipsey, stated, that we are worried about pushing our luck too far. I genuinely mean that. Several noble Lords, including myself, were deeply concerned, when we set out to scrutinise the Bill in your Lordships' House, that the Government would not show signs of shifting, and of listening to noble Lords and our debates.
However, the Government have listened on several occasions. On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. I am extremely grateful for that. We support the Government on this issue. It is right to liberalise ownership rules for Channel 5, particularly given that the Government have tabled amendments to the Enterprise Act to introduce a plurality test in certain media mergers. Given that the plurality public interest test will act as a belt-and-braces safeguard—some have talked about a pillar—in addition to powerful competition law, we simply do not believe that it makes sense now to retain limits on cross-media ownership.

149
With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who made a very powerful speech with which I agreed entirely, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who referred to the OFT, noble Lords have spoken as if the OFT and the Competition Commission do not exist. They play powerfully important roles in such issues and the question of mergers. We believe strongly that Ofcom will have very powerful content rules. Ofcom will be in the driving seat rather than Ministers, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said.
On several issues on which the Government have moved in your Lordships' House, we have concentrated on the need to future proof the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, there is a concern that if the amendments were carried today, we would place in the Bill an unnecessary inflexibility on Ofcom's ability to act in the future. I ask the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to respond to the brief statement that the noble Lord made on Report with regard to similar amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said:
"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".—[Official Report, 2/7/03; col. 955.]
Was the noble Lord, Lord McNally, deciding on principle last week that it was not necessary to move his amendment in relation to Channel 5, or was it that the troops were not there to support him? That is terribly important, because it is unfortunate that we are not debating the government amendments on plurality before debating Channel 5. It would be helpful to have that point answered.
4 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thought that I had cleared that matter up in my opening remarks. Within 24 hours, according to the Financial Times on 3rd July, an unnamed senior official at the DCMS was putting the concessions well into the margins of the Bill and making them extremely discretionary. That was why I was determined to bring this matter back to the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the way in which he has succeeded in paving this debate.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when I was faced with this dilemma, I was told that the expert on paving Bills in Opposition was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, so I was following the master.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is precisely why I was congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I was about to say that I did that for 14 years and enjoyed it. I challenge the noble Lord to achieve what I once did, which was to move an amendment in Part 6 of a Bill that would retrospectively have changed provisions in Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5. He can have a go at that if he wants to.
The noble Lord's amendment has had a very bizarre effect, paving up the debate on Channel 5 now. The amendment will be considered before the debate on the
150
plurality clause. That means that I now have to bore your Lordships by saying what the plurality test, which will be introduced in the next group of amendments, will do. If my noble friend Lord Sheldon had heard what I am going to say, he would not have been able to say what he said about Berlusconi and Beaverbrook. The answers to all of the points that have been made are to be found in the plurality amendment.
The media plurality test is a new public interest consideration added to Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002, in addition to a consideration relating to national security that was included in the 2002 Act and the newspaper merger public interest considerations that are already in the Bill. The wording seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can intervene in a proposed or completed merger between broadcasters or between broadcasters and newspaper proprietors.
The clause deals at great length and in detail, in many amendments, with the whole issue of cross-media ownership, which was not recognised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his speech. It proposes to ensure sufficient plurality of persons controlling media enterprises in relation to: every different audience in the United Kingdom or a particular area or locality in the United Kingdom: the need for diversity of broadcasting throughout the United Kingdom; and the need for persons controlling or carrying on media enterprises to have a genuine commitment to attainment in relation to the broadcasting standards objective in the Bill— impartiality generally and impartial and accurate news, for example.
The amendment exactly addresses the problems of the potential motivation of individual media proprietors or would-be media proprietors seeking to enter broadcasting markets—be it Channel 3 or Channel 5—in this country. However, the difference between this amendment and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is that ours has two bases. It is based on principle and is not directed at individuals—and I really do deplore the noble Lord's levity when he said that his amendment was not about Mr Murdoch, but was about American or Australian moguls, because he could not name a second one, could he?
Our amendment is not only based on principle—in other words, on the competition legislation that has existed for many years. It is not untested, but is based on the high standards that are required of media owners throughout this Bill and the way in which the plurality amendments, which I hope that we will agree, protect the high standards of broadcasting in this country. Against that, the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—although not his supporters, who made serious speeches—was disgraceful. He talked about industry experts, the Financial Times, unnamed senior officials in the DCMS and Government Whips, but almost not at all about the substance of his amendment, which is an ad hominem amendment, directed at an American Australian media mogul.

151
The way in which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has approached this amendment has debased the argument in this House. The rest of the debate has been perfectly proper, but the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has sought to have this debate before the one on the plurality test. He has sought to do so in a personal and light-hearted manner. This is a serious matter that deserves serious consideration. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has not given it that serious consideration.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister said that some of the supporters of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, were serious. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was also serious. Would the Minister not agree that he made almost every single point that he made tonight when speaking on the subject on 2nd July on Report? The Minister might also give us the credit for reading ahead to the amendments that we will discuss later. It was only after reading this amendment and re-reading what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, that I came to the firm decision to support this amendment. I hope that my noble friends will also support it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I absolve the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, of any blame, because he put his name to the amendment at a late stage. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, however, tabled his amendment before I had tabled my plurality amendment, despite the fact that he withdrew it on the argument that he had to see the plurality amendment before he tabled his own amendment. That argument will not wash.
I am also a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, continued to say that this was the view of the Joint Scrutiny Committee. That committee said:
"We consider that matters relating to the consolidation of ITV and Channel 5 could properly be decided through competition law strengthened by the plurality test".
That is exactly what the Government are doing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and others recognise. I commend that view to the House.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but the committee wanted Ofcom. The great worry that the Minister has not dealt with is that the Minister will decide the criteria. There is considerable worry on this side of House about the pressure imposed on Ministers. I hope that the Minister will answer that point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was going to answer that point. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, cannot take me very seriously if he thinks that I would ignore that point. The noble Lord. Lord McNally, seems to base his argument on three questions—what happens if Channel 5 grows, how we ensure that Channel 5 does not fall into the wrong hands, and the contention that any protections offered by the plurality test could be swept the way on a Minister's say so. That is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
152
I will take each point in turn. First, what happens if Channel 5 grows? The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, referred to that point. We would very much like to see Channel 5 grow. Channel 5 has just over 6 per cent of the audience and a reach of only 80 per cent of the country. We do not think that Channel 5 is large enough to need protecting in the same way as ITV. That is the difference between Channel 3 and Channel 5. There is a range of protections and controls that the Bill will put in place in the event that Channel 5 grows to the size of ITV. For example, Ofcom could alter the channel's original programme requirements, or the quota for independent productions could be changed by order by the Secretary of State. If Channel 5's audience share becomes broadly equivalent to that of ITV, the Secretary of State may introduce an appointed news provider scheme similar to that for the Channel 3 system. or Ofcom could change the obligations for Channel 3.
How do we ensure that Channel 5 does not fall into the wrong hands? There are the plurality tests. As I said, the tests will allow the Secretary of State—I shall come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford—to intervene in cases in which she believes that a merger causes sufficient plurality concerns for it to be blocked or for conditions to he attached. The test will enable us to examine a newspaper acquisition of Channel 5 with a view to ensuring that a minimum level of plurality is maintained. The test will also address the need for a plurality of owners, a wide range of high quality broadcasting calculated to appeal to a wide range of tastes and interests, and a genuine commitment to Ofcom's standards code.
There is also a power for Ofcom to review the Channel 5 licence when it changes hands and, if necessary, impose new licence conditions on the new licence holder, if the change is thought to be prejudicial to aspects of the service. There are rules in place that will prevent an unreasonable amount of cross-promotion, which will be regulated by Ofcom and the OFT. For example, the cross-promotion of other television channels and programmes is not allowed to cause annoyance to viewers, and licensees for Channels 3, 4 and 5 are not permitted to promote multi-channel platform service operators such as the Sky platform.
If, at some point in the future, the regulator believed that the cross-promotion rules in place were no longer relevant. Ofcom would be able, with consultation, to change the rules on cross-promotion. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, implied that the big beasts would work their way around content regulations with armies of lawyers. Big companies always look for the greatest commercial advantage in any rules-based system, but there is also the possibility, which the noble Lord apparently rules out, that a large company, having been examined by the Competition Commission, might be suitable. It might be a good thing. As I said, the Joint Scrutiny Committee did not rule that out. It suggested that it should and could be properly decided through competition law, strengthened by the plurality test.

153
The noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, in particular, addressed the issue of the role of Ministers. The test involves three independent regulators: Ofcom, the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. They are not, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, alleges, untested regulators. The OFT has been running for more than 30 years, and the Competition Commission has run for about 30 years too. They are all independent bodies commanding respect, and I do not care to hear them called "untested".
The whole point about the public interest merger test is that it is for those independent regulators to make recommendations. It is for Ministers to make decisions. Does anybody seriously think that, if the independent regulators said, having regard to the provisions of the plurality test contained in Amendment No. 85, which we have yet to debate, that a Minister had flouted their advice and had done so for the base reasons suggested by several noble Lords—it is legitimate to criticise Ministers and ascribe base reasons to them—that Minister would get away with it? Of course not.
I propose to the House that we should address the issue of cross-media ownership and plurality on the basis of principle, not of levity and ad hominem arguments about Australian-American moguls. We would do ourselves credit if we gave proper prominence to the rule of law in this country and avoided the kind of temporary political advantage proposed in the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I suppose that we all respond to difficult situations in different ways. I often say that, perhaps, I do so with a little too much levity. Others respond by speaking louder and using a little bombast. It is a matter of choice. The more I listened to the Minister, the more I thought of the phrase:
"The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons".
I spent a long time on the Bill, and I was proud to have the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, Lord Sheldon, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen of Pimlico, and my noble friends Lord Maclennan of Rogart and Lord Phillips of Sudbury with me today. I may be frivolous, but they are not. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that it is not some wonderful thing that, at Third Reading, a Labour government should propose concessions on plurality. I would have expected a Labour government to have had such a test as the flagship of the Bill.
As for my attack on Mr Murdoch, the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, put his finger on it. He mentioned the matter a week or so ago at a seminar. The Rubicon was crossed when Tony Blair travelled halfway round the world to address a News International conference. There are concerns about the close links between the media and politics not only in Britain or Europe, but around the world. In the 1930s, we were afraid that the fascists would take over the government and then control the press: in the 21st century, there may be a
154
danger that the fascists will take control of the press and then control the government. The dangers are there.
We talked about Mr Murdoch: OK, let us take Mr Murdoch. The Columbia Journalism Review said:
"Rupert Murdoch's Fox is leading the charge on the station ownership issue … Murdoch is threatening to fold the Post"—
the New York Post—
"if the FCC doesn't bend the rules to allow him (over media activists' objections) to own those two TV stations and a newspaper in the same city".
The Guardian, reporting from Australia, said:
"Rupert Murdoch's business ambitions in his home country have been thwarted after the Australian senate passed a bill limiting cross-media ownership yesterday … 'That final amendment … is a dagger through the heart of cross-media reform,' said communications minister Richard Alston. 'We'll send it back to the [house of representatives]. I'm sure they'll make some changes, including the removal of Senator Harradine's amendment, and we'll see where we go from there.'… The government controls the lower house and the bill is expected to go through another senate vote this year as the government maintains pressure on an upper house it feels is blocking too much legislation",
The indignation shown by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in his desire to defend Mr Murdoch runs in the face of 20 years' experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that, at some time, Channel 5 might be in such dire straits that we might have to bend the rules a little to save it. That is how Mr Murdoch got The Times; that is how he got his satellite television monopoly. We must not consider the amendment as an alternative to the plurality test. I am delighted at the plurality test. I welcome not only the plurality test but the many other amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, with principle and great skill, has managed to insert. However, that better Bill needs the amendment. For all the talk from the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about future proofing, the 20:20 arrangements are in for Channel 3 and ITN. They must be in for Channel 5 because there is a clear and present danger that there will be a call to bring Channel 5 into cross-media ownership. That would be dangerous for our democracy and damaging to other parts of our media.
I shall say one more thing. My noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart mentioned another place. Some 126 Members of another place signed an Early Day Motion in support of the amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill's passage. The proposer of that Early Day Motion, Mr John Grogan MP, who was himself a member of our committee, was quoted in the Independent as follows:
"I was frustrated that we did not get a chance to debate and vote on this in the Commons. If the Lords knock it back, then we will have a chance and there will be quite a rebellion".
That has not been discussed, but this belt and braces amendment is needed. I hope that the Minister will bring forward those plurality clauses, which will be a great tribute to the Bill. The clear and present danger that exists with regard to Channel 5 justifies this amendment, and I urge noble Lords on all Benches to join me in the Contents Lobby today.
4.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not Contents, 167.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lester of Herne Hill. L

Acton, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Addington, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Alderdice, L.

Liverpool, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lucas, L.

Avebury, L.

Ludford, B.

Barker, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bowness, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Bradshaw, L.

McNally, L. [Teller]

Bridges, L.

Maddock, B.

Brightman, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Burnham, L.

Methuen, L.

Caithness, E.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Chorley, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Morgan, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Newby, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northbrook, L.

Condon, L.

Northover, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Oakeshotto of Seagrove Bay, L.

Crickhowell, L. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Onslow, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Oppenheim-Bames, B.

Dholakia, L.

Palmer. L.

Donoughue. L.

Parekh, L.

Dundee, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Elton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Erroll, E.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Falkland, V.

Prashar, B.

Fearn, L.

Quinton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Razzall, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Redesdale, L.

Fowler, L.

Rennard, L.

Gavron, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rogan, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Russell, E.

Gray of Contin, L. Greaves, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Greaves, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Greengross, B.

Sandberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sandwich, E.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Selsdon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hooper, B.

Sharpies, B.

Hooson, L.

Sheldon, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hylton, L.

Strange. B.

Jacobs, L.

Taverne, L.

Jopling, L.

Tebbit, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Laird, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Tope, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Tordoff, L.

156

Waddington, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wigoder, L.

Walmsley, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Walpole, L

Williamson of Horton, L

Warnock, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gregson, L.

Allenby of Megiddo. V.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Alli, L.

Hanham, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Andrews, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harrison, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Haskel, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Higgins, L.

Attlee, E.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bach, L.

Hollick, L.

Barnett, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howe, E.

Bhatia, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Biffen, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Billingham, B.

Howie of Troon. L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Blackwell, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Blatch, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Borne, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brett, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jones, L.

Brookman, L.

Jordan. L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Burlison. L.

Kirkhill, L.

Buscombe, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Byford. B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lea of Crondall, L,

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsay, E.

Carter, L.

Lipsey, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract. L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Luke. L.

Clinton-Davis. L.

Lyell, L.

Cooe of Berkeley L

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crathorne. L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawley, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Denham, L.

Manchester. Bp.

Desai, L.

Marsh, L.

Dixon, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dubs, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Eatwell. L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Elder, L.

Montrose, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting. L.

Moser, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Moynihan, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fitt, L.

Nicol. B.

Flather. B.

Noakes, B.

Freeman, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gale. B.

Pendry, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Glentoran, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Golding, B.

Radice, L.

Goldsmith. L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

157

Rooker, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Saatchi, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Trumpington, B.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Turnberg, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ullswater, V.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Vinson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Vivian, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Simon, V.

Wakeham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Warner, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Whitaker, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Whitty, L.

Stallard, L.

Wilcox, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord President of the Council)

Swinfen, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.31 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 23, after "a" insert "sufficient"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 83 to 116, 118, 120, 121, 132 to 136 and 148. I made clear on Report that I intended to bring forward amendments at Third Reading to introduce a media plurality test. I have now done so and the amendments are before us. These amendments will 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 UK 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 United Kingdom or in a substantial part of the United Kingdom. We shall also be able to look at a qualifying merger where an existing share of 25 per cent or more changes hands.
By extending the scope of the Enterprise Act so that qualifying mergers could be subject to a media plurality test, the Secretary of State will be able to intervene where she believes a merger would have a damaging effect on plurality. In principle, all media mergers, including cross-media mergers, can be subject to a media plurality test. However, we intend as a matter of policy normally to apply the test in practice to those areas only where the current rules are being removed completely. That would mean 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.
As I explained on Report, we do not believe that it would normally be desirable or sensible to intervene and apply the test to areas where there have never been media ownership restrictions or to areas where there
158
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 Secretary of State is likely to consider intervening on media plurality grounds. Guidance obviously cannot fetter the Secretary of State's discretion and we would not rule out its wider use in an extreme and rare case.
The test will ensure that the Secretary of State can ask Ofcom and, if necessary, the Competition Commission to investigate any merger which threatened plurality. It will prevent unacceptable levels of cross-media dominance and ensure a minimum level of plurality. The media plurality test would sit alongside the special—page 26 of the brief is missing. I had to be caught out some time. Thank you; it is missing in this version too. I shall correct any self evident errors—or perhaps not. With real apologies, I shall start that sentence again.
The media plurality test would sit alongside the special newspaper public interest test, which would continue to consider newspaper-only mergers. So it is a rather important page. The 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 Secretary of State's powers of intervention under Sections 59 to 66 of the Enterprise Act will extend to the media plurality provisions.
I hope that the House will allow me a few minutes to explain the effect of the main provisions set out in these amendments, although to some extent I have done so twice already. Amendment No. 85 inserts a new public interest consideration into Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002. It specifies that public interest considerations may be looked at in mergers that satisfy the relevant jurisdictional criteria.
Under the Enterprise Act, the vast majority of mergers will be considered only under the test of whether they would result in a substantial lessening of competition. However, the legislation also makes provision for intervention by the Secretary of State on specified public interest grounds. Currently, the only specified consideration is national security. Clause 372 specifies new newspaper public interest considerations. This clause adds a new subsection (2)(c) to Section 58 and sets out a public interest consideration that may apply to media and cross-media mergers.
As a result, the Secretary of State will have the ability to intervene in relation to mergers involving media enterprises and to investigate the impact of the merger on the need, in relation to every different audience in the United Kingdom or in a particular area or locality of the UK, for there to be a sufficient plurality of persons with control of the media enterprises serving that audience; the need for the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of broadcasting which, taken as a whole, is both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests; and the need for persons carrying on media enterprises, and for those with control of such enterprises, to have a genuine

159
commitment to the attainment in relation to broadcasting of the standards objectives set out in Section 315 of the Bill. I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I should like to press the Minister on several points concerning the scope and purpose of his amendments. On Report, the Minister set out clear boundaries to the Government's intended plurality test. In particular, he stated that it would be,
"a matter of policy normally to apply the test in practice to those areas where the current rules are being removed completely".
In addition, he added—which he added again today—that,
"usually, the Secretary of State would consider intervening",
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".— [Official Report, 2/7/03; col. 915.]
This clearly stated approach to the plurality test reflects the key concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and others throughout the passage of the Bill and in the pre-legislative scrutiny process. That is a concern over a liberalisation of the cross-ownership provisions for Channel 5—as we have heard today—as well as the prospect of investment by non-EEA companies in UK media companies in Channels 3 and 5 (and UK radio).
I am concerned therefore that it is not just these carefully targeted policy aims that are reflected in these amendments. Instead, having considered the amendments, it appears that the Government are presenting us with a plurality test which could be applied to all "merger situations" involving broadcasters or broadcasters and newspapers which qualify for investigation under the Enterprise Act 2002. It could also apply to transactions that initially may not qualify for investigation, but concerning which the Government's amendment to Clause 375 would permit an intervention notice to be served. Such transactions would include mergers and acquisitions among cable and satellite channels that have launched in the UK without any of the special privileges or protections given to those broadcasters using scarce, analogue terrestrial frequencies, and which have not had any special media ownership rules applied to them previously. Examples, of which there are almost limitless permutations, might include the acquisition of the National Geographic Channel or History Channel by Discovery Networks, the acquisition of additional music video channels by MTV or the purchase of one channel provider by anothe—for example Flextech Television and Turner.
The provision represents a major shift in government communications policy and as the Government are aware it is of significant concern to all broadcasters, who now face another regulatory barrier and greater uncertainty. I should like to remind your Lordships of the comments of the broadcasting
160
Minister during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place. The Minister said that the problem with the plurality plus competition test was that,
"it inevitably leads to uncertainty … Although businesses may be used to dealing with uncertainty daily, they do not actively seek out uncertainty. We should make clear rules where appropriate. If we accepted the amendment"—
that is not the amendment proposed today, but one proposed in another place—
"we would effectively be putting those who wanted to acquire media assets in a worse position. In addition to complying with the clear and transparent ownership rules and satisfying the competition authorities, an owner would face the further obstacle of satisfying a plurality test. The Bill is intended to remove regulations, not to impose new and unnecessary ones".— [Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 6/2/03; cols. 1002–04.]
I recognise that the Government have subsequently introduced amendments into your Lordships' House as a compromise. I also recognise that the Minister said on Report—and has confirmed today—that guidance would be produced to clarify the provisions and narrowly to define the scope of the plurality test. However, we are concerned that nothing has been produced yet. It is creating disquiet in the industry and on the part of the Opposition that such wide provisions are being introduced with the promise of guidance to come once the Bill has received Royal Assent.
In the absence of such guidance I should be grateful if the Minister would provide further clarification. Why have the Government gone to the trouble of including all broadcasters in the plurality test, only to produce guidance to exclude most of them from it? Surely a better solution would have been to amend Clause 373 to narrow the target of the plurality test in the first instance to Channel 3, Channel 5 and radio; that is, the scarce analogue terrestrial frequency services, which have been the source of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and others about non-EEA and cross-media ownership all along.
I should also be grateful if the Minister would explain the status of the guidance to be produced, and why this has not been made available at the same time as the amendments to the Bill. After all, if a key feature of the plurality test is that it is to be narrowly applied by the guidance, so as give broadcasters confidence and clarity, it naturally follows that the two must be considered hand in hand. How are we to decide on the merits of the amendments when they represent only half the story? Such guidance is unlikely to have the same legal force as the provisions in the Bill, so the certainty that could be derived from it is likely to be limited.
I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the Government's intentions towards the existing 20:20 ownership rule governing Channel 3 licences in the light of the new plurality test. As the Minister said on Report, the 20:20 rule has something of a cliff-edge element to it, with the plurality test allowing "finer judgments" to be made in particular cases according to circumstances. Given that it is his stated intention to apply the plurality test in this particular case and, in

161
addition, only where the current rules are being removed completely, it would follow that the 20:20 rule should be abolished.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I also have one or two concerns and shall speak briefly. I agree with the Minister that it would have been much more useful had we been able to debate this set of amendments prior to our debate on Channel 5. There is no question that it might have illuminated that debate.
Having read not only the clauses and the amendments, but the Minister's letter, I think this is a useful addition and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on achieving it. However, I do not think that it answers some of the concerns relating to the Bill, in particular, those relating to the rules on foreign ownership that we were debating under the first set of amendments. It seems to me that it is not intended to do so.
I am not clear why the Minister was so upset with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for mentioning the report in the Financial Times. It seemed to me that that report was relevant to this debate. It said that senior officials of his department insisted that the amendment would not hamper the principle of allowing United States' media groups to bid for ITV or enabling newspaper publishers to seek control of Channel 5. I know that the Government are rather concerned about sources at the moment, but there is no dispute about the source in that case. Senior officials have told the Financial Times that that is the issue, and as far as I know the department have done nothing to correct that.
I think that we are allowed to be a little sceptical about some aspects of the Bill. At the end of the day, the decision will rest with the Secretary of State—there is no question about that. The Minister's letter to the Front Bench leaders said that the provision enables the Secretary of State to intervene in a case. It does enable, but of course it does not require. At present, we do not all have overwhelming confidence that the Government would intervene in particular circumstances.
There is no rule set down to deal with a number of the cases that we will be discussing. There is, for example, no rule, such as the one that I have included in an amendment to be debated later, for making reciprocal arrangements a condition if a United States company takes over a British television company. We will debate later whether that rule is right or wrong—I can perhaps predict what the Minister's reply will be—but at least if that rule is in the legislation, we know exactly where we are.
The Secretary of State is not bound by the advice given. The Minister made much of his contention that no Minister would ever overrule the advice given to him in this area. I am not entirely sure that that is correct. There are examples where the unanimous recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading have been overruled. I remember one instance involving regional newspapers—the Nottingham Evening Post—where the OFT said quite clearly that deal should not go ahead, but it was overruled. It was overruled, as it happens, by the Government of which I was a member.
162
I did not agree, but that was the decision. The Minister will say that that example concerns a Conservative Government and that nothing of that kind would ever happen under a Labour Government, but that slightly beggars belief.
The amendment is a useful addition, but I do not think that we should place too much emphasis on it. Personally, I welcome what has been done and what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has achieved, but I give only two cheers for the final version of the amendment.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I offer the Government two and a half cheers. They are to be congratulated. An enormous amount of work has gone into making the amendment possible. I would personally like to thank Paula Carter, who has helped me enormously. and the Bill team, who have done Trojan work. I am not sure that they will thank me for thanking them, but they have done an extraordinary job in hammering through what is in some senses new law. We have come a long way.
These amendments must be seen as all of a piece with the amendments to the general duties that we have already agreed. Together, those provisions are the double bolts. I have now talked to enough lawyers and judges, who have assured me that those two aspects of the Bill, taken together, represent a very serious impediment to the type of dominance that the clause is intended to prevent.
That is one thing. I come to the other issue. Several noble Lords mentioned the Financial Times article. The last Division went as it did—but I have to tell the Government that I believe that the Division was quite avoidable. It was caused by a misbrieting given to the Financial Times last week, which gave the impression for whatever reason that the amendment might not bite as the Government intended, or as the proposers of the amendment intended. That could have been avoided.
I beg the Government to do two things. First, I ask them not to be tempted by the wish expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to restrict the breadth of what has been created. That breadth is very important. Secondly, they should make it very clear, and not only in this Chamber but outside, that they have taken a big step in a very important direction and are intent on giving the noble Lord, Lord Currie, all the powers and all the encouragement to take the route that the House has clearly indicated.
There is real fear about media dominance. The Government have come a long way in accepting those fears, which have been made apparent today by the comparative narrowness of the previous Division. However, I look for some form of assurance that we will not be battered next week by the type of Commons amendments that would undermine much of the good work achieved in this House over the past weeks and months. I welcome the amendment gratefully.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. We have had pretty little time to get used to these wonderful new amendments, but I welcome them. I have actually read them but, if I have not understood them thoroughly, I apologise in advance.
I want to return to the point that I made earlier, which the Minister, perhaps rightly, did not answer in the earlier debate. With all the tests that will be applied, we come back to the point that it will be a Minister who makes the decision, although admittedly advised by Ofcom. With regard to both the content and the technology aspects—and particularly the content aspect—I am concerned that there will be more than an assumption that the Secretary of State at the DCMS will also be consulted. I am certain that Ofcom will consider both sides of the question; we have been told often enough that that is its intention. However, I am concerned that there are often problems when two Ministers are responsible for something. While congratulating the Minister on all the amendments, I should be grateful for an answer to that question.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I welcome the amendments and the moderate and temperate tone in which the Minister introduced them. However, I make one point as a genuine seeker after truth. An executive from one of the specialist music stations asked me whether it would be seen as a dangerous accretion of media power if a music station with one per cent of the total audience acquired another music station with one per cent of the total audience, or whether it would be said that the stations had only 2 per cent of the total audience, even if they had a larger share of the music-only stations. I told him that I would put that question to the Minister, and I was sure that he would get an answer.
The broader question of how far and how real this is a step forward goes to the heart of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. The Financial Times article was not an accident. There have been parallel messages coming from the Government: the kind of messages that the Minister has given from the Front Bench here, and the kind of speeches that Mr Kim Howells and officials have made at specialist conferences, which have continued to emphasise that this is the freewheeling, free enterprise, deregulatory Bill that was so carefully crafted in Downing Street all those months ago.
It has also been irritating to hear the continual message that Parliament has somehow interfered in this perfect process. I went to a seminar organised by the ever-industrious the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, where the noble Lord and an official combined to lecture the assembled attendees, some of whom had more political experience than both of them put together, about the realities of legislating. One reality of legislating for me is that Parliament does matter and governments should listen.
164
I was very worried when Mr Stephen Carter was reported as showing a certain tetchiness about the way in which Parliament was messing about with the Bill. I asked for the text of his speech. and was pleased to read that,
"as a creature of statute Ofcom will deliver to whatever rulebook it inherits from Parliament".
Quite so.
Sometimes when we are discussing civics education, I think that it might be worth applying it to some civil and public servants, to show them where the relative balance lies between their powers and Parliament's powers. We do not want to see some carefully crafted briefing, 48 hours after the Bill has left this place, saying, "Don't worry, all those silly old people are now out of the way and we can march on to the new land".
The Minister has made a great to-do about how powerful the test is, and we want to make sure that it works. I am not making any predictions. However, Mr Murdoch will come calling, believe me, because it fits into his strategy and his pattern. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, should know that when he comes calling he never plays just by the rules. As he did in New York, he will threaten to close down The Times if he does not get his way, or he will have some other blockbuster to intimidate Ministers.
The issue is a lot tougher than the Minister implied, but the amendments are welcome, as long as the Minister lives up to his promises and the public servants who are get the rulebooks from Parliament live up to them too.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I want briefly to ask the Minister whether I heard him correctly when he referred to the possibility of the director of Ofcom imposing conditions in relation to matters dealt with by Amendment No. 85. Is that the case? If so, is the Minister concerned by some of the precedents for the imposition of conditions attached to newspaper takeovers in the past, which it would be fair to say have been ineffectual in practice?
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcoming and moderate tone of the debate. I must say a word to the noble Lord, Lord McNally. He accused me of shouting. and maybe I did. He made a debating speech and I made one in reply, but I did not at any stage question the sincerity behind his speech. Of course, I know that he feels strongly about these matters, and always has. I simply did not like the way in which he introduced his amendments, and I said so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, started by asking why we did not specify a narrow test in the Bill—why we went for a wide test and then imposed restrictions on it. We considered a narrow test but decided on balance that we could get to substantially the same place through taking a wide power and limiting its general application as set out in guidance.

165
In exceptional circumstances—I think that I used the phrase "extreme and rare circumstances"—we might want to apply the test more widely if there were genuine plurality concerns. This approach allows us to do so. However, we recognise that the share of supply of goods or services in the United Kingdom—or a substantial part of the United Kingdom in the case of a relevant merger situation—or when one of the parties has an existing share of a supply of broadcasting of at least 25 per cent, could cause the Secretary of State to decide to intervene. We intend generally to intervene only in those areas where we have removed all ownership rules. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that in exceptional circumstances we will look at other orders. Nevertheless, I think that we have diminished uncertainty as far as possible by setting out in my speech all of those relationships which we expect to be covered. I think that that deals with the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised about uncertainty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, then went on to quote points made in the House of Commons. I do not know how to respond to that. We have responded to debate in this House. We have responded to debate over a period of something like three months now. The fact that we have responded late in the day means that we have been concerned and worrying about it. We have certainly been doing that, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, recognised. I hope that if I am offered the choice of being charged with introducing amendments late and charged with being inflexible, I will accept the charge of tabling amendments late rather than of being inflexible. That means—the noble Baroness asked about guidance—that guidance cannot be produced in time. We cannot produce guidance simultaneously with approximately 44 complex amendments, which is what we have done.
The noble Baroness asked particularly about satellite and cable channels. Although we do not think that there is normally an issue of plurality test there, we could see plurality tests applying in some rare cases if a large number of news or educational channels would he coming under single control. I do not know what that means as regards the question that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about music channels. I take it that he is talking about what I call "serious music channels" with a small share of the market.
Lord McNally: No, my Lords. On cable television there may he four or five specialist music channels playing various kinds of pop. If one channel took over another, its share would increase from 20 per cent to 40 per cent of the channels. Would that worry or trigger any of this legislation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would be very surprised if it would. As I have just been saying, cable and satellite channels are not currently regulated and we would not expect them to raise questions of plurality. However, if someone were to take over all the music channels, I think that the "extreme and rare" case to which I referred might well come into force.
166
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to the issue of the 20 per cent rule. I think that the point about these amendments in departing from the 20 per cent rule is that it is possible that someone with 19 per cent of the national newspaper market might raise plurality concerns, which is why we did not want cliff-edge regulation. The provision would enable Ministers to distinguish those with larger holdings in the event that the 20 per cent rule was removed. We do not have any plans to remove it, but a well-established plurality test may make removing it a possibility in the future.
The noble Lords, Lord Fowler, Lord Puttnam and Lord McNally, all referred to the Financial Times article, which of course I read. However, I have to say that I and the members of the Bill team do not know who the unnamed source was. Whether anyone is briefing against us, I do not know; it is not a matter on which I can comment. However, on the substance of the article, if the Bill is passed as it stands, yes, investment from non-EEA sources will he possible. However, although the plurality test will allow foreign investments to be made, if necessary they will be considered by the Competition Commission on a case-by-case basis. If they raise concerns, those cases can be targeted. If those concerns are found to be justified, those cases could be blocked. That is the point that we were making last week in the foreign ownership debate.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, how grateful I am to him for his continued involvement in debate on this issue, at any rate over the time that I have been involved in the Bill's passage. I think that he carries a great deal of the credit for what is widely accepted as being improvements to the Bill. I pay tribute to him for what he has done. I agree with him that we need to get the general duties right so that they work with the spirit of the Bill. However, I can confirm that, pending that which has to be done in another place, this amendment, if we agree to it today, is in black and white. It clearly bites right across the range. The Government have taken a big step. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for giving encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Currie, in the way that he carries out the Bills provisions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked which Secretary of State would be involved. In legislation there is only one Secretary of State. The legislation applies regardless of whether the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is abolished. There will still be a Secretary of State who is responsible for carrying out the law. I do not think that she should place any significance on the fact that the Secretary of State currently responsible for competition policy is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and certainly not on the personalities concerned. However, in so far as there are two Secretaries of State involved in these issues, they will, as they have been doing, work closely on the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked about precedents for conditions under the newspaper merger regime. There certainly have been headline cases where conditions have been thought to be ineffectual.

167
However, there are many other cases where they appear to have worked well. Generally, we think that undertakings will be given effect to in broadcasting licences, which are readily enforceable, as I think is well recognised. Of course newspapers are not licensed, and for newspapers a merger can always be prohibited.
I hope that that deals with the points raised in debate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 38, leave out "particular" and insert "all cases to—

(a) the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed; and

(b) any other principles appearing to OFCOM to represent the best regulatory practice.

(4A) OFCOM must also have regard, in performing those duties"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to government Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 81 and 82.
We have been clear that Ofcom will be a good regulator. As we are giving it strong powers, that is only right. It is important that as Ofcom carries out its functions the principles of good regulatory practice should apply. We have listened to the concerns vigorously expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the provisions in Clause 3(4)(b) and (d) were not sufficiently robust to ensure that the principles applied when they should. We have therefore brought forward amendments to address the concerns that she expressed on that occasion.
We agree with the noble Baroness that the principles of good regulatory practice must always be relevant to Ofcom's decision-making and that Ofcom should apply those principles uniformly. There is to that extent a shade of difference between the application of good regulatory practice and the other matters to which Ofcom should have regard under Clause 3(4). Good regulatory practice is always relevant. The other matters may or may not be relevant in particular circumstances or in particular cases. We are happy to reflect that shade of difference through the structure of the clause.
The amendments retain the current drafting that Ofcom will have regard to the principles. It may be helpful if I explain why that is the right approach. For a person or a body to have regard to a matter when taking specified action is a substantial legal obligation. If they fail to have regard to the matter in deciding what action to take, or whether to take action, or have regard to it in the wrong way, the action which is taken is liable to be held by a court to be unlawful or legally ineffective. It will not be sufficient for Ofcom to consider the principles of regulatory practice for the sake of form only or to consider and reject them for no good reason.
I hope that I have assured the noble Baroness that the phrase "have regard to" is a significant legal phrase and obligation and tightens up the inevitable obligations upon Ofcom. Good regulatory practice should be a consistent and central tenet in Ofcom's operations. I believe these amendments ensure that it will he. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to our concerns which we raised throughout our debates, beginning with Second Reading, in relation to good regulatory practice. The Minister knows that we have always been concerned about the expression "must have regard". Therefore we are extremely pleased that the Minister listened to our concerns and brought forward these amendments. They are not quite the amendments that we would have liked but I am grateful that the Minister read almost verbatim from a letter addressed to myself dated 30th June which reassured me that we are talking about a substantial legal obligation. I am grateful to the Minister for that. We welcome the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3. line 39, at end insert—
"() the desirability of promoting the fulfilment of the purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom:"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 32 and 123, and, if the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will allow me, speak also favourably to Amendment No. 5.
We debated in Committee, and on Report, earlier amendments tabled by the noble Lord which the Government found they could not accept, but I made it clear that we supported the spirit behind the amendments because the Bill aims to secure the future of public service broadcasting in this country.
We now have revised duties for Ofcom and I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, skilfully responded both to the Government's reservations and those expressed by noble Lords in earlier debates, as well as to the other changes to Clause 3, in bringing forward his revised amendment.
I have argued previously that it was undesirable to refer to public service broadcasting in Clause 3, given the detailed regime established in Part 3 of the Bill, but the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, fits very neatly in the new structure of Clause 3 and much improves it. The Government are grateful to the noble Lord for the tenacity with which he pursued his aim.
I should have been happy to accept his amendment, except that there are slight drafting weaknesses which I believe our amendments address. They are simply to tie the Clause 3 duty more transparently and clearly to

169
the fulfilment of the purposes of public service television broadcasting as set out in Clause 262, and to make consequential amendments to Clauses 227, 268 and 402. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the government amendments give effect to what he sought to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Government and to the Minister for in effect accepting the amendment which, as the Minister rightly says, was pressed strongly not only by myself but also in particular by those whose names were attached to the amendment: the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Neill and Lady Howe, my noble friend Lord McNally and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. In Committee there was an hour long debate on the matter. I am sure that everyone will be extremely content that what must be by any reckoning the most single important non-economic factor linking into Clauses 262 and 263, as they now are, is written into the keynote clause of the Bill. I am grateful for that.
At Second Reading I mentioned that I felt that commercial strains fell heavily on producers and programme makers in commercial television. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, added his own gloomy prognostication to that theme. I gave as an example my local television company, Anglia, which I know and with which I have worked closely for many years, and was perhaps a little unfair to it in that it has done better than some other commercial television companies in relation to what one might call the public broadcasting remit or standards.
I know that good programme makers and producers, of whom there are very many in the commercial sector, will welcome this entrenchment of the public service broadcasting remit in Clause 3 as it will strengthen their hand when the going gets a bit rough. That is all I need to say. Later we shall deal with an amendment to the enforcement clause, which is now Clause 268, and there will be more to say then. In the mean time I am most grateful to those who supported this long campaign and to the Government and the Minister for concurring. I beg leave to—no, I do not do anything, do I?
Lord Fowler: My Lords, not yet. I wish to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. This is an important amendment. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on his persistence with it. I congratulate the Government on accepting it. Personally, I prefer the wording of the amendment as it stands now without the Government's amendment, but we shall not argue about that because the Minister has given way.
As has been said, public service broadcasting is not just about the BBC, but the dispute between the BBC and the Government is being used to attack the very concept of public service broadcasting in this country. It is argued that there are other options: government controlled radio and television making no pretence to
170
be other than the Government's mouthpiece or the kind of marginal public service broadcasting that exists in the United States.
My own view is that the standards of public service broadcasting are so demonstrably superior to any of those other brands that it is something that we should fight very hard to preserve in this country. In that respect the Government have been entirely right in putting that at the head of the Bill. Perhaps one might add in parenthesis that one hopes that the tabling of this amendment by the Government might mark an end to the rather futile warfare between the Government and the BBC at the moment. It would be in everyone's interest if that were to take place. I shall not go further down that particular road, but I congratulate the Government on underlining their belief in public service broadcasting.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, as one who has put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on many occasions, as he acknowledged, I, too, congratulate the Government. I also particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on his persistence. The measure will give considerable reassurance to many organisations. I mention especially the Voice of the Viewer and Listener and Public Voice, representatives of which have written many times to your Lordships throughout the Bill's passage. Indeed, many individual citizens have let us know how deeply concerned they are to preserve that unique quality of British broadcasting which they consider is crucially embedded in public service requirements.
As has already been said, British public service broadcasting is the bench-mark not just for British terrestrial channels but for all broadcasters who wish to compete for our viewing time. Again, I congratulate all concerned and particularly the wider public who made us aware of their views.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I shall not spin this debate out, but I should like to ask the Minister what are the reasons for the restriction of Amendment No. 4 for the purposes of public service television broadcasting. That is the substantive difference between the government amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. So far, I have failed to understand the reason for that restriction.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall not talk about public service radio—that is effectively the BBC, and its purposes are set out and secured through the BBC Charter and Agreement rather than in the Bill. When we talk about public service television, we are talking about a wide range of channels, but public service radio is the remit of the BBC. That is why Amendment No. 4 is expressed in these terms. I accordingly commend it to the House.
On question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 3, line 41, leave out paragraph (b).
Page 3, line 46, leave out paragraph (d).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14 [Consumer consultation]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 18, line 5, leave out from "matter" to end.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the House will recall that the words in brackets in Clause 16(5) which my amendment seeks to remove are the words inserted by the Government on 15th May in Committee into what was then Clause 15(5), dealing with areas which should be subject to consultation by the consumer panel.
The purpose of the government amendment was, according to the Minister,
"to give the consumer panel the power to consider matters of content which are referred to it by Ofcom".—[Official Report, 15/5/03: col. 357.]
The Minister said that these would be matters that had a "high consumer dimension", and misleading advertising was cited as an example.
Your Lordships will recall that we debated the issue again on the second day of Report, on 26th June, in relation to Amendment No. 33. The aim of my amendment then was to remove the words in brackets, and thus return to the clarity of remit previously given to the consumer panel. It was identical to the amendment that I am moving now.
My amendment reflects concerns expressed to me by content providers and the advertising industry throughout the progress of the Bill in this House about the potential for overlap between the consumer panel and the content board, and the need for clearly defined boundaries between the two.
The Government gave some reassurance at Report stage on 26th June that the consumer panel would not have free rein to advise on content, and that it could do so only when asked by Ofcom. That was helpful, but I do not believe that it goes far enough. It is essential, going forwards, to have clarity between the functions of the regulatory and advisory bodies. Otherwise, the whole purpose of creating a single regulator—to develop a common regulatory approach across the communications sector and to avoid regulatory overlap—will have been pointless.
The Minister also referred to the fact that that has been government policy since the White Paper. Yes, that is true—but have not the Government developed the remit of the content board since then; and is it not true that Ofcom is required to carry out research on public opinion and the experience of consumers in accordance with Clause 14 of the Bill? Surely that should be sufficient to ensure that Ofcom's policy on content issues takes full account of wide consumer concern.
The Government said that the wording that they added in Committee was merely to correct a disparity between what is now Clause 16(5) and Clause 16(6)(c). I believe that it goes further than that. My reading of the Bill is that there is no disparity in the meaning of the respective clauses if the words in brackets in Clause 16(5)—
"other than one referred to them for advice by OFCOM"—
are taken out. It then means that the consumer panel can give advice to Ofcom in relation to any matter except content, which is specifically excluded under Clause 16(5). However, if the words in brackets are left in Clause 16(5), this would nullify the specific exclusion created for content by that clause. In other words, the opposite effect is achieved.
In conclusion, my amendment seeks to address the concern that I know still exists among content providers in the advertising industry that there should be complete clarity and avoidance of overlaps between the consumer panel and the content board. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in her amendment. The noble Baroness described succinctly the previous discussions that have taken place on this matter. I share her desire as regards the value of achieving certainty over the frontier between the responsibilities of the consumer panel and those of the content board before the Bill finally leaves this House.
The consumer panel has clear and important responsibilities—there is no question about that. So does the content board. But they are distinctively different. One of the advantages of this mammoth Bill is that it tidies up the landscape of communications and clears the regulatory undergrowth of competing responsibilities.
Ofcom has a massive task ahead of it dealing with the pressures of conflicting interests, some of them very powerful. Ofcom deserves the maximum of clarity in the Bill that finally completes its passage. It does not deserve having thrust on it the duty of deciding which content matters have such "high consumer dimension" that the content board should be second-guessed by the consumer panel.
It is a quite unnecessary fudging of the regulatory frontiers. It will confuse the work of the content board and will add a dimension of uncertainty to a regulatory system for television advertising which has a record of working well and which is in the process of development within the new responsibilities of Ofcom.
It is true, as the Government have previously pointed out, that there was a specific reference in the original policy document relating to the draft Bill to the consumer panel having a say in,
"content issues that have a high consumer dimension, such as rules on misleading advertising".

173
But the Bill itself permits Ofcom to contract out its functions and to promote "effective" self-regulation. If key areas may he contracted out, leaving Ofcom as a backstop regulator, albeit with teeth, surely we should be careful about giving Ofcom's consumer panel a statutory role, however limited, in content.
It is no secret in this House after our prolonged discussions that a key area which may he contracted out by Ofcom in the near future, subject to the results of a public consultation, is the regulation of broadcast advertising, using aspects of the ASA system.
The Bill provides that self-regulation of areas coordinated by the Bill must be, first, adequately funded and, secondly, independent of the industry that it regulates. An effective self-regulatory system operating in a co-regulatory framework would surely base policy decisions on input from consumers as well as from the industry. It would surely also ensure that the complaints adjudication process is properly and effectively managed, with published performance indicators.
If broadcast advertising is contracted out, Ofcom would become the backstop regulator. Would it not be odd in such circumstances for Ofcom to refer advertising content matters to its consumer panel if the self-regulatory system is already using established procedures for taking views from consumers?
Advertising is but one case, but I believe it demonstrates that we have to be extremely careful, as we move into the new regulatory environment, not to perpetuate the problems created by previous legislation—where, for example, there were overlaps between the ITC and BSC advertising remits which sometimes resulted in conflicting decisions. We are creating a single regulator with the purpose of developing a unified approach to communications policy and we must therefore ensure that we avoid creating overlaps and additional bureaucracy within the regulator and its boards and advisory groups, one of which is the consumer panel.
The consumer panel is important, but we must avoid two groupings giving conflicting advice. It would be a recipe for confusion and delay to have an advertising self-regulatory system consulting with consumers and relevant interest groups and advertising also being discussed by Ofcom's own consumer panel.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is certainly right when he says that we have been round this course before. We have had substantial discussions on these issues as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, attested when moving the amendment. We have discussed a similar matter at Committee and Report stages. I understood that the amendment had been brought back at Report stage so that the Government would have an opportunity to put on record the details of a letter that my noble friend Lord McIntosh sent to the Advertising Association. The letter assured the industry—I take this opportunity of renewing that assurance—that this provision does not risk double jeopardy and that there is no perception that misleading advertising is a problem. It was not our
174
intention to suggest that it is. I had hoped that our answer on Report gave further reassurance to the industry, although the noble Baroness has renewed her fears on their part again today.
The consumer panel is an advisory body and has no regulatory powers. The contents board of course is part of the regulatory structure, but the consumer panel is not. The consumer panel will provide another means of advice for Ofcom if Ofcom wants to use it.
I understand that there is a more fundamental objection to the policy of Ofcom being able to refer matters of content with a high consumer dimension to the consumer panel for advice—please note, for advice, not regulation; not for decision taking, just for advice.
The principle behind the amendment seems to be at some odds with the will of the Chamber when it gave Ofcom a principal duty to further the interests of consumers and citizens. The joint scrutiny committee was quite clear that it, while recognising that,
"the interests of the citizen in the nature of broadcast content should first and foremost be represented by the Content Board … nevertheless support the current proposals in the draft Bill whereby certain issues could be examined by the Consumer Panel at the instigation of Ofcom's main Board".
That is exactly what the Bill says.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said on Report that she wanted to be sure that nothing in the Bill undermines the advertising industry's ability to regulate itself successfully. She has emphasised that point again and as we said on Report we agree with her wholeheartedly, but we do not see how this provision could undermine the Advertising Association's plans for co-regulation. It does not.
Furthermore, I believe that if we were to deny Ofcom that flexibility we would be doing consumers a great disservice. As my noble friend Lord Evans fully explained on Report, this is not about advertising. There are some—not many— content-related matters, such as the bundling of different channels on pay TV services that could have a high consumer dimension on which Ofcom may need to seek expert consumer advice.
The consumer panel is best placed to give Ofcom that advice. This is not about blurring the boundaries or muddying the waters, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was suggesting. The content board, within the regulatory structure, is the proper place for matters of content. I believe that we are totally agreed on that point. But on the few issues where there is a high consumer dimension we must not deny Ofcom the flexibility of hearing the consumer voice.
Responses to the consultation on the draft Bill fell into two fairly distinct camps on this issue. Powerful interests like BSkyB were quite clear that they did not want the consumer panel to be able to advise on content matters referred to them by Ofcom. They were concerned that the consumer panel should have,
"no jurisdiction over content-related issues or the terms on which content services are provided".
The consumer lobby, in the other camp, wanted the panel to have a much broader remit that allowed it free reign over all of Ofcom's remit, including content. Some, like Channel 5, were supportive of the Government's position that the consumer panel,

175
"should only be required to consider broadcasting/content issues when instructed to do so by Ofcom".
This is the balance that we have struck between two competing perspectives on this issue. We believe that the balance that we have struck provides certainty for the industry and gives consumers a voice on content matters where Ofcom decides that its advice is relevant. BskyB have nothing to fear. The panel has no jurisdiction over content. Ofcom merely has the ability to seek its advice and we have made it clear that we expect it to do so only when matters of content have a high consumer dimension.
At Report stage the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that she felt the wording that this amendment removes was unnecessary. We introduced the wording to give certainty in respect to our policy which has always been clear throughout the Bill. Clause 16(6)(c) which provides for the panel to,
"give advice to Ofcom in relation to any matter referred to the panel by Ofcom for advice",
is where it is given effect.
But we were concerned that there was a tension between Clause 16(6)(c) and Clause 16(5). I think that the debates in Committee, on Report, and again today—the noble Baroness has put her case with admirable clarity—have helped us to examine the matter further. It is the Government's intention in drafting the Clause 16(6)(c) that "any matter" would include matters of content where there is a high consumer dimension and where Ofcom chooses to seek advice. I firmly believe that it is in the interests of consumers that this is so. I hope that the noble Baroness at this late stage—we have tried to persuade her on two previous occasions without conspicuous success—will say that we have sought to strike a balance between competing interests in these terms and that we have a provision that will secure the interests of consumers so she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He has worked hard today and on previous occasions to allay industry fears. The Minister said that the wording we seek to remove was introduced to give certainty on government policy. Unfortunately, it has done the opposite.
We have talked ad infinitum to the industry during each stage of the Bill. The advertising industry, in particular, but also content providers remain deeply concerned. As I said on Report, which the Minister was kind enough to repeat, this industry has proved entirely capable of successful self-regulation. We believe that it deserves our whole-hearted support, a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I am very grateful to him for his support.
This is an important issue and one that is causing great concern. It is true that we have been around the course before, but there is still uncertainty and we remain dissatisfied on the matter. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 141.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Addington, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Alderdice, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jopling, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Kimball, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Laird, L.

Attlee, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Avebury, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Barker, B.

Lindsay, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Biffen, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blaker, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Ludford, B.

Bowness, L.

Luke, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lyell, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Burnham, L.

McNally, L.

Buscombe, B.

Maddock, B.

Byford, B.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Caithness, E.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Chan, L.

Methuen, L.

Colwyn, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Cox, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monson, L.

Crathorne, L.

Montrose, D.

Crickhowell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dholakia, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Newby, L.

Dundee, E.

Noakes, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Elton, L.

Northover, B.

Falkland, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Fowler, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Freeman, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Glentoran, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Goodhart, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greaves, L.

Rawlings, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Razzall, L.

Hamwee, B.

Reay, L.

Hanham, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rennard, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Higgins, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hooper, B.

Russell, E.

Hooson, L.

Saatchi, L.

Howe, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sandberg, L.

177

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Sandwich, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Seccombe. B. [Teller]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Selborne, E.

Tope, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Tordoff, L.

Sharpies, B.

Trumpington, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

vinson, L.

Vivian, L. [Teller]

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Waddington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wakeham, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Stewartby, L.

Walmsley, B.

Sloddart of Swindon, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wilcox, B.

Swinfen, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tebbit, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ahmed, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Alli, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Andrews, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harrison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Haskel, L.

Bach, L.

Hayman, B.

Barnett, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hollick, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bhatia, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Billingham, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Blackstone, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Borrie, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bragg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brett. L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Brooke of Alverihorpe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Brookman, L.

Jones. L.

Burlison, L.

Judd, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Chandos, V.

Layard, L.

Chorley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Christopher, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Crawley, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mar, C.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Marsh, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Desai, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dixon, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morgan, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Elder, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Erroll, E.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Orme, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ouseley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Palmer, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Parekh, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Patel, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gale, B.

Paul, L.

Gavron. L.

Pendry, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Peston, L.

Golding, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Prashar, B.

178

Prys-Davies, L.

Strange, B.

Puttnam, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Radice, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Thornton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Walpole, L.

Rooker, L.

Warner, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Whitaker, B.

Sawyer, L.

Whitty, L.

Scotland of Asthal,B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sheldon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord President of the Council)

Simon, V.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux Lord Randall of St Budeaux moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 19, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert "is not"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to make a short speech because I am dealing with the finance being presented for small to medium enterprises and the telecommunications implications.
I start by bringing in a few introduction notes. First, the current Act provides satisfactory protection and regulation for SM Es. Secondly, the SME performance is vital for economic reform in the United Kingdom.
There is deep concern that the Bill will weaken the protection of SMEs in a very serious way. Also, the proposed case is to retain for SMEs the level of standards for SMEs in the current Act.
I will speak briefly on the perception of SMEs. During the Portuguese presidency of the European Union it was decided that all 15 member states should have a key role in economic reform. The Prime Minister contributed significantly to this, which showed the vital role that SMEs have. Additionally. the DTI has a "think small first" policy and the Better Regulation Task Force. 'They are very important policies and show the significance of SMEs in the United Kingdom.
In addition, the Minister for SMEs, Nigel Griffiths MP, paid tribute to Britain's 3.7 million SME businesses, which he said are responsible for generating £1 trillion in our economy and employ 12 million people.
The good reputation of SMEs in the United Kingdom is now being recognised by other member states in the European Union. It is worrying that the current Act has worked well for SMEs, but the proposed legislation would undoubtedly weaken SME interests as a whole.
People are asking, why on Earth are we attempting to change the current legislation regarding SMEs when it has worked satisfactorily?
Those in the SME representative bodies are confused as to why the Government are weakening SMEs by means of their legislation when at the same

179
time the Government have expressed support for SMEs and their important contribution to the UK economy.
I will briefly explain the main concerns that SMEs and their representative organisations have about the Bill.
First, they welcome the Bill's consumer panel, which will promote the interests of consumers. A strong consumer panel should act as an effective counterbalance in the interests of industry, particularly large players, and it should provide useful input into regulatory decision making.
As I have already implied, the proposed consumer panel, which will protect the interests of SMEs, is weaker than the current arrangements in the Act. The Bill describes the consumer panel's role in relation to domestic and small business consumers. In practice, this means that the elements in the relationship between the new consumer panel and SMEs are used in deciding whether SMEs are chosen or rejected when it comes to protection and regulation provided by the consumer panel.
This is a complicated issue but, briefly, the valuation of SMEs' acceptability by the consumer panel will take into account the following definition points. SMEs, as consumers in the market for services or facilities such as computer systems, would be acceptable provided that neither is a communications provider or a person who makes associated facilities available; or a person who is a consumer in the market in respect of an undertaking carried out by him or for which more than 10 individuals work.
The consumer panel is therefore being changed so as to protect the interests of SMEs in this country.
So what are we worried about? This part of the Bill ignores the reality that many SMEs are both consumers—in that they subscribe to a communications provider—and service providers, for example, hardware/software maintenance and retail shops.
What are the consequences? They are that small businesses with 10 or more employees are highly likely to be consumers of communications services. However, if small businesses are also part of the communications industry, they will not be represented by the very important consumer panel, which is a matter of great concern. This is so even if SMEs have legitimate concerns and interests as consumers of communications services that are totally unrelated to their own products or services.
I wonder what estimates the DTI has made about the number of exclusions of SMEs arising from the consumer panel. This is an important question for the various representative bodies not just in the UK but in the European Union. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support these amendments, but of course I would because we put them down in Committee. I am rather tempted to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St Budeaux, to the Bill, albeit at a rather late stage. As chairman of
180
a project linked to the Small Business Bureau, he is obviously very keen to support the interests of small businesses.
This is an issue we have spoken to at earlier stages of the Bill. It is an important issue and we very much hope that the Government will be able to respond positively to these amendments today.
6 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is certainly the case that we have discussed these amendments previously and it is a little late in the Bill for such fundamental concepts to re-emerge. We did not have the opportunity of considering them at the Report stage. I will do my best to reply to my noble friend's long list of amendments.
I shall take Amendments Nos. 10 to 16 together, as their combined effect would be to make the Secretary of State responsible for appointing and removing the members of the consumer panel. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, recalled, we discussed this in Committee in response to her amendments. We explained at that time why it was not our intention that appointments to the consumer panel should be made by the Secretary of State and nothing has changed since to alter our view.
There are two possible models which might be followed in establishing the consumer panel. The first is the approach adopted in the case of Energy Watch and Post Watch—and the other is that followed by the Financial Services Authority.
Both Energy Watch and Post Watch were established as separate non-departmental public bodies with a separate legal identity and their own secretariats and staff. They each have significant complaint handling responsibilities which the Ofcom consumer panel will not have. As separate bodies, it is appropriate that the appointments to those bodies should be made by the Secretary of State.
The model we have followed for establishing the consumer panel is that adopted for the Financial Services Authority where, although the members are appointed by the FSA, albeit with the chairman's appointment subject to the approval of the Treasury, the panel is still able to operate perfectly independently of the FSA itself. We believe this provides a more appropriate model for Ofcom and have presented our arguments to the House on previous occasions.
We have also put in place a number of measures designed to ensure that the panel is able to work independently. These include the consumer panel being a legally separate unincorporated body and operationally independent from Ofcom; the panel being able to formulate its annual work plan and be responsible for allocating its own resources; providing the panel with the power to establish its own advisory committees and to determine its procedures; ensuring that no member or employee of Ofcom is able to be a member of the consumer panel; and that Ofcom must explain the reasons why it might not accept the advice given to it by the panel. On the second day of Report, we moved a government amendment to require the

181
consumer panel to publish an annual report, adding an extra element of transparency and accountability to the panel's work. When taken together, we believe that the whole package will ensure that the consumer panel will be able to act as an effective, independent voice for consumers.
Amendment No. 9 suggests that as well as domestic consumers, the remit of the consumer panel covers small businesses of no more than 10 employees because the experiences of these businesses are similar to the experiences of domestic consumers in the markets for communications networks and services. Businesses of this size may lack the resources and expertise to tackle any communications problems they may experience and they will have particular issues as consumers on which the consumer panel will be able to advise Ofcom.
We have excluded communications providers and persons supplying associated facilities—even if they have no more than 10 employees—because they may have different needs as consumers that would not fit with the tight focus of the panel. I know that some members of the small business community have expressed concern that this exclusion will cover many small IT businesses, but let me assure the House that this is just not the case. The definitions of "communications provider" and associated facilities are set out in Clauses 402 and 30 respectively.
Amendment No. 17 would in its first part effectively create the consumer panel as some kind of "watchdog" for Ofcom, monitoring it and reporting on what it has been doing. This is not the role we want to create for the panel. We have made clear during the passage of the Bill that we want to ensure that the consumer panel acts as the independent voice of consumers. I indicated today the way in which that has been established in the Bill. The phrase "a critical friend" has often been used, but sums up nicely the way we envisage the consumer panel operating by working closely with Ofcom in order to provide it with expert advice.
The remaining parts of Amendment No. 17 relate to the power of the consumer panel to establish committees and would, in effect, require the panel to establish advisory bodies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and one for small businesses. We have had debates on these issues, too, during the passage of the Bill. One of the measures we have included to ensure the independence of the consumer panel is the power for it to determine what committees it feels are necessary in order to provide advice about its functions. We did so in response to the recommendation from the pre-legislative scrutiny committee.
Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19, which would require the consumer panel to make arrangements for regulating its own procedures and those of any committees it establishes. The Bill as it stands allows the panel to make such arrangements as it sees fit. Given what I have already said about not wishing to constrain the independence of the panel unnecessarily, I cannot imagine that the consumer
182
panel would not want to make proper arrangements. It would certainly make its operation needlessly difficult if it did not.
In the light of those assurances—and I have no doubt that my noble friend has had a chance to study our previous debates on these issues—I hope he will feel we have aired the issues sufficiently and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Randall of St Budeaux: My Lords, I am absolutely dumb struck by the comments I have just heard from my noble friend. I beg leave not to test the opinion of the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Membership etc. of the Consumer Panel]:
[Amendments Nos. 10 to 16 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Committees and other procedure of the Consumer Panel]:
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not moved.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"ADVISORY COMMITTEES FOR DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

(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 for each of the following parts of the United Kingdom—

(a) England;

(b) Wales;

(c) Scotland; and

(d) Northern Ireland.

(2) Each committee shall consist of—

(a) a chairman appointed by OFCOM; and

(b) such number of other members appointed by OFCOM as OFCOM think fit.

(3) In appointing a person in accordance with this section to be a member of a committee, OFCOM must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the person appointed is able to represent the interests and opinions, in relation to communications matters, of persons living in the part of the United Kingdom for which the committee has been established.

(4) The function of each committee shall be to provide advice to OFCOM (including other committees established by OFCOM) about the interests and opinions, in relation to communications matters, of persons living in the part of the United Kingdom for which the committee has been established.

(5) A committee established under this section may also, at the request of the Consumer Panel, provide advice about those interests and opinions to the Consumer Panel.

(6) The consent of OFCOM is required for the giving of advice under subsection (5).

(7) In this section "communications matters" has the same meaning as in section 3."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that in responding to an amendment tabled al the Report stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, we recognised the anxieties the nations have expressed that their voices should be heard within Ofcom. We therefore agreed to

183
consider tabling a government amendment to ensure that Ofcom should establish advisory committees for each of the nations.
Amendment No. 20 would place Ofcom under a duty to establish and maintain committees for each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in order to provide Ofcom with advice about the interests and opinions of people living in the respective nations in relation to communications matters.
It will be for Ofcom to appoint the chairman of each committee and such numbers of other members as Ofcom thinks appropriate. In doing so, Ofcom would need to have regard to the need to ensure that the people appointed to each national advisory committee are able to represent the interests and opinions of those living in the relevant part of the United Kingdom in relation to communication matters.
The national advisory committees would be able to provide advice to other committees established by Ofcom, including the content board. In view of the independent status of the consumer panel, it would of course be possible for the panel to establish its own national committees should it so wish. However, we have also made provision that it would be possible for the national advisory committees to provide advice to the consumer panel should the panel request such advice and Ofcom consents.
Also at the Report stage we considered two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that would put a requirement for a disabled and elderly person's advisory committee on the face of the Bill. One amendment required Ofcom to establish and maintain an advisory committee on the interests of disabled and elderly people and the other required the consumer panel to do so.
Consistent with our approach on the advisory committees for the nations and regions that I have just set out, Amendment No. 21 will require Ofcom to establish and maintain a committee to advise it on the interests of disabled people and of elderly people across its remit.
As I have said, we do not want to get embroiled in the detail of Ofcom's organisational structure—it must have the flexibility to make operational decisions without being tied into complex statutory requirements. For this reason, we have kept the clause simple and avoided over-prescription. We have also allowed the same flexibility that the national committees have to advise the consumer panel, if they request it and with Ofcom's consent.
I set out in some detail in Committee and again at Report the powers which underpin the panel's independence and self-determination. This is why we have not taken forward the second amendment that was tabled at Report which would require the consumer panel to establish a committee for disabled and elderly people. Our amendment does not preclude
184
the panel from establishing such a committee and it paves the way for an element of joined-up working if that is what the panel and Ofcom desire. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I would like to speak briefly in support of this amendment this afternoon and to welcome it. The amendment recognises the unique nature of each part of the United Kingdom. It is in the spirit of devolution and it allows Ofcom to ensure it meets the special needs of individual areas instead of trying to cater for the whole of the UK in a blanket way.
While I am on my feet, I would also like to welcome Amendment No. 21, which recognises that elderly and disabled people have special needs. We have an increasingly elderly population. I am glad that the Government have recognised that the needs of elderly and disabled people may be quite different and that Ofcom must take this into account.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord and the Government on introducing the new clause represented by Amendment No. 20. I also compliment the chairman of Ofcom on the wisdom he displayed when he addressed your Lordships' House during Report stage. I also compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on her persistence, which gave the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, his opportunity. The Government have given us all we asked for and more. The function and scope of the advisory committees is not confined to devolved areas of government in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but ranges over all communication matters as defined in Clause 3(11), and I am sure that that is right.
I am slightly mystified as to why the consumer panel is specifically mentioned in subsection (5) but not the content board. It did beg the question of whether the committees could advise the content board with or without the consent of Ofcom. But the noble Lord, in speaking to the clause, made it quite clear that the content board could also be advised. He might just wish to clarify why the consent of Ofcom is required by the committees before they advise the consumer panel. Of course Ofcom should be kept informed, but consent to advise is something different. It smacks of potential prohibition. I shall not belabour the point, but this also applies to Amendment No. 21, of which I approve, which gives powers of advice to the committee for the elderly and disabled. But again I ask why the consent of Ofcom has to be obtained by that committee before it advises the consumer panel?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I also welcome this amendment. We are very grateful to the Government for listening to the arguments that were put forward. I should like to pay tribute to the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on this topic. She has done a brilliant job. The only criticism I have of this amendment is that I would have wished to see a closer link with the National Assembly for Wales when it comes to the Welsh committee. I hope that the committee membership will be formed with proper consultation

185
with the National Assembly. I see that the Minister is nodding. I hope that he will be able to give me that assurance when he comes to reply.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, much congratulation for persistence is being spread around your Lordships' House. I look at Amendment No. 21 and take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley—not in his place today—and also the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on their persistence on behalf of the elderly and the disabled. I welcome particularly this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington does. I congratulate the Government on listening.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, there must be some disturbing dissident note here and I propose to sound it. The Minister gave me some pleasure when he said that the Government did not want to get embroiled in the intestinal arrangements of Ofcom. That is very satisfactory. It is much better than just having a committee appointed by the Government. I am tempted to ask whether Ofcom really welcomes all these duties. I suspect, from an earlier stage in the Bill when we were talking about appointing a committee to represent the needs of the elderly and disabled, that Ofcom will be reasonably happy with this arrangement.
I always rail against the pathetic faith we have that the appointment of a committee will actually achieve something. Very often committees have too many people on them. Half the people there ought to be doing something more important and the other half ought never to be let loose at all. The National Health Service is festooned with them. They are a nuisance, they take up the time of busy people. Committees very often need themselves to be scrutinised. It would be very healthy if every committee were compelled to examine what they did last year and then decide whether they have any excuse for remaining in existence.
Let us look briefly at subsection (3) of Amendment No. 20:
"In appointing a person in accordance with this section to be a member of a committee, OFCOM must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the person appointed is able to represent the interests and opinions, in relation to communications matters".
I would have thought that that idea would have occurred to Ofcom. It does not need to be told on a page of the statute that it must find people who are interested and knowledgeable on the subject.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I welcome particularly Amendment No. 21. There are two amendments in later groups with which the Government have come a long way towards the views of those of us who have spoken on issues concerning disability. I would like to thank all my noble friends on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lady Blackstone for the way in which they have responded to our concerns.
186
I have one point on the two amendments, which was raised by the noble Lord. Lord Roberts of Conwy. Under subsections (5) and (6) the consent of the consumer panel is required before these committees can give advice. They have to ask for it. Then Ofcom has to consent to it. This means that the advisory committee will tend to be reactive rather than proactive on behalf of the nations and the elderly and disabled. I await an answer on this.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, perhaps may very briefly intervene on the side of the accolades. This is an amendment we have wanted very much. It is an important amendment. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, that one disabled person or someone with knowledge of disability is no substitute for an advisory committee whose members know exactly what they are talking about and can explore all the issues. We have discussed this at length and Ofcom is perfectly happy. I very much appreciate the Minister having done this.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, we are pleased that the Government have listened and responded to the arguments that, along with the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Carter, and others, we made on Report. They have added to the Bill a commitment to establish and maintain an advisory committee on elderly and disabled people. We thank the Government.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank everyone who helped to have the amendment tabled. No matter whose name appeared on the amendment, it was definitely a team effort to bring it here. Taking on the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. slightly, I think that we should have a committee to consider the functioning of committees. We should always bear in mind that the entire House often sits as a Committee. Another committee to give advice might be a suitable present from us to the whole process.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am most grateful for the general welcome that the two government amendments have received. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and my noble friend Lord Carter, I said earlier that we did not want to get embroiled in the detail of Ofcom's organisational structure. We tried to make the committee system in relation to these amendments as flexible as possible. There is neither a hidden agenda nor anything sinister related to the points that the noble Lords raised. Given Ofcom's interpretation of the amendments, and having listened to the debate—we will also read Hansard—I am absolutely sure that any concerns noble Lords may have will be allayed.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked for an assurance that the countries in question will be consulted fully about the committees. I can give that assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, a man after my own heart, hates bureaucracy and talked about "intestinal arrangements". I am sure that we have all taken on hoard his points. He ridiculed the wording concerned with

187
appointing persons able to represent communications. We must acknowledge that communications is a very broad church. The intention is that those appointed do not, for example, have an interest in film as part of communications and nothing else; rather they must have a broad interest and an ability to contribute.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he should promise to consider further the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I have made. In proposed subsections (5) and (6) in Amendment No. 20, and similarly in Amendment No. 21, it is curious that the consumer panel should request advice from the appropriate committees and then have to gain the consent of Ofcom before that advice is given. It seems a somewhat strangulated approach. I should be grateful if the Minister would agree to consider the point.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I have just received a note on the matter. If the following explanation does not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, I shall write to him. The content board is part of Ofcom; the consumer panel is not. That is why special arrangements must be made. Consent is needed because this is part of Ofcom.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS

(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 provide the advice specified in this section.

(2) The committee shall consist of—

(a) a chairman appointed by OFCOM; and

(b) such number of other members appointed by OFCOM as OFCOM think fit.

(3) In appointing persons to be members of the committee, OFCOM must have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the members of the committee include—

(a) persons who are familiar with the needs of the elderly; and

(b) persons who are familiar with the needs of persons with disabilities.

(4) The function of the committee shall be to provide advice to OFCOM (including other committees established by OFCOM) about the interests, in relation to communications matters, of—

(a) the elderly; and

(b) persons with disabilities.

(5) The committee may also, at the request of the Consumer Panel, provide advice about those interests to the Consumer Panel.

(6) The consent of OFCOM is required for the giving of advice under subsection (5).

(7) In this section "communications matters" has the same meaning as in section 3."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Training and equality of opportunity]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 24, line 21, leave out "fair treatment of ' and insert "equalisation of opportunities for"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 70 and 128. The amendments are tabled in response to concerns expressed on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the term,
"fair treatment of disabled persons",
used in Clauses 25 and 333 was not in line with the terminology used in other disability legislation.
We explained on Report that the use of the term "fair treatment" mirrored the current obligations in the Broadcasting Act 1996 and was well understood in the context of that legislation. However, we accept that more recent disability legislation, such as the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999, preferred the term "equalisation of opportunities" and that it would be helpful for our legislation to be as consistent as possible with other legislation in the area. We therefore undertook to table amendments at Third Reading to substitute the current references to "fair treatment" with the more up-to-date term "equalisation of opportunities". The amendments fulfil that commitment. We have also extended the change to the equivalent provision for the Welsh authority in Schedule 12 to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Government. I moved the amendments on the issue in Committee and on Report, so I am extremely grateful. I had wondered why the word "equalisation", rather than "equality", of opportunity was used. However, apart from the fact that the word is consistent with the wording of the 1999 Act, the dictionary states that "equality" is the state of being equal. "Equalisation" is not defined, but I understand it as a process of achieving equality, which is what equality of opportunity is all about.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is just a case of saying "thank you" again. There has been a relay: the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to start, Addington second, with Evans and McIntosh to finish. We got there. It is nice to know that the Government listen sometimes.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I express my support as one who did not get in on the list earlier.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 92 [Notification of contravention of conditions]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 89, line 2, at end insert—
"() Where OFCOM receive a complaint, or otherwise become aware, that a person may be in contravention or have contravened a condition set under section 43, they shall inform that person in writing of the nature of the suspected contravention and that they are conducting an assessment of available evidence, which may lead to that person being given a notification under subsection(2)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Minister knows, we are still of the opinion that, in relation to a contravention of conditions set under Clause 43, this clause as drafted incorrectly translates the word "find" in the directive into,
"determine that there are reasonable grounds for believing"
in the Bill. However, clearly, we were not going to make any headway in convincing the Government on that point.
In this amendment, we have relied on the Minister's observation on Report that:
"In many instances—probably the majority—prior investigation of the matter in issue will be necessary before Ofcom will he able to decide whether or not it has such 'reasonable grounds".—[Official Report, 26/6/03; col. 423.]
The amendment provides that, when Ofcom receives a complaint or otherwise becomes aware that a person may have contravened a condition, it should notify that person that it is conducting an assessment of the evidence which may lead to a notification under Clause 92. That means that, at least in the majority of cases. the person has a prior opportunity to correct the alleged breach, thus reducing the number of occasions when Ofcom must take the serious step of issuing a notification, or to submit evidence to Ofcom showing that he is complying with the conditions notified. That may convince Ofcom that the complaint did not provide reasonable grounds for believing that a Clause 43 condition had been contravened. In either case, unnecessary notifications under Clause 92(1), which could have damaging effects on the provider concerned, would be avoided.
The noble Lord, Lord Currie, the chairman of Ofcom, has written to me about the matter. He has been good enough to make clear that it will be only in rare and extreme cases that Ofcom might have to act without warning. He said that, in the normal course of events, Ofcom would undertake a preliminary investigation, letting the operator concerned know as soon as possible so that in some cases it is possible.
"to resolve the matter speedily and informally, without the whole panoply of the Notification Procedures having to be involved".
That is indeed most helpful. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, does what I have advised the Government to do, which is to place his letter on Ofcom's website so that it can receive wider circulation, instead of simply lodging it in the Library of your Lordship's House as he has been asked to do. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment to which my name is added. We are returning to a very important issue that I spike about as early as Second Reading. We are in a strange situation that I have discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He and I were minded to test the opinion of the House today on this issue because we are both deeply concerned that the Government have not, until now, responded sufficiently to allay concerns or rebut the problem. As the noble Lord. Lord Currie, quite rightly said in his letter addressed to Lord Avebury,
190
operators are concerned that Ofcom will have gone a long way down the road of investigating an alleged breach leading to a possible enforcement order before operators are even made aware that they are under investigation, and thus have the opportunity to make representation.
We are extremely grateful that, at the 11th hour, this letter was written by the noble Lord, Lord Currie. To our minds and in discussion with the industry, the letter has made a difference. The issue is an important one and we were determined to be robust on behalf of the industry. We are very glad that the letter has been forthcoming.
We would have preferred, however, to have the matter included in the Bill. We are concerned. and we know that the industry is also concerned, to ensure that we do not in any way remove important flexibility in the way that Ofcom proceeds in the future. Therefore, we have decided to agree to accept the contents of the letter, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly said, please let us make this letter as public as possible as quickly as possible to allay concerns beyond your Lordships' House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is obvious that we have considered this matter very carefully and discussed it with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We are willing to discuss it with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. We understand that the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, has offered have given sufficient comfort for the amendment to be withdrawn.
The amendment relates to the matter of Ofcom's detailed administrative and operational practice, rather than to any substantive matter of policy, so we do not think that it is right to include the provision in the Bill. However, we acknowledge that, as a matter of good regulatory practice and in accordance with the principle of transparent regulation, Ofcom should ensure that, except when clearly justified. the subjects of any investigation it undertakes, even an informal preliminary one, are made aware of Ofcom's interest at an early stage.
As always, there will need to be provision for some exceptions to the rule. The exceptional circumstances that we have in mind would be those in which advance notice would be likely to prejudice Ofcom's ability to intervene effectively. In certain cases the element of surprise is crucial to ensuring, for example, that vital evidence is not destroyed. I hope that such cases will be very rare.
Since this is principally a matter for Ofcom, I am glad to confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Currie. has written to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, advising him that Ofcom also accepts the principle underlying this amendment. and will include a suitable provision in public guidance on the administrative procedures that it is preparing. Moreover, operators and others with an interest in these matters will have ample opportunity to discuss with Ofcom the precise detail of how this process will operate. Before it formally takes over its enforcement role, Ofcom will consult on public guidance and other procedural matters too.

191
A copy of the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Currie, will be placed in the House Library and I am sure that he will agree to place it on the website. I am grateful for the way in which the amendment has been moved.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his courtesy in discussing this matter with me yesterday. He could has resolved this problem, which has caused enormous concern in the industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, if we had arrived at the solution much earlier. I am sorry that we had to take it up to the wire, but we felt that the issue was important.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, better late than inflexible.
Lord Avebury: I quite agree, my Lords. I am thankful that the department is as flexible as it has proved to be. I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss if I say that, as the period that the Bill has to be on the statute book approaches, we have noticed something of an increase in the flexibility of the department. Of course, that may be purely coincidental. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment with the assurances that have been given and with the extremely helpful letter that we received from the chairman of Ofcom.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 157 [Grant of recognised spectrum access]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 145, line 27, at end insert—
"() OFCOM shall carry out an impact assessment in line with section 7, prior to any introduction of recognised spectrum access, having due regard to the international implications of such a measure."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had a great many discussions about the merits of recognised spectrum access throughout the proceedings of the Bill. There have been parallel debates going on as a result of the Radiocommunications Agency's consultation on the subject. I do not propose to rehearse those arguments today, but I merely point out that the matter is still highly controversial. Even those who were most in favour of RSAs, such as the spectrum management advisory group, acknowledge that there are unresolved problems such as the distortion of competition that would arise in the European Union if RSA is introduced in some countries and not in others. The taxation aspects also have to be more fully assessed.
In order to resolve this and other outstanding issues before RSA is introduced, we propose in this amendment that Ofcom should undertake an impact assessment under Clause 7. That clause gives Ofcom power to carry out impact assessments when it proposes to do anything important for the purposes of, or in connection with, its functions. The definition of importance in Clause 7(2) certainly applies to the introduction of RSA. An impact assessment would allow persons likely to be affected by RSA to make
192
representations, and for the outcome of the assessment to be published. We think that that process will be useful, because it would enable the international implications to be evaluated with the aid of those concerned, especially those in the European satellite industry. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the Minister and I have had extensive exchanges on RSAs in Committee and on Report. I have raised a whole host of issues in relation to the way in which the Government intend to implement RSAs and the powers of control and intervention that the Government intend to give Ofcom in this area.
My concerns remain unallayed in several important areas. The Bill still fails to provide sufficiently robust requirements for consultation with the industry and other interested parties. I remain to be convinced that auctioning is an appropriate tool for RSAs. Ofcom's powers to limit spectrum use, modify and revoke licences and place conditions on spectrum trading, all reflect a hugely interventionist approach in this area.
I am pleased, however, that the Government have recognised the concerns that I expressed on behalf of many in the industry on one particular issue—that there is no reason to allow Ofcom to impose conditions or restrictions on the transmission or broadcasting of particular matters on RSAs. It is right for that particular provision to be removed from the Bill.
I shall not take up much more time on the matter, but there is one question that I put to the Minister on Report which he has failed to answer. In Committee, the Minister expressed his personal sympathy with the arguments that I put forward in favour of grandfathering the RSA proposals to pre-existing satellite transponder agreements, which have not factored in the possibility of RSA. It is, I think he agreed, important not to discriminate in providing such protection to terrestrial broadcasters' licensing agreements and satellite transponder agreements.
The Minister has indicated, however, that the timing of the introduction of charges for RSA will be a matter for Ofcom. Yet, in their response to the review of radio spectrum management, the Government said that spectrum trading and pricing, as regards terrestrial broadcasters, would not take effect while they had existing licences that did not anticipate such pricing. If the Government can make such a clear policy statement on terrestrial frequencies, what is stopping the Minister from making an equivalent policy statement today on satellite transponder agreements, rather than simply expressing a personal view?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with such issues, we return to the issue of recognised spectrum access. I am told that it is also called "radio signals from afar". I shall speak to Amendment No. 25, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, spoke, but I shall speak first to Amendment No. 24, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
We listened carefully to the noble Lord, and we understand the concerns. We agree about the importance of impact assessments. They are an essential component

193
of evidence-based policy making. However, we do not think it necessary to amend the Bill with regard to assessments for RSA.
Given the significance of the RSA provisions, I would expect Ofcom to follow the Clause 7 procedure and carry out an impact assessment before deciding whether to proceed. I would further expect the assessment to have due regard to the international nature of the satellite services, if it relates to satellites, that is. We should bear it in mind that RSA may be introduced for other services, which is a good reason to allow Ofcom a measure of flexibility over the detailed contents of the assessment and not to prescribe them in the Bill.
Clause 7 places Ofcom under an obligation to publish impact assessments in important cases. It is difficult to imagine that RSA is not important. It will be open to operators or anyone else to make representations to Ofcom, if an assessment omits a material consideration, and Ofcom will be required not to implement the proposal until:it has taken account of representations received. That is in addition to the duty under Clause 400, which will also apply. Clause 7 already makes sufficient provision for impact assessments without any need for special provision in respect of RSA.
I turn to Amendment No. 25. On Report, I undertook to review the scope of Ofcom's power to make a grant of RSA subject to restrictions and conditions. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, had asked why Ofcom needed such a power, especially in relation to the content of transmissions and broadcasts, and she moved Amendments to remove the power from the Bill.
I have looked carefully at subsection (5) of Clause 157 to see whether we could narrow Ofcom's powers without compromising the effective management of the radio spectrum. Amendment No. 25 is the result of that consideration. It will remove from the clause Ofcom's express powers in relation to restrictions and conditions on content. On reflection, we agree with the noble Baroness's argument that they are unnecessary for RSA. She made a fair point, and I am grateful to her. The issue has been extensively debated, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the persistence with which they have pursued the matter.
The noble Baroness asked why I could not give a categoric assurance on grandfathering. It is not really for the Government to do that. Decisions on RSA will be a matter for Ofcom. Unlike for licensed users of spectrum, such as terrestrial broadcasters, the Secretary of State has no existing powers relating to RSA, which is a new system introduced by the Bill. The situation with RSA is more complex, and the effects are not limited to broadcasting. For example, decisions on RSA could affect the availability of spectrum for terrestrial fixed links in the 11 gigahertz band, which is used by Astra for Sky transmissions and shared with terrestrial services. It is for Ofcom to balance such considerations, but I repeat my view that I expect it to take account of any implications for switchover.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I hope that what the Minister said about grandfathering has satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to some extent, at least. Perhaps she could get a letter from the chairman of Ofcom—similar to the one that we secured with regard to the previous amendment—that would say what he thought was possible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall ask him to do that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. That would be useful, even if he cannot give a complete undertaking that the same procedures will be applied to satellite as are applied to terrestrial to give whatever undertakings are possible about the extension of licences that might be covered in future by the introduction of RSA.
The Minister has also said, effectively, that we have what we want. An impact assessment will be conducted under Clause 7. Moreover, he has drawn attention to Clause 400, which reinforces the necessity for Ofcom to take account of representations from the industry before introducing RSA. I hope that that will also go a long way towards reassuring the industry that there will not be a sudden introduction of RSA without the fullest possible consultation.
We have achieved quite a lot in our discussions on the matter, and I sincerely hope that Ofcom will be as receptive to representations from the satellite industry as it ought to be. We look forward to continued consultations with Ofcom, so that we can guide it, if it feels that it is necessary for your Lordships to continue to take an interest in the matter a long time after the Bill has left the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 146, line 12, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 217 [Licensing of the public teletext service]:
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 195, line 8, at end insert—
"(4A) The licence must contain the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing that persons with disabilities affecting their sight or hearing or both are able, so far as practicable, to make use of the service for all the same purposes as persons without such disabilities."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I first saw the group of amendments, I was a little worried by the fact that there were 83 clauses between Amendments Nos. 26 and 49. However, they probably hang together with regard to subject matter.
Amendment No. 26 deals with the teletext service. There has been an interesting debate on the matter. Analogue teletext meant that people who had access to Braille typewriters were able to use teletext and thus

195
get information. It was of great benefit to them. It meant that the blind and the deafblind who could use Braille had a way of getting information.
We have tried many things to get the Government to move on the matter. We started off ambitiously in Committee, but I hope that the Government will be able to accept this amendment. The aim is to mirror what was done on the electronic programme guide, on which the Government were able to move towards us. If it is possible to do something because of an advance in technology, we should take the argument on board. That is a reasonable approach. As the technology comes on line, we should be allowed to use it. I hope that the Government will respond favourably.
Clause 300, to which Amendment No. 49 relates, covers the issue of people with a dual sensory impairment. The Government have undergone something of a learning process in respect of those with a dual sensory impairment—the deafblind. The department has undergone something of a learning process. One wonders why other Ministers did not bring forward that matter for us. It does not matter, as long as we get there in the end.
The deafblind—those with dual sensory impairment—are a specific group with specific problems. However, they are not even one consistent group. There are those who are born deafblind and those who are initially blind or deaf and then lose the other sense. Those secondary groups can, as their senses deteriorate, get access to services made available by current technology. It is possible to give assistance to a subset within a subset of a specific condition. All that this amendment does is suggest that the Government, or those in power, must bear in mind those considerations. I hope that the Government are able to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 50 is probably the most controversial of all the amendments. I believe that I previously described audio description as the cock-up school of history, in which broadcasters could be told to audio describe X number of programmes only to discover that no one can receive the audio description. The most recent information that I have is that 49—or has it gone up to 50?—people can receive several thousand hours of audio-described programmes. That is an absurdity, but there is a solution, because for those on Sky—I hope my noble friend will forgive me for saying something fairly nice about—
Lord McNally: My Lords, a wonderful company!
Lord Addington: My Lords, Australian-American broadcasting conglomerates allow one to receive a firm kind of audio description, although it is not as good. I believe that there are two different kinds—broadcaster mixed and receiver mixed. I understand that the receiver mixed system, which the free-to-air people have been working on, is renowned for its superiority. It is better; it has many bonuses; it can be used individually; one does not need to have broadcasts to the entire room. Everything about it is better. But if you cannot receive it, it does not matter
196
very much whether it is better. Therefore, if we push forward here, we can simply say that those free-to-air broadcasters must allow their audio description programmes to be broadcast by Sky to those who have Sky; namely, 24 per cent of the target population, or about 480,000, according to the figures that I have been given. That surely makes sense.
A number of arguments have been advanced and a number of letters written about this matter. I believe that at the back of those is the fact that trying to get a producer for the chip to go into the new box may well be discouraged. I have come to the conclusion that that is at the back of the resistance. Therefore, if one manages to scare off someone from the potential market by saying that this should go through Sky, one may well continue the process. I believe that that is one of the greatest points of resistance by the free-to-air broadcasters. I suggest that the Government should consider forcing those free-to-air broadcasters to make this service available to what is under a quarter of their potential market, when they are already pumping vast amounts of money into the audio description itself. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate and I shall not make a speech now. However, I want to indicate that I shall advise the House to accept Amendments Nos. 26 and 49.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly gatecrash the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to deal with a small problem that I have. Due to a miscommunication between me and the Public Bill Office, Amendment No. 50, which relates to backstop powers on training, failed to make it from Report stage to Third Reading. As it was not a contentious issue when I left it at Report stage, and as it has some bearing on the utilisation of new technology, I hope that the Minister will kindly help me further with regard to that particular issue.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said and welcome what the Minister is about to say. I am very pleased that the deafblind—a most excluded group of people—will at last get something. However, I am saddened that the Minister does not propose to accept Amendment No. 50. I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said. We are in an absurd situation. It would be ridiculous to be unable to get what is available and hope for better prospects later.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, express my pleasure at hearing that Amendments Nos. 26 and 49 have been accepted and also to add my concern that Amendment No. 50 has not. Over a number of sittings in Committee and at Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has made the problems clear to us all, and we have also been very well briefed by the RNIB and others. With about half a million people being disadvantaged in this way and 22 per cent of people over 60 having both a hearing and visual

197
problem, it is quite absurd—I believe that that is the right word — that we are not moving faster, especially as the facilities are in place and as this amendment would ensure that suitable provision was made for such people. I therefore support all these amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to say briefly that we welcome the Minister's forthcoming response to these amendments. Our only concern, which I hope the Minister will allay, has been to ensure that the legislation is not technology specific. I believe that that would he a great mistake. It is important for Ofcom to he given the flexibility to drive forward these proposals and to respond to technology.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the House will agree that we have listened not only today but throughout to the views expressed and have shown ourselves willing to make changes. At Report stage we introduced a new duty for Ofcom to encourage the availability of easily-useable apparatus; we acted on the need for broadcasters to make available adequate information about subtitling, signing and audio-description services to those likely to want to use them; we introduced the 60 per cent, five-year interim target for subtitling; we addressed the concern that electronic programme guides should be as accessible as possible to people with disabilities. I am grateful to all those who have pressed us to make those changes.
Amendment No. 26 would require Ofcom to include in the public teletext licence conditions to ensure that people with sight or hearing disabilities are able to use the service for all the same purposes as people without such disabilities. Teletext provides a valuable service, but it is licensed as a text service. We do not want to change the name of the service. We agree that we would like it to be available to people with disabilities, in so far as that is reasonably practicable. We will therefore accept the amendment. There are some technical difficulties to be addressed with regard to the drafting and the placement of the amendment in the Bill. However, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that what comes back from the Commons will preserve the effect of his amendment.
Amendment No. 49 would require Ofcom's code relating to provisions for the deaf and visually impaired to give guidance on the extent to which applicable services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by people with a dual sensory impairment, as well as people who are deaf or hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted. We understand the very particular needs that are involved. As we have said, realistically, a person will need to have some degree of sight or hearing to be able to benefit from television; and, as such, they would be covered by the provisions. I regret that the substantive effect of the amendment is not entirely clear. However, we understand the strength of feeling. The amendment has a great deal of support, and we shall accept it on that basis. Again we may need to make some minor changes to the amendment, but they will not affect the spirit of it.
198
Amendment No. 50 is more difficult. We have already discussed the provision of audio-description services. I am well aware of their importance for visually impaired people. We all agree that there should be more audio-described programmes. The amendment would require broadcasters to provide their audio-description services in a form intelligible by their users. That is so obvious that there should be no need to write it into the statute, and the amendment does not appear to add much to the Bill. But it could be counterproductive. It is not clear why we would need such an amendment for audio-description services but not for sub-titling or signing. We certainly would not want to imply that there is no corresponding need for subtitling or signing to reach users in an intelligible form. That is the danger of this amendment. However, we understand that particular problems surround the provision of audio description that do not arise for subtitling and signing.
There are currently two ways of transmitting audio description—either mixed with the programme sound as an alternative to the normal soundtrack or in a separate stream that is mixed with the soundtrack in the viewer's set-top box. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
The purpose of the amendment is to get broadcasters to provide their services using a specific system compatible with Sky set-top boxes instead of another one developed by the BBC and other partners which can only be received on 45 prototypes. That would allow Sky viewers to receive the programmes audio-described by the broadcasters which have to provide audio description. We fully understand the desire to make the best use of currently available technology to accelerate the provision of audio-description.
That would not solve the problem of the non-Sky viewers. I agree with noble Lords who said that we must not be equipment specific. There is not enough bandwidth available on the digital terrestrial plat form to operate a system similar to the one used on satellite television. The drafting of the amendment presumes that the solution lies in the hands of the broadcasters. In fact, one only has to look at the example of current developments in EPGs to see that future models may depend as much on manufacturers of equipment as on the broadcasters themselves. So we think that this is a matter better left to the codes, since that will mean the regulator can take into account the latest developments and direct the broadcasters accordingly. In future, there might be other options or equipment that might have more benefits and less disadvantages. But my point is that we should not be picking winners now—a point which I think was taken up in debate.
Perhaps I may now address the gatecrasher. Yes, we understand the point that he makes about training. I can just about relate it to this group of amendments. The Government would like to make it clear that the obligations placed in the Bill represent a serious and ongoing obligation to invest in training. We see these requirements as vital to the future success of the sector. Unless we invest in people and their skills our vibrant audio-visual media will eventually go the way of shipbuilding and any other traditional manufacturing

199
industries. On the recommendation of the ITC's programme supply review, the Secretary of State asked Skillset to set up a task force to report back to Ofcom on training. We keenly await the recommendations of the task force and expect a robust and vigorous strategy for the industry to emerge as a result.
Broadcasting is just one part of the audio-visual industry. Skillset and the UK Film Council are currently working with the film industry to develop a comprehensive film skills strategy to be launched in September. We look forward to the DTI and Skillset working together with the new media to address skills strategies to drive productivity and competitiveness of the sector. It is particularly fitting to be addressing these issues on the eve of the launch of the Government's national skills strategy, which places particular emphasis on the need for industries to work collaboratively to advance the implementation of skills strategies within their sectors. The Government will continue to monitor this broad range of training and development activities closely, particularly compliance with measures.
7 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for accepting my first two amendments—a brace is a good haul for one day. Amendment No. 50 is designed to deal with an ongoing problem as it currently exists. I heard what the noble Lord said and I have decided not to seek the opinion of the House, although it crossed my mind more than once. I offer the Minister one thought on this matter: I promise never to come back to this subject provided boxes are produced with the relevant technology within, say, eight months from now. If not, I shall come back and badger the Government to merry hell to do something about it. There is no point in ensuring that something beneficial is produced which cannot be received.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I can take up the direct challenge made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. However, I am told that the technology is readily available and that some manufacturers are looking at producing the appropriate equipment. It is not a matter that the Government can command manufacturers to do.
Lord Addington: My Lords, yes, and apparently there have been manufacturers interested in audio-description ever since the first broadcasts were made. That is what is behind it. I suggest that there is some way in which the Government can improve matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 227 [Report in anticipation of new licensing round]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 204, line 31, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 239 [Television multiplex services]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 216, line 9, at end insert—
"() When making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall require OFCOM to—

(a) do what it can to sustain the availability of a digital frequency for an existing analogue Restricted Services Licences channel;

(b) consult with existing local television channel Restricted Services Licences licensees about transitional arrangements for broadcasting on Digital Terrestrial Television in their local area; and

(c) begin the digital local television licensing process prior to digital switch-over."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the availability of frequencies for existing local television services which are broadcasting under restricted services licences. In Committee I gave the example of Channel M in Manchester. The problem is that when the switchover to digital occurs, there is no guarantee that spectrum will be made available for these services. The then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that it was,
"for Ofcom to determine, within the framework of its statutory duties, what spectrum should be available for those different types of services".—[Official Report, 20/5/03; col. 753.]
The RSL broadcasters were not reassured by that statement and we fear that when digital local frequencies come to be allocated, which may not be until after 2010, their current situation of operating on low-power, poor-quality frequencies will be perpetuated. In the past, the frequency planners have leaned towards the interests of the bigger organisations at the expense of independent local channels. That could easily be repeated in the digital spectrum.
The RSLs are not represented on the spectrum planning committee and have not been asked for an opinion by the planners. We therefore hope that the Government will require Ofcom to do three things: first, to provide digital frequency for existing analogue RSL broadcasters; secondly, to consult with them on transitional arrangements for DTT broadcasts in their local areas; and, thirdly, to begin the process of allocating digital frequencies for local TV now, so that existing broadcasters do not have to face years of uncertainty which would make it impossible for them to attract investment. We understand that there have been helpful discussions on these matters between most of the RSL TV channels and officials of the DCMS in which assurances have been given, but it would be useful to have those on the record. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in practical terms, this amendment seeks to give existing television restricted service licensees a guarantee that they will be able to continue after switchover. That would not be appropriate or fair. In fact, it might not even be realistic. I say that it would not be appropriate because paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 28 would mean that Ofcom was required to do what it could to ensure that spectrum is available for existing RSLs. We have never

201
given such a guarantee to any other commercial service, nor to any other spectrum user. However, we did decide that Ofcom should have a general duty to manage the spectrum as efficiently as possible. Having done so, we tried not to tie its hands by introducing more specific requirements.
I also feel that it would not be fair. As we said on Report, holders of the current RSLs were perfectly aware that the licences they applied for were restricted in duration and came without any spectrum guarantee. They knew the rules of the game. It is likely that the other operators who decided not to compete for those licences would have responded to an application for long-term licences or for short-term ones that had such a guarantee for the future. It would not be fair to change the rules after the game has begun.
It might turn out that it is not possible to give such a guarantee. Until our spectrum plans are finalised and have international clearance where we need it, we will not know what frequencies will be available on top of those necessary for the six multiplexes. Although it is perhaps unlikely, we might find that in a particular area securing a frequency for an RSL will be possible only if that frequency was not given to one of the six national multiplexes. Would that provision mean that Ofcom would have to give a small RSL priority over a multiplex?
Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 28 would impose a requirement on Ofcom to consult RSLs about transitional arrangements for broadcasting on DTT in their area. Not only is the drafting of this provision rather unclear but it is also superfluous. As part of the good regulatory practices that it is required to follow, Ofcom will consult all the relevant parties. Therefore, we must oppose this amendment.
However, we understand that there is an issue to be addressed here. Operators have taken the risk of investing in these licences. Yes, they knew the risk beforehand, but they took it, and some of them not only built successful businesses but have created genuinely attractive local services which are now greatly appreciated by their audiences.
Ideally, we would like it if these services were able to continue, while seeing new ones develop. We recognise that if they are willing to invest in developing high quality programmes and play their role in social inclusion, licensees will want to be given as much security as possible for their future. Much as we would like to be able to provide this now, we are simply not in a position to do so, nor will we be until we have a clearer idea of how best to use the available spectrum.
For the time being, therefore, I can do little more than repeat what we said before. After switchover there will, of course, be more spectrum available, principally coming from the 14 frequency channels that will be cleared. However, it may well be inappropriate to use high-value national frequencies for local broadcasting. A preferable solution may be to use the interleaved spectrum that will become available within the frequencies used for the six national multiplexes. This interleaved spectrum could create new opportunities for local television services after switchover.
202
Once the spectrum plans for these multiplexes have been finalised, Ofcom will he able to switch its attention to this interleaved spectrum and prepare for its allocation. Once it has done so, I would expect it to consult fully all the stakeholders and present them with a list of options. In addition, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry will undertake a major public consultation exercise on switchover in spring next year and I can assure all concerned that the issues of the availability of local television services and the continuation of existing restricted service licences will be given careful consideration in the course of that exercise.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance and for repeating what I believe was the substance of what was said to the RS Ls at a meeting at the DCMS on 30 June. There was only one point on which the Minister's remarks did not appear quite to tally with the assurances that the industry thought it had received at that meeting—the early advertisement of suitable digital frequencies, identified in areas where local television licences were already operating. The industry thought that that early advertisement of digital licences might be accompanied by a presumption that the existing incumbent would be preferred. However, the Minister seemed to tell your Lordships that the competition would be completely open and that newcomers would have the same chance of having that spectrum as the incumbents.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we will consult before we make any order affecting the licensing regime for local television services, and one of the questions that we will need to address will be the extent to which previous experience as a local broadcaster has to be taken into account when assessing competing applicants.
Once our spectrum plans are finalised, and the orders on the licensing regime for local television have been made, Ofcom will be able to advertise licences for local television services. It may decide to do this before the relevant digital spectrum actually becomes available, in order to ensure, where appropriate, continuity of existing services, or a smooth start for new ones. However, we do not want to tie Ofcom's hands and the matter must be left to its discretion.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, perhaps we had better pursue the matter through Ofcom, because the RSLs were under the impression that the existing licence holders would be given preference in the allocation of the new digital frequencies, and that did not quite emerge from the Minister's remarks. However, I thank the Minister for the rest of his remarks, which will be useful. I hope that the industry finds that they enable it to plan with greater assurance for the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 234, line 29, at end insert—
"() that sufficient high quality original drama is broadcast covering a range of issues in a variety of formats;"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lea is unable to be in the Chamber at this time and so at his request I have undertaken to be his understudy in moving Amendment No. 29. I hope that noble Lords will not ask for their money back.
Your Lordships will recall that when this issue was raised on Report by my noble friend Lord Lea, his amendment drew support from all sides of the House. That prompted the Minister to offer a discussion on the subject. That discussion took place, and as a consequence, the Minister has now tabled a most helpful amendment, Amendment No. 30.
Both the amendments seek to protect and enhance the value of drama as part of the range of services available through public service broadcasting. We can be very proud of the range, quality and immediacy of UK television drama at its best, and of the people who produce it—our actors, directors, producers, technicians and above all our writers. I am grateful to the Minister for seeking through his amendment to protect their interests and thereby the interests of us all, and I look forward to hearing his response. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, on Report. I was unfortunately unable to be at the meeting, to which I was invited, but I am delighted that the Government are taking the matter seriously. As a country, we are very proud of our long-established culture of drama and literature, particularly of the way in which that has been taken up in broadcasting. The points were well made—I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we are glad that the Government have responded to the good debate that we had on Report in relation to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lea.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, in Committee and on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Lea, moved Amendments concerned with the place of drama in the public service television remit in what is now Clause 262. The Government were unable to accept the amendments as they stood. However, we have always made clear our view that drama programming must constitute a key element of the public service remit.
The list of programme types specified in Clause 262 already refers to drama as one aspect of the UK's cultural activity and its diversity. However, reflecting on the concerns raised in the earlier debates we have had a helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Lea and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. In the light of that we have concluded that it is right for the Bill to offer a little more detail as to how the term "drama"
204
should be interpreted. Hence this proposed amendment to Clause 262, which makes clear that the term "drama" as used in the clause includes contemporary and other drama in a variety of different formats.
We see this new provision as encompassing both new ideas and new writing in the field of drama. It emphasises, too, the wide range of formats that television drama can take, whether it be one-off dramas, serials or themed series, to mention just a few examples. I should also emphasise once again that drama, along with all the other listed programme types, is covered by the overarching provisions in subsection (4) of Clause 262, which specify the purposes of public service broadcasting. These make explicit reference both to programmes dealing with a wide range of subject-matter and to programmes which embody high general standards with respect to content and quality. So quality of programming and diversity of subject-matter encompass the entire list of programming requirements, drama no less than the others.
The quota regime for original and independent programming by public service broadcasters will encompass drama, together with all the programme types included in the public service remit. I hope the House will agree that Amendment No. 30 provides a satisfactory way of meeting the points raised in the earlier debates. I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, to withdraw Amendment No. 29, with a view to my moving Amendment No. 30.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that series of helpful observations. We are concerned to ensure that the reach, diversity, originality and innovation of UK television drama is protected. We can agree that the amendment introduced by the Government will do that. Consequently, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 236, line 18, at end insert "; and
"drama" includes contemporary and other drama in a variety of different formats."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 268 [Enforcement of public service remits]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 241, line 7, leave out from "serious" to end of line 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the strength or otherwise of the enforcement powers of Ofcom under the Bill. A great deal of energy has been expended in the House over the balance of the Bill between economic and market forces on the one hand and "cultural goods" on the other—the values and standards that are to be required under the Bill. Unless Clause 268 is equal to the task, all the hopes that the House—including the Government—has

205
reposed in the public service broadcasting requirements in what are now Clauses 262 and 263 will be useless.
We on these Benches have one particular and specific anxiety about Clause 268. In order for Ofcom to form an opinion as to whether it can use the enforcement powers under the clause, it has first of all to decide whether the broadcaster has,
"failed to fulfil the public service remit",
under Clauses 262 and 263.
In addition, if Ofcom decides that there is such a failure, it must come to the opinion that it is a "serious" failure. Then Ofcom has a discretion as to whether in those circumstances it will proceed to enforce its powers. That discretion depends on whether,
"the situation requires the exercise of their powers".
Further, in reaching that decision, various factors are laid down in the clause to which Ofcom must, "have regard, in particular". One of those is the,
"general economic and market conditions",
prevailing, which may impact on the failure concerned.
Noble Lords may think, "So far, so weak", but that is not the end of it, because even if all those tests are complied with, no enforcement is possible if Ofcom is satisfied that the failure is,
"excused by economic or market conditions".
I have checked with the extremely helpful civil servants who are working on the Bill, and their and my belief is that the first test,
"excused by economic or market conditions",
is particular and specific to the broadcaster that has failed to meet the public service broadcasting remit.
That seems to mean that, if a media group, as is typical, puts a particular broadcaster into a subsidiary and intentionally runs it on an extremely short and limited financial lead, starving it of any resources that it does not need imminently for broadcasting purposes and driving it into a programme of broadcasting that falls foul of the public service remit, Ofcom could not then take enforcement proceedings against that subsidiary company. Ofcom must be satisfied that the failure is not excused by the particular and specific economic conditions of the broadcaster concerned, or it has no further powers under the clause.
I hope that I do not to need to labour the danger of that potential state of affairs. It would allow a single broadcaster to burst through the public service remit net on the grounds of its own incompetence or, more likely, on the grounds that it did not have the wherewithal, having been starved by its parent company. It may not be able to meet the public service remit for that reason. One can think of many examples of a media group purchasing an overpriced television company and then not having the money to put into programming.
One can think of a great many circumstances in which the company concerned will be beyond the reach of Ofcom on the grounds in the clause.
206
Therefore, we believe that the clause is seriously weakened unless those words are removed where they first appear in subsection (2). I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I believe that it was I who raised this issue in Committee in the first place. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has not only explained the matter much more succinctly than I did but has added other complications that could easily occur if the circumstances that he described arose.
It is absurd that there should be a double let-out, in that the clause says,
"is not excused by economic or market conditions",
in a specific sense, before moving down to the,
"general economic and market conditions",
which are part of the general aspects to which Ofcom must have particular regard.
I am absolutely behind the amendment, and am worried that the Government have not seen fit to take note of it and remove what appears to be a bias in favour of the broadcaster under these circumstances.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I do not believe that the amendment is well advised, for two reasons. First, we are moving from the old world of broadcasting to a new world of broadcasting. Some of us like that more than others, but that is what is happening. In the days when ITV had guaranteed revenues and spectrum shortage and did not have to pay for its licences, we did not have to worry much about economic conditions getting in the way of its public service obligations. I hope that we will never have to do so in future, but we are in the world of greater competition, so it is sensible to have some sort of safety valve built into the Bill. The clause is a safety valve.
It worries me that, at every stage, this House has displayed a lack of confidence in Ofcom. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was as coherent as ever in inventing a transparent device that a company might adopt to get round the provisions and saying that Ofcom would not be able to do anything about it. The clause is quite clear that such a matter is left to the opinion of Ofcom; it would see through such a device like a shot. The provision is wise and I hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will know that no one has been a stronger advocate of public service remits and the need to protect and strengthen them than me, and I have supported other amendments that he has tabled. He will also know that I have not always agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. However, I have a certain sympathy with the view that he has just expressed.
I could not quite understand the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that we would allow a loophole for financial incompetence. That is certainly not how I read the clause. Having lived through some difficult times in the industry, in the days when I was a director in it, I believe that there should be an escape clause under the discretion of Ofcom for general economic conditions. It will not be in anyone's interest

207
if Ofcom is forced into an action that might bring down a perfectly good company or organisation, which is doing its best and would normally, over a period, be able to meet the conditions but is facing a temporary situation in which it cannot. Such situations have arisen, and no doubt will arise again in future, when a company cannot do so for reasons entirely outside its control.
I hope that Ofcom will have a certain amount of discretion. I am not a lawyer, and I do not have the noble Lord's expertise in this matter but, as I read the clause, there is some discretion given. Therefore, I am slightly puzzled by his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. However, the very point to which he refers is in the Bill, and I would leave it in the Bill. Ofcom does have to have regard in particular to the general economic and market conditions. I do not seek to strike that from the Bill. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, this is a second provision which is particular to the particular company. It is that which seems to me to drive a coach and horses through the strength of these enforcement powers.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have made my point. I do not wish to add anything further.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Amendment No. 31 relates to the circumstances in which Ofcom may choose not to impose direct regulation on a broadcaster in the case of a serious failure either to fulfil the broadcaster's own public service remit or to make an adequate contribution to the overall public service remit. The Bill provides that Ofcom's enforcement powers can be used only if it considers that the broadcaster's failure is serious and is not excused by economic or market conditions. Enforcement powers include removing the broadcaster's self-regulation—in the third tier of the public service regime—and imposing direct regulation on that broadcaster.
Amendment No. 31 would prevent Ofcom considering whether a broadcaster's failure either to fulfil its individual public service remit or to make an adequate contribution are excused by economic or market conditions. So it would reduce the circumstances in which Ofcom could exempt a broadcaster under Clause 268(2)(a) to those in which the failure was not considered to be serious. Under Clause 268(2)(b) Ofcom also has to determine whether the situation requires the exercise of its enforcement powers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, explained, it would not be realistic or reasonable for Ofcom to ignore the impact of economic and market conditions on the ability of licensed broadcasters to fulfil their remits.
All licensed broadcasters operate in a commercial market, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said. They are affected by external economic conditions. Concern was expressed both in Committee and on
208
Report that the double reference to "economic and market conditions" in Clause 263 might allow economic and market conditions to become Ofcom's overriding consideration when making a judgment about using enforcement powers. I shall set out again why that would not occur.
Under subsection (2)(a), Ofcom will consider whether the failure of the provider is serious and whether or not that failure is excused by economic and market conditions. I should make this clear because the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made a great point about subsidiaries and the possibility of a broadcaster starving the service of funds. The question is whether the failure is excused by economic conditions specific to the broadcaster. We do not think that Ofcom would conclude that the failure was excused if the failure was caused by the broadcaster's incompetence. We are still looking at economic or market conditions.
Under subsection (2)(b), Ofcom will determine whether the situation requires the exercise of its powers, having regard to a number of matters including the general economic and market conditions affecting broadcasters. "General economic and market conditions" in subsection (3) therefore relates to Ofcom's decision on whether or not to exercise its enforcement powers. The reference removed by this amendment concerns the nature of a provider's failure to fulfil the public service remit.
The combined effect of those two provisions is that Ofcom can consider whether the specific failure of the provider is excused by economic or market conditions and can decide—taking into account a number of factors, one of which is the general economic and market conditions affecting broadcasters across the board—whether to take enforcement action. We do not accept that these provisions give economic and market conditions too great an influence over Ofcom's enforcement powers.
I should make it very clear that the issue of whether or not a failure can be excused by economic or market conditions will be judged by Ofcom, not the broadcaster. The enforcement process must have due regard to the realities of the marketplace in which commercial broadcasters have to operate. However, it is not intended to provide an easy get-out for broadcasters wanting to escape their public service obligations. I am confident that Ofcom will not regard it in that way.
In short, I believe that the Bill as it stands formulates Ofcom's enforcement powers in a sensible way and that it would not be right to remove the existing reference to economic or market conditions.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to ask a question, an affirmative answer to which would go some way towards reassuring me. Where Ofcom is looking at a broadcaster in order to form an opinion on whether its failure to comply with public service broadcasting standards is excused by economic or market conditions, what will be the position if it turns out to be a subsidiary which has not been incompetent but

209
whose parent company—the media group or holding company—has simply not provided sufficient capitalisation for it to undertake programming that meets its public service broadcasting requirements? Would that bring the individual broadcaster within the net? Would that excuse the broadcaster or would it not? I feel sure that the Minister will see my point. I know from my own professional life that a great deal of extreme financial cunning is employed in such groups. What if it were possible to construct financially a set-up whereby the financial problems of the subsidiary could not be taken back to the parent company for the purposes of this clause?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has repeated at length the argument that he used in his original speech. My answer is "No". The question is whether the failure is excused by economic conditions specific to the broadcaster. It does not matter whether it is a subsidiary or a parent company. Ofcom will not allow someone to get round their obligations by setting up a subsidiary and starving it of funds.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I take that last reply to mean "Yes" and not "No"—that Ofcom could take account of the parent company's conduct in deciding whether the wholly-owned subsidiary had an excuse. That is of considerable solace. I hope that the Minister is right in that. I suspect that it may be a passage of Hansard that is pored over. As I detect little support from other Benches, with reluctance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned until 8.37 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2003
7.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is an essential part of the process by which Parliament continues in force the service discipline Acts. The main element of that process is the five-yearly Armed Forces Acts. The most recent of these, the Act that we passed in 2001, extended the lives of the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 for a further five years. However, this is subject to both Houses approving an order such as this one in each intervening year. The service discipline Acts provide the statutory basis for discipline in the Armed Forces.
210
Because of that they are of critical importance, and so therefore is this order, as the means of ensuring that the discipline Acts remain in force. The draft order was approved in another place on 1st July.
The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the order addresses its compatibility with the rights provided under the European Convention on Human Rights. The order raises convention issues only in that it continues in force three Acts that have been developed over the years, by successive administrations, to reflect the rights set out in the convention. In last year's debate, I mentioned the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of Morris v the United Kingdom. That court had taken the view that the procedures for post-trial review provided for in the service discipline Acts were not compatible with Article 6 of the convention. That was on the basis that the involvement of non-judicial service authorities in the review of court martial findings and sentences impaired the independence of the court martial. They took that view even though the process is intended as a safeguard for the accused.
I advised the House last year that we had not yet decided how to react to that judgment. I did so because the same issues concerning post-trial review were also being addressed by your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity. We naturally wanted to await their Lordships' judgment before taking a decision on the future of the review procedure.
As it happens, that judgment, in the case of Boyd, Hastie and Spear, expressed a positive view of the procedure. It accepted that post-trial review served as a safeguard for the accused. The judgment also acknowledged that any changes made as a result of the review process were themselves appealable, so that the courts would be able to have the last word on the cases concerned. In formulating their own judgment, their Lordships were fully aware of the earlier Strasbourg judgment in the Morris case.
Because of the judgment by the Appellate Committee, we are able to say this year that the service discipline Acts are compatible with the convention rights and that so also is the present order continuing the Acts.
So where does that leave us? The issue of the compatibility of the review procedure has been raised again in the case of Grieves. Because of the conflicting judgments in the previous two cases, the Grieves case is going to be heard by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. The hearing will be later this year. It would, of course, be inappropriate to anticipate what this further judgment will say or to consider at this stage how we might react to it, although we are keen to have the issue settled.
One conclusion we can draw from their Lordships' judgment is that it illustrates how valuable it can be that our domestic courts are now more readily able to address convention points, following the Human Rights Act. The Grand Chamber of the European Court will now have the benefit of the arguments set out in the Appellate Committee's judgment. This has not been the case with previous cases concerning our military justice system that have gone to Strasbourg. We should see this as a positive advance.
I should now like to move on to our plans to replace the service discipline Acts with a single tri-service Act. This is in order to provide a framework of Armed Forces legislation that will better meet the future needs of the services.
We are continuing to develop policy for the proposed new legislation. The focus remains on establishing how best to harmonise the services' differing disciplinary powers and procedures. This is so that the tri-service Act will fulfil the objective of improving the administration of discipline where the services operate together. We are looking closely at the arrangements for summary discipline and for courts martial. In doing so, we are aiming to build on those aspects that are common between the services, while seeking to ensure that their requirements are appropriately reflected in the new procedures.
At the same time, we are looking at the other areas covered by the legislation, such as the system for members of the Armed Forces making complaints. This is at present essentially the same in all the services. However, the tri-service Act will be an opportunity to try to develop procedures that better meet the likely future expectations of our people.
The Government and the Armed Forces attach considerable importance to the tri-service Act project. This is reflected in the substantial resources that are being devoted to working out both the principles and the detail of the legislation. Although the work on policy development is taking a little longer than we had envisaged, this is not affecting our overall timetable. In any case, as I know the House will readily agree, it really is essential that we get the policy right. Nevertheless we hope that the next five-yearly Armed Forces Bill, due in the 2005–06 Session, can be the vehicle for the tri-service legislation. This will obviously be subject to the availability of parliamentary time for what is expected to be a very large Bill.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, is concerned about consultation on the Bill before its formal introduction. I do not intend today to outline what form such consultation will take. It is, if I may say so, a little early to do so for a Bill which is most unlikely to be introduced in either of the next two Sessions. We shall keep the options under review, and I have little doubt that nearer the time we shall discuss these through the usual channels.
However, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that we fully appreciate the depth of experience and expertise on these matters in your Lordships' House. It will certainly be our intention to assist the House by providing details of the main proposals for the tri-service Act once we have firmed these up. As I suggested last year, I imagine that this alone will be sufficient to generate reactions of various sorts from noble Lords.
Discipline in the Armed Forces is not a goal in itself. It serves the vital function of underpinning operational effectiveness. I scarcely need to remind this House of how both the effectiveness of our forces and their
212
discipline have recently been put to the most demanding of tests. They have come through with flying colours.
Our attention in the past few months has naturally been focused on the operations in the Gulf region. However, I know that the House would not want for one moment to overlook what the men and women of the three services do on our behalf, wherever they are serving at the time. They are among the nation's most priceless assets, and I am sure that the House will once again wish to join me in paying tribute to them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [18th report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for moving the order. I am grateful also for the order which will follow in due course. I wish to speak to both orders. The first concerns the annual continuation order for the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts and the second concerns the Armed Forces (Review of Search and Seizure) Order 2003. From these Benches we support these two orders and I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of the first order. I have no doubt that he will also clearly explain the second order.
I am sure that I do not need to remind your Lordships of the critical importance of high morale for our Armed Forces, which consists of the fair application of military discipline, good sound training and high military ethos. The efficiency and state of morale of a regiment is the sole responsibility of a commanding officer and for that reason such military discipline powers are vested in him. If we undermine those powers or reduce them in any way, we shall destroy the ethos and morale of regiments and may be left with inefficient regiments that may not be successful in times of conflict. I sincerely hope that no further amendments will be made to the summary discipline powers of a commanding officer and no more changes made to the courts martial system.
Throughout the drafting process of the new tri-service Bill mentioned by the Minister, I can only hope that after every clause has been drafted the question is asked: "Have we undermined or reduced the powers of a commanding officer in any way"? Should the answer be in the affirmative, the clause really must be reexamined to prevent those powers being reduced. The new Bill will be of such importance that every attempt should be made to retain the effectiveness of the military discipline system, ensuring that commanding officers retain their full powers.
I have a number of questions to ask but I shall keep my remarks short. First, I shall deal with the continuation order 2003 and then with the search and seizure order. When we processed the 2002 continuation order about a year ago, I covered a number of points that do not yet appear to have been followed up, but I expect that in due course they will be resolved.

213
Could the Minister expand on what progress has been made in the drafting of the tri-service measure so far? The Minister will recall that he said that by this year the policy development stage should be complete and that he would consider whether it would be possible to publish information about the Government's proposals. Is the policy development stage now complete?
Last year I made the observation that due to the nature of the three services and their different roles there may he a need to introduce some parts of the Bill which will be applicable only to a specific service. Could the Minister say what progress has been made in relation to the possible need for that?
This is an opportunity to comment on some disciplinary matters that have occurred in Iraq over recent months. It has been reported that two soldiers were returned from Iraq because they questioned the legality of the war and yet it would appear that no disciplinary charges will be brought against them. Could the Minister say if there is any truth in this allegation and, if there is, what are the reasons for not bringing military charges against them? A second point for concern is the allegations against a number of British soldiers who may have committed serious crimes against Iraqi prisoners of war. Will the Minister assure the House that if, as a result of investigations, the case is substantiated, the strongest possible action will be taken against them if they are found to blame?
I move to a matter that I raised last year concerning the International Criminal Court. The Minister informed me that the complementary provisions of the statute whereby we have primacy of jurisdiction in cases where our nationals are accused provide the protection that our service personnel require. He went on to say that, in other words, if the UK decided that there was no case to answer, then the International Criminal Court would not have jurisdiction unless it could claim that the United Kingdom was deliberately shielding war criminals or that the justice system had broken down. It would appear that the International Criminal Court could misinterpret or misunderstand the UK position of "no case to answer", with the understanding that the UK was unwilling or unable to proceed with a prosecution. If that happened, it could give rise to the International Criminal Court claiming jurisdiction over such an incidence. Will the Minister kindly give the House further reassurance on this issue?
I turn briefly to the second order, the Armed Forces (Review of Search and Seizure) Order 2003. I understand that the order has been laid as Part 2 of the 2001 Act, providing for the first time a statutory regime for powers of entry, search and seizure in connection with the investigations of offences under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, and that this draft order will be part of that regime. The powers of a commanding officer for entry, search and seizure of property has been discussed in great detail previously and I understand that the proposed order will continue to allow commanding officers to have those limited powers, subject to judicial review. if I am correct in my
214
assertions, will the Minister assure the House that the Armed Forces legal directorates are content with the order?
In conclusion, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women, and to the families, of our Armed Forces. They have been over-committed and many of their families have faced extra-long periods of separation. They have performed their tasks highly successfully, with great skill, bravery and determination, and I am sure that all of your Lordships, on all sides of the House, are immensely proud of all their many achievements.
In the recent defence debate, I stressed the importance of ensuring that the Armed Forces are given a fair deal. I should like to take this occasion to remind the Minister to examine now how pay, conditions of service and allowances can be increased and improved; as, otherwise, we may lose many trained and experienced servicemen. The tri-service Armed Forces disciplinary Bill is yet another part of this fair deal. It is essential that this new legislation is right and easy for commanding officers to interpret and administrate. As I have said, military discipline, in combination with the military ethos and sound training, ensures high morale and operational effectiveness.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I shall speak to both orders. The Minister mentioned the case of Grieves— confirming the court martial and the fact that the case will be heard by the European Court of European Rights. We shall have to await the outcome; but if the outcome goes against the Government, what action will be taken, and under what time-scale?
We support the move to a tri-service Act, which is seen to be in 2005–06—although the Minister said in his introduction that this will be down to the availability of time. That is a form of words often used by Ministers, but I hope that he will confirm that it will be seen as an essential piece of legislation. Its importance is such that, in another place, Dr Lewis Moonie mentioned the fact that it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, last year. It is only fair—
Lord Bach: My Lords, for the record, I think that the honourable Member to whom the noble Lord refers was my colleague the Minister, Mr Ivor Caplin.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, that was last year obviously, but Dr Moonie raised this point in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation this year. I apologise to the House for not making that clear.
The only reason I raise the point is that it is rare for this House to receive a mention in another place and the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, should be aware of the compliment paid to him by Dr Moonie. He said:
"Lord Vivian was a brigadier in the Army. He has vast experience of the armed forces, as have so many Members of the upper House. Many have served in the highest positions in each of the armed forces. The contribution that they can make to the process cannot be overestimated".

215
I mention that because, obviously, we like to believe that the debates in this House are taken note of in another place. In talking about the provisions for court martial and the changes that will be made, the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, mentioned the powers of commanding officers. We take on board the importance of the views of commanding officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, also raised the question of the two service personnel who questioned the legality of war in Iraq. Before the vote in the House of Commons, we on these Benches questioned the legality of war in Iraq. We question at what stage those prosecutions will be taken, if they are to be taken at all. However, I was interested to note from newspaper articles—I merely give this the weight that it was given in the press—the stated position of Robin Cook in regard to the legality of the war in Iraq.
We support all the work that is being done by our troops in Iraq at the present time and do not question their professionalism. We support both orders. I very much hope that the tri-service Act proposed for 2005–06 will be brought forward.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order. I remind the House that I have a peripheral interest. I say "peripheral" because I no longer serve in the Regular Army and I am not likely to called up again for some time, I hope. I serve for only a few days a year with the TA.
I have no difficulty with the orders themselves. The Minister mentioned the complaints procedure, otherwise known as the grievance procedure. I can assure him that there is much scope for improvement in the grievance procedure, particularly in respect of the time-scales to draw such matters to a conclusion.
Prior to going to the Gulf, I had to consider whether I was prepared to take the anthrax vaccination. I did. On mobilisation, it was very clearly a free, informed choice as to whether or not one was going to take the vaccination. Great efforts were made in that regard.
Interestingly, and despite trying quite hard myself, I was unable to obtain a booster vaccination in theatre. Consequently, the cost of the original vaccination, which I understand is quite expensive, was wasted, and now I have no protection against anthrax.
But during the operation in Iraq Ministers authorised the taking of the NAPS tablets—the nerve agent pre-treatment sets. NAPS is a prophylactic treatment to mitigate the effects of nerve agent poisoning. However, service personnel were compelled under military law to take the NAPS tablets. I had no difficulty with that; I wanted to take them in order to be fully protected. But can the Minister explain why military law was used to compel the taking of NAPS but not the anthrax vaccination?
8 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the Minister will be in no doubt whatever why I have risen to my feet on this subject. I have done so every year since 1997 in regard to the renewal of the tri-service Act. When the noble Lord
216
says that a tri-service discipline Act is taking a little longer than we envisaged, that is an understatement. That is clearly the case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. I have no doubt whatever that it will be many years before we have a tri-service discipline Act. There is no reason why that should be so. There was talk about the next two Sessions.
My noble friend Lord Vivian and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, were far too gentle with the Minister and with his civil servants on the delay in getting a tri-service Act together. The civil servants, the people who should be producing it, need a very serious kicking so that we can have a draft Bill by this time next year, when we next discuss the renewal of this order. I hope and believe that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, will support me on those points.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this order. Some important points have been made. I thank noble Lords for their support for the continuation order. It is very important. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said about the critical importance of high morale. That is at the centre of everything that we are trying to do in this area.
I have been asked a number of questions. One concerned why the tri-service Bill is taking so long. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in his inimitable way, suggested that there had been undue delay up to now. I do not believe that that is fair. It is likely to be a very long Bill, if it comes before Parliament at all. The House will know that after five years we must have a discipline Bill before Parliament, as we did in 2001. We very much want the next one to be the tri-service Bill. It must be understood that that will be a long piece of legislation because of the changes that it will mean to the three Acts that presently apply. Such matters take a very long time. I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said. If I am in this place this time next year I shall come here fearful and I dare say that my civil servants will come even more fearful.
Why the delay? What is holding up matters? I want to be frank with the House. I said that we hoped that the policy development would be complete and it is not. I have to concede that. In principle, the services have agreed that the tri-service Bill, as it is called, should provide for a single system of service law, which would replace the separate systems that we are used to. If achieved it would mean that for the first time personnel in all three services will have the same rights and be subject to the same disciplinary powers. In many of those areas—for example, in the courts martial system—the services have largely agreed on common future procedures that will make the service system of law a reality.
There are some significant issues of detail that remain to be decided. notably in the key area of summary discipline. The three services are proud of their traditions and the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, knows them as well as anyone in the House. It has not yet been possible to settle on a harmonised level of

217
powers to be exercisable by commanding officers. The main difficulty is the extent of the present differences between the Royal Navy and the other services.
At present the Royal Navy is able to deal summarily with a much wider range of offences and is able to award greater punishment than either the Army or the RAF. The Royal Navy has a maximum period in detention of 90 days, for example, rather than the 60 days available to the other two services. Work continues on finding a suitable harmonised level of powers. That is a key issue for a tri-service Act and one that we shall have to solve. Perhaps for once it is not fair to blame the Civil Service, but we should perhaps ask the services themselves to come to an accommodation on that. I am confident that in the normal way they will.
I was asked about discipline in two different forms by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. One was in relation to the two soldiers who were mentioned in the newspapers. The point was taken at length by his honourable friend in another place, but that is not a good point. The two soldiers returned home for different and separate reasons. One soldier wanted to go home because of a serious domestic problem which I do not intend to go into. Through discussion with the soldier, the real reasons for him wanting to get out of Iraq were identified. The soldier was compassionately returned to the UK; he is still serving with his regiment and has no desire to leave the Army. It would have been inappropriate for disciplinary action to have been considered in his case.
The second soldier was a young man who suffered psychiatric problems during his time in the Gulf. He was returned home for medical reasons and assessed as being temperamentally unsuited to military service and has been discharged. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that both those cases—I shall not go into any more detail—were suitably dealt with, as is often the case.
We know that there are a number of allegations against British soldiers of mistreatment of Iraqis. As the noble Lord would expect, we take such allegations extremely seriously and full investigations are taking place. I shall not comment on any individual case today.
On a tri-service Act and on undermining commanding officers, it is key that any changes should underpin operational effectiveness. That, of course, means the commanding officer's role still being very important.
I was asked about the International Criminal Court. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, need worry. As he knows, the purpose of the International Criminal Court is to ensure that those who commit the gravest crimes do not do so with impunity. Those crimes are crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. There is no question of the ICC investigating any allegations of breaches of international law other than the ones in statute.
UK service personnel are not at risk from malicious or politically motivated investigation or prosecution by the ICC. Under the statute, the UK has
218
complementary jurisdiction to the ICC, so it is for the UK, and not the International Criminal Court, to investigate and if necessary prosecute any allegations against UK personnel.
The ICC could intervene against our wishes only if it could claim that the UK was unwilling or unable to proceed; in effect, that means that our system of justice needs to have broken down or that we were deliberately shielding something. In my view, that is inconceivable.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, tempts me to say what we would do about the Grieves case. In the words of a very famous former Liberal Prime Minister, he will have to wait and see. Of course we are not going to commit ourselves at this stage, nor would he expect us to. As far as a tri-service Act is concerned, we shall do our best, as he requests.
I was particularly pleased to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. We know that he served in the Gulf. He was too modest about his role. As noble Lords from all sides of the House have said, we are very proud indeed to have him as one of our number. I am flattering him to some extent because I do not have the faintest idea what the answer is to the question with which he finished his speech. I promise to write to the noble Earl as soon as I possibly can with the answer.
The noble Earl referred to grievance procedures being too long. We recognise the need to speed up decisions. That is part of the work we are effecting on the tri-service legislation.
I hope that I have covered the questions asked by noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces (Review of Search and Seizure) Order 2003
8.10 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order will be made under the Armed Forces Act 2001, which requires that it will follow the affirmative procedure, needing approval by both Houses. The draft was approved in another place on 2nd July.
Part 2 of the 2001 Act provides a statutory regime for powers of entry, search and seizure in connection with the investigations of offences under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957. It does not affect commanding officers' powers to authorise searches within their units for purposes other than the investigation of offences, or to search service premises that are not living accommodation. That is spelt out in Section 16 of the Act.
By and large, Part 2 reflects the procedures that have to be followed by the civil police under the Police: and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Thus, the usual

219
procedure for entering and searching premises will be by warrant granted by a judicial officer under Section 5 of the Act.
However, Part 2 is also designed to cater for the realities of service life. It is recognised that it will not always be practicable in the Armed Forces to obtain a warrant in advance of an entry and search of premises. Section 7 of the Act therefore provides commanding officers with a limited power to authorise a search without a warrant of the living accommodation of persons under their command.
Following a search under Section 7, in which property has been seized and retained, Section 8 provides that the commanding officer must request a judicial officer to undertake a review of the search and of the seizure and retention of the property. That is to provide appropriate retrospective safeguards in the absence of a warrant. Section 8 also enables the Secretary of State to make orders prescribing the powers and duties of judicial officers in respect of these reviews. This draft order sets out those powers and duties, particularly the criteria for decisions on the retention or return of property that has been seized. The judicial officer shall adopt such procedures at the review as he sees fit, although he shall take into account representations made by certain people, including the officer who authorised the search and the occupier of the premises that were searched.
The draft order details the circumstances when seized property should be returned. Special provision is made for when the judicial officer is satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice to permit the retention of property. The legal services in the Armed Forces are content with this section of the Bill. They were obviously consulted when the Bill went through the House and of course they have been consulted on this draft order.
Part 2 of the 2001 Act responds to the need for the services to remove uncertainty and to have a clear structure and definition for their powers of search and the seizure of property. It is planned that it will be commenced in its entirety on 30th September this year. The provisions of this order have to be in place before Part 2 as a whole can take effect. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th April be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Vivian: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have nothing further to add to my original statement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.37 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.14 p.m. to 8.37 p.m.]

Communications Bill
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 268.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 242. line 23, leave out subsection (11 ).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 278 [Appointed news providers.for Channel 3]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 252, line 45. leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 to 45. 72, 80, 117, 119, 122, 126 and 145 to 147.
During Committee we listened with interest to very considerable debate on the nomination and ownership rules for the Channel 3 news provider. We were convinced by the arguments in favour of their removal. I indicated on Report that I would be tabling amendments to make changes to the Bill. These amendments lift most of the ownership restrictions of the Channel 3 news provider and remove the obligation that the news provider be selected from bodies nominated by Ofcom.
The Bill will still require that national news on regional Channel 3 programmes is provided by a single body corporate, but removes the system that requires that body to be nominated by Ofcom.
The amendments will remove the rules restricting anyone from owning more than 20 per cent of the appointed news provider, which prevented ITV from owning its own news provider.
Ownership restrictions will still apply so that any body which is prevented from holding a Channel 3 licence by Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act faces equivalent restrictions as regards being. or having an interest in, the Channel 3 news provider. For example, political bodies would not be able to be, control, or own more than a 5 per cent interest in, the news provider.
In addition, ownership restrictions that apply to a Channel 3 licence also apply to the news provider so that, for example, a national or local newspaper with 20 per cent or more of the market cannot be the Channel 3 news provider. A national newspaper with 20 per cent or more of the market cannot have more than a 20 per cent share in the news provider and the news provider cannot have more than a 20 per cent interest in such a newspaper.
We believe that these rules are fair. It would be odd, to say the least, to allow a body that could not hold a Channel 3 licence to provide the news for it. The current rules prevent anyone from holding more than a 20 per cent interest in the news provider, so the new rules leave those affected in the same position as everyone is under current rules.
We have been careful to maintain the quality regulation applied to the news provider contract. There will continue to he provisions requiring that

221
Channel 3's national news is able to compete with other national news services. The requirements for Ofcom to approve the contract for the appointed news provider to ensure that it is adequately funded will also remain.
We have also included provisions so that Ofcom will be able to obtain all the information it needs from ITV or the appointed news provider to assure itself that the necessary arrangements are in place and working properly. We are grateful to both ITN and ITV, whom we have consulted on the transitional provisions.
The Bill as amended will also allow for the creation of a Channel 5 scheme comparable to the appointed news provider system for Channel 3 and we will be able to modify by order the quality and ownership aspects of the Channel 3 scheme and any Channel 5 scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation of the purpose and effect of these amendments. He made a fulsome statement at the Report stage in which he signalled that the Government had been persuaded by the case for change and he has been true to his word.
These amendments are good news for ITN and will help to ensure that there is strong competition in the news supply market between ITN, the BBC and Sky News in the years to come.
In removing unnecessary ownership regulation and the arcane nominated news provider arrangements, these amendments bring the Bill closer to the Government's original intention. But, importantly, as the Minister has said, they also retain the quality aspects of Clause 278 that require ITV to supply a news programme that is competitive with other national news programmes and that give Ofcom the power to approve the terms of any future contract as adequate to deliver ITV's news obligations.
I understand from discussions with ITN and ITV that the amendments in no way affect the status of the current ITV news contract, which will run unchanged until 2008, and that they will have no effect on other important ITN contracts such as that for Channel 4. That is good news.
Finally, I thank the Minister once again for bringing forward these amendments and for being persuaded of the case for change that was made so eloquently by distinguished Members on all sides of your Lordships' House. We support the amendments.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I echo what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I had great pleasure in working with her on these matters at an earlier stage of the Bill. Would that we could have worked together on some other aspects—but there it is.
It was touching to find that the 20:20 rules, which at four o'clock today were part of yesterday's legislation, appear back spanking new. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is not present to hear that. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, this is good news; it is a win-win situation.
222
It is good news for the British people because they have a chance of getting ITN back to its glory days. One of the interesting issues about the Iraq war was that when ITN was given the extra resources during the war, it showed that it had lost none of its old élan, skills and zip. That is only to the good.
Whatever happens as regards the ownership of ITV, surely the lesson is that a news provider which is an integral part of the organisation, as BBC news is with BBC and Sky News is with Sky, is better cared for and a better organisation. That gives us genuine competition, quality and diversity, which is to he welcomed.
I welcome the positive way in which the Minister has approached the matter and we fully support the amendments.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Howe of ldlicote: My Lords, I was one of the signatories on the previous occasion. I should also like to thank the Minister for seeing the sense of what was proposed and coming forward with these amendments. I know how happy everyone concerned is.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 34 to 40:
Page 253, line 3, leave out "such an appointment is made" and insert "a body is appointed as the appointed news provider"
Page 253, line 5, leave out from beginning to "appointment" in line 6 and insert "body's finances are adequate, throughout the period of its"
Page 253, line 9, leave out "such"
Page 253, line 9, at end insert—
"(3A) The conditions imposed under this section must include the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing that arrangements maintained between—

(a) the holders of regional Channel 3 licences, and

(b) the body which is the appointed the news provider,

ensure that that body is subject to an obligation. enforceable by OFCOM, to provide OFCOM with all such information as they may require for the purpose of carrying out their functions."
Page 253, line 12, leave out "person who" and insert "body which"
Page 253, line 36, after "(d)" insert "or (3A)"
Page 253, line 37, at end insert?—
"() Section 32 of the 1990 Act (nomination of bodies eligible for appointment as news providers) shall cease to have effect."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 278, insert the following new clause—
"DISQUALIFICATION FROM APPOINTMENT AS NEWS PROVIDER

(1) The regulatory regime for every regional Channel 3 service includes the conditions that OFCOM consider appropriate for securing—

(a) that a body is not appointed as the appointed news provider if it falls within subsection (2); and

223

(b) that the appointment of a body as the appointed news provider ceases to have effect if it becomes a body falling within that subsection.

(2) A body falls within this subsection if—

(a) it is a disqualified person under Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act in relation to a Channel 3 licence; or

(b) there would be a contravention of Part 1 of Schedule 14 to this Act (whether by that body or by another person) if that body held a licence to provide a Channel 3 service, or held a licence to provide such a service for a particular area for which such a service is provided."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 279 [Power to repeal Channel 3 news provider provisions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 253, line 40, leave out from "repeal" to end of line and insert "or otherwise modify any of the provisions of section 278 or (Disqualification from appointment as news provider)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 280 [News providers for Channel 5]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 45:
Page 254. line 11, leave out from "278" to end of line 12 and insert "or (Disqualification from appointment as news provider)"
Page 254, line 14, leave out from "278" to end and insert "or (Disqualification from appointment as news provider)"
Page 254, line 19, leave out "person" and insert "body"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 283 [Regional programme-making for Channels 3 and 5]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 257, line 22, at end insert—
"() A proportion is not to be regarded by OFCOM as suitable for the purposes of a provision of this section if it constitutes less than a significant proportion of the programmes or expenditure in question."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the previous stages, we had a debate which I thought was rather theological at times on the words "suitable and sufficient". My noble friend Lord Puttnam accused me of missing a slam dunk opportunity—whatever that means—to make a meaningful concession. We are not missing the slam dunk opportunity now. We felt that the words then proposed were too loose and might not provide Ofcom with the tools necessary to ensure that levels of regional production and programming are sustained in the future. However, we recognised the strength of feeling and we undertook to do what we could to address the concerns expressed. This could be by incorporating the word "significant" along with a qualification—which we believe is immensely important—to ensure that Ofcom retains the flexibility it needs to treat different services differently.
We undertook to come back with suggestions on Third Reading, which is what we have done. Amendment No. 46 provides that in determining what is a suitable proportion for the purpose of Clause 283, Ofcom must not regard a proportion as suitable if it constitutes less than a significant proportion of the
224
programmes or expenditure in question. The suitable proportions in question are the proportion of Channel 3 or Channel 4 programmes to be made in the United Kingdom outside the M25 area. We also detail the proportion of expenditure by the providers of Channel 3 services or the Channel 5 service on programme production at different production centres outside the M25 area.
Amendment No. 48 makes similar provision to Clause 285, which deals with Channel 4. Although the amendments tabled on Report did not cover Channel 4, we think that equivalent changes should be made in the interests of consistency.
Amendment No. 47 provides that in determining what is a suitable proportion for the purpose of Clause 284, Ofcom must not regard a proportion as suitable if it constitutes less than a significant proportion of the programmes in question. The suitable programmes in question here are the proportion of regional local programmes to be made in the area for which the service is provided and the proportion of regional programmes, other than news, to be shown at or adjacent to peak time.
We believe that these amendments deal with the points of concern expressed in this House while preserving the essential flexibility for Ofcom and avoiding undue interference in broadcasters' commissioning and scheduling decisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we support Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said on Report that it is important that we get this matter right so that the production of television programmes in the regions is nurtured and sustained. But as the Minister pointed out, it is also important that Ofcom retains sufficient flexibility. It must be able to take account of the differences between smaller ITV licensees such as Border Television and the larger areas such as Granada, as well as the differences between Channels 3, 4, and 5. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell requested on Report that the Government meet the proponents of this cause half way. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said that he would,
"settle comfortably on the word 'significant"'.—[Official Report, 1/7/03; col. 837.]
rather than "substantial". These amendments do precisely that and I therefore support the Minister.
Lord McNally: My Lords, if the Minister does not think it frivolous or light-hearted, I wish to say that these are slam-dunk amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 284 [Regional programmes on Channel 3]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 259, line 18, at end insert—
"() A proportion is not to be regarded by OFCOM as suitable for the purposes of a provision of this section if it constitutes less than a significant proportion of the programmes in question."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 285 [Regional programme-making for Channel 4]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 260, line 15, at end insert—
"() A proportion is not to be regarded by OFCOM as suitable for the purposes of a provision of this section if it constitutes less than a significant proportion of the programmes or expenditure in question."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 300 [Code relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired]:
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 268, line 26, at end insert "and
(iii) persons with a dual sensory impairment."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Clause 306 [Code of practice for electronic programme guides]:
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendments No. 51 and 52:
Page 273, line 9, leave out from second "promotion" to end of line 11 and insert ", for members of its intended audience, of the programmes included in each public service channel; and
(b) the facilities, in the case of each such channel, for members of its intended audience to select or access the programmes included in it."
Page 273. line 34, at end insert—
"() In this section "intended audience", in relation to a service of any description, means

(a) if the service is provided only for a particular area or locality of the United Kingdom, members of the public in that area or locality;

(b) if it is provided for members of a particular community, members of that community; and

(c) in any other case, members of the public in the United Kingdom."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, throughout Committee and Report stages, there was general agreement that the obligation to give due prominence to the listing of public service channels on EPGs should apply to the national or regional variation of those channels provided for the area in which the channel was being watched; for example, BBC Wales in Wales or Granada in the North West. There were also concerns that we should find a form of words that gave the clearest possible indication of our public policy objective without predicting the outcome of any commercial negotiations that operators would need to conclude if we were to see the objective delivered.
The amendments reconcile those different aims. Their effect would be that, where a public service channel is provided in different versions for different regions or areas, a viewer watching the channel in one of those areas could access the relevant version of the channel through the channel's primary EPG listing.
To make it crystal clear, it is a matter of public policy that all regional variations of a public service channel should benefit from due prominence to the same extent.
226
How that is achieved is a matter that should be determined through commercial negotiations under Ofcom's supervision.
I hope that that statement will reassure both those who want regional versions of public service channels to be given due prominence, and those who want to make it clear that, in order to achieve that objective, broadcasters would pay, on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, for access to EPG and conditional access systems in so far as that was needed to secure regionalisation. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we support the amendments. We welcome the Minister's statement.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 309 [Consultation about change of character of local services]:
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 275, line 15, leave out "section 106(1A)" and insert "subsection (1A) of section 106"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 55. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 54 and 56, which we reject. It is right to require Ofcom to consult on a request for a departure from the character of a station. However, I do not accept that a requirement to consult places significant additional burdens on the industry. The process of requesting a change is no different from current arrangements, and there is no requirement on a radio station to do anything different or additional to what is currently required.
The clause does not require radio stations to incur any expenditure. Any costs incurred by the radio industry will be those that they have chosen to incur, and entirely at their discretion. Some additional costs may be incurred by Ofcom in considering representations, but those are likely to be minimal and are justified by a more accountable and more transparent process.
I am also confident that Ofcom, mindful of its general duties, will exercise this duty in a way that minimises the costs to the radio industry. I am therefore satisfied that it should be Ofcom's duty to consult. We have included the provision because it is important that, where appropriate, Ofcom should seek the views of others before allowing a departure from the character of a station.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Eatwell, who is unable to attend this evening, sees merit in the government amendments. I am very grateful for that. I am in some ways sympathetic to the idea that Ofcom need only consult where the departure is significant, as set out in Amendment No. 54. However, unfortunately, the amendment as drafted would create an unwelcome clash of language between the new consultation provision that would apply when the departure was significant and the language of new subsection (1A), which allows Ofcom to make a departure where it is satisfied that it would not substantially alter the character of the service.
I am pleased to report that I seem to have succeeded in persuading my noble friend Lord Eatwell of the merits of that case. He would not press his amendment if he were present, as he would be supporting the government amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I have good news for the Minister because we support his amendment and would have opposed the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, took the words right out of my mouth.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, to have the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the plaudits of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, are rewards above and beyond anything I have ever deserved. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 275, line 17, after "licence" insert "on any of the grounds mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (d) of that subsection"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Clause 313 [Exercise of Broadcasting Act powers for a competition purpose]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No.57:
Page 278, line 14, leave out "and"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 57 to 69, which concern economic regulation and appeal.
I return to an issue that we debated extensively in Committee, and again on Report, and which I seek again to address through my amendments. It is an extremely important issue that concerns the scope of broadcasters' rights to appeal regulatory decisions of an economic nature to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. I am disappointed that we made no further progress on this matter on Report, and I believe that the Government's answers so far have failed to address all the concerns that I have raised.
Under Ofcom's Competition Act powers or its sector-specific competition powers, economic regulation is, by definition, a matter of competition, and decisions taken through these routes by Ofcom are subject to full rights of appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. Regulation of broadcasters through their licences "for a competition purpose" is also subject to full rights of appeal to the CAT, when that is the only or main reason for the decision.
My concern, however, lies with the very real possibility that Ofcom may decide to undertake economic regulation of broadcasters—their pricing or packaging of channels, for example—for reasons that
228
have nothing to do with competition. Ofcom could, for example, use its duties under Clause 3 of the Bill to undertake such regulation—either, as I have said before, using its duties to further the interests of citizens or consumers in relevant markets or—and this is important—to secure the availability of a wide range of TV and radio services.
In such instances, the Bill would provide no right of appeal to the CAT, and instead would allow only for the more limited route of judicial review, which looks at the decision-making process only and not the merits of the decision. That contrasts with the economic regulation of, for example, telephony providers under Part 2 of the Bill, in which all decisions are subject to appeal to the CAT.
In Committee and on Report, the Minister sought to reassure me on this matter. He argued that, because the duty in Clause 3 to promote the interests of consumers is limited by the parameter,
"where appropriate by promoting competition",
it would be,
"hard to imagine a situation where any intervention in pricing and packaging of channels … would not be undertaken using Ofcom's competition powers".
It therefore follows that I get the result that I desire that,
"Such an intervention would have a route of appeal to the CAT".—[Official Report, 1/7/03; col. 867]
As far as it goes, that is a welcome reassurance. At least now, in the case of the duty to promote the interests of citizens and consumers in relevant markets, we have an indication from the Minister that, in practice, any economic regulation relating to the pricing and packaging under this duty will be appealable to the CAT. However, I am afraid that this is only a partial answer. As I have said, economic regulation of broadcasters could also take place under the Clause 3 duty to secure,
"the availability throughout the UK of a wide range of television and radio services".
My concern, therefore, does not just lie with the duty to further the interests of citizens. In his answers on Report and in Committee, the Minister appeared to misunderstand that point. On Report, he said:
"The amendment…stems from her concern…that if Ofcom undertakes economic regulation other than for a competition purpose…under its duty in Clause 3 to promote the interests of consumers that broadcaster would not have a route of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal".—[Official Report. 1/7/03; col. 868.]
That is not my argument. It goes wider than that, as I have just explained and as I explained in Committee and on Report. I am mystified as to why the Minister's answers fail to address the wider concerns that I have outlined and continue to focus on just one part of them.
I have been brief in my comments, given the time already taken up by the matter. I hope that, even at this late stage in our deliberations, the Government will see the merits of the arguments that I have put forward in this and other debates and will accept my amendment. I beg to move.
9 P.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, emphasised, we have debated the issues at some length. I am sorry that I have not been able to reassure her sufficiently for her not to have tabled the amendments at this stage.
We must be clear about the issues contained in the amendment. It is important to understand the consequences of accepting the amendments. We believe that they have been prompted by a particular broadcaster, a point that noble Lords will wish to bear in mind. Accepting the amendments would risk opening the door to a regulatory regime that is very different from that contained in the Bill. The amendments would seriously damage Ofcom's ability to regulate effectively and flexibly. In particular, they would prevent Ofcom from taking proper account, alongside the important economic and competition issues, of the wider public and consumer issues that we have been pressed to include in the Bill, as we always intended.
Several noble Lords and others have expressed a strong desire to see such interests properly protected. The draft Bill contained many references to that necessity. However, we have also made changes to the Bill as a result of pressure from all parts of the House. We have explained in detail the many procedural and other safeguards against misuse by Ofcom of powers in that area. It is vital that Ofcom is not made subject to further unnecessary handicaps such as the amendments would create.
The noble Baroness will appreciate that I could go on at considerable length about the Government's case. I had great difficulty engaging the attention of noble Lords on the issues in Committee and on Report. Regrettably, we have not reached the agreement that I should have liked. At this late hour, I have no intention of reiterating all the arguments that I have presented in the past. Suffice it to say that we understand that there is at least one broadcaster who is anxious about the provision. I have tried to indicate that, if we met those representations, we would recast the regulatory structure of the Bill. In particular, we would reduce the impact and the effectiveness of the structure that is being created by due deliberation in the House of propositions that we have accepted.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, having moved the amendment with her usual acumen, will think that I have a strong enough case to prevent her from pressing it.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He will not be surprised to hear that I am disappointed by it. It is an important issue, and we have raised it repeatedly.
I hear what the Minister says. I hear his concerns that the amendment could seriously damage Ofcom's power to regulate effectively and flexibly. Obviously, we must seek to avoid that. I shall not press the amendments; it would not be appropriate to do so at this late stage. However, I hope that Ofcom will take on board some of the issues that we raised in the
230
debates and address some of them head-to-head—if I may put it that way—with the broadcasters who are particularly concerned about them. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 58 to 65 not moved.]
Clause 314 [Review of powers exercised for competition purposes]:
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 69 not moved.]
Clause 333 [Promotion of equal opportunities and training]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 295, line 3, leave out "fair treatment of" and insert "equalisation of opportunities for"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 344 [Modification of disqualification provisions]:
Lord Fowler Lord Fowler moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 301, line 28, at end insert "only in relation to individuals and bodies corporate domiciled in countries which offer full reciprocal arrangements for British individuals and bodies corporate to own radio and television services"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 71, I recall that earlier today the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said of another amendment that it was better to be late than inflexible. Although it is late in the day, I very much hope that he will not prove to be inflexible on this issue.
The intention of the amendment is straightforward. It is that there should be reciprocal arrangements between one country and another on the ownership of radio and television services. The essential proposition is that if the rules in Britain allow a company in another country to take over a broadcasting organisation, such as ITV, British media companies should have the same rights in that other country. It would allow free trade on the basis of equal rights on a level playing field. It would bring the law into line with the position inside the European Union, where there are full reciprocal arrangements.
The Government's position is significantly different from that. For example, they would certainly allow American media companies to take over ITV, but they are content that there are no reciprocal arrangements with the United States. We would therefore give complete freedom to an American company to own a British television company, but British companies would face a ban on ownership in the United States. It is not a question of being anti-American or protectionist. As it happens, I am passionately pro-American, and frankly I doubt whether any American administration that I can remember would have been daft enough to contemplate the one-sided arrangement that apparently the British Government are to go along with. Nor do I think that it is protectionist to allow access to our market but to insist that we should have equal rights. It seems self-evident business common sense. If the Government's aim is to

231
negotiate reciprocal arrangements, I cannot see what will have been gained by throwing away our strongest negotiating card.
When the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, proposed a similar amendment at Report stage, the Minister sought to dismiss these arguments as of no consequence. Let us examine the Government's case. It will be noted that the legislation that the Government seek to change is the Broadcasting Act 1990, in which, I remember only too well, my noble friend Lady Thatcher took a very close personal interest, to which I and others in this House can testify. She saw no reason to change the law, and she can hardly be described as either protectionist or anti-American.
Even more to the point is the fact that up to 18 months ago the present Government saw no reason to change the law either. In November 2001, the Government said:
"Without reciprocal arrangements with other nations that will allow our own companies to expand into their markets, we do not feel that we could justify lifting our ban at the present time".
That was the present Government's position only 18 months ago. Therefore, I think that we can agree, if on nothing else, to dismiss the argument that this amendment and the amendment proposed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, are of no consequence. Until a very short time ago, that was the policy of both major parties in this House.
The Minister had additional arguments. First, he said on Report that the United States were not imposing a full ban. A British company could invest 20 per cent, even at times 25 per cent, in an American broadcasting company. Therefore, the proposition is that one party can take full control and full ownership, while British companies can take 20 per cent. It is precisely because that position is so inherently unsatisfactory that in another part of the Bill we are changing the ownership regulations relating to ITV and ITN.
Secondly, he said that we are not unique and that other countries have no reciprocal arrangements either—namely, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, as well as Germany, Spain and New Zealand. In practice, I think that in some of those countries a would-be investor from overseas might find himself in some practical difficulties when it comes to it. But leave that as it may.
What is beyond doubt is that the issue of direct concern is of much greater concern to Britain than to any other country. There is no conceivable doubt about that. For the chairman of a big United States media company, the prize would not be Finland or Belgium, it would be ITV in Britain, which under this Bill will have the right to own ITN. There is a big population in this country; there is no difficulty in language; and there is the opportunity to distribute programmes and share news services. It is a natural target as far as an American company is concerned.
Why therefore have the Government changed their mind? The Minister says that the reason is that they have listened to everyone who has taken part in the debate, including the Joint Committee—well,
"Up to a point, Lord Copper".
The fact is that they have listened to some. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who has added his name to this amendment, can speak for himself. But I observe that the Joint Committee's point was not that this was irrelevant, it was a rather different and rather longer point than that. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me while I read it. The Joint Committee stated that,
"as matters stand, we do not view the argument on reciprocity as pivotal. If the economic case for permitting US investment emerged as compelling, we would see no impediment in principle in the form of waiting for reciprocal developments. But that case has yet to be established. OFCOM will face an enormous range of challenges immediately after it assumes its regulatory functions. We do not feel that it should face the additional pressure that would arise from the lifting of restrictions on non-EEA ownership until it has established itself as an effective regulator that commands market and public confidence".
It went on, of course, to make a detailed proposition.
The fact is that it is not just that the Government did not go along with my proposal; the Government did not go along with the Joint Committee's proposal either, which was the proposal that they voted down last week. They can hardly claim that they have been listening to what the Joint Committee said. The Minister's arguments would be stronger had not the Government's listening process led not only to the rejection of the reciprocal arrangement solution but also of the solution put forward by the Joint Committee.
I have no doubt that the Government have been listening to some on this issue, but on the issue of foreign ownership I do not think that it was the Joint Committee that they were listening to mainly. The Minister says that we should not be diverted by the issue of reciprocity. Indeed, he sets out a rather wider proposition than that. Again, I quote from the debate on Report:
"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".—[Official Report, 2/7/03; col. 935.]
That is a pretty extreme statement for the Government to make. Is that actually the Government's position? If the position was, for example, that we already had full reciprocal arrangements with the United States but not with France and Germany, would they be introducing this change to the law which would give France and Germany rights without any equality in return? I dare say that one or two newspapers might be challenging such a policy; I dare say that my party would be challenging such a policy; and I dare say that the Government would not be risking the collective wrath by introducing such a policy.
There are some in this House who would impose a full ban on foreign ownership and for whom the amendment does not go far enough. I agree with them to the extent that the issues raised by the ownership of media companies are different in kind from those surrounding ownership of a normal commercial company. They are different not because media

233
companies are better than normal companies, but because media companies are an integral part of the democratic process.
The decision on whether there can be foreign ownership has now effectively been taken. That cannot be undone. The amendment is designed to recognise the new world in respect of that issue and to say quite simply, and fairly moderately, that British companies should have equal rights to build up their own media businesses to those we are giving to people overseas. That is our proposition, and it is not an extreme one. It is the kind of proposition that both Conservative and Labour Governments ascribed to up until a few months ago. I very much hope that, even at this stage, the Government will reverse their position. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment with some enthusiasm. I made most of the points that needed to be made during the debate on non-EEA ownership. My task has been simplified by the speech of my noble friend Lord Fowler, because he has taken up two points that I was going to comment on.
The Minister on Report uncharacteristically misrepresented the position of the Joint Committee. He said that our position, which was given in detail by my noble friend Lord Fowler, was a politer way of saying that the issue was a red herring. I do not think that that was the Committee's position, and my noble friend Lord Fowler has explained why that was a misrepresentation.
In that debate, the Minister spoke about the importance of opening up our industry to inward investment, and said that that was the compelling argument. I spent a large part of my ministerial career in encouraging, with some success, inward investment into this country. I doubt if there was any Minister who undertook quite so many overseas foreign investment missions to the United States, the Far East and parts of Europe, all with great success, so I do not need to be told why we need foreign investment. However, the overriding reason why we sought to attract that inward investment was that it gave us a base from which we could take our industrial production into Europe and other parts of the world. That is why we did it. In this case, we are talking about our industry's ability to export its products into the greatest available markets, of which the United States is by far the most important.
The Minister said on Report that when dealing with an issue of such importance as the liberalisation of world trade we should not be diverted by the issue of reciprocity. That is an odd way to enter into a negotiation about reciprocity—to throw away one's cards. It does not appear that all members of the Government feel that the issue is entirely irrelevant and should be discarded. The Secretary of' State for Culture, Media and Sport, when giving evidence to the Joint Committee, did not put that argument to us. Indeed, she told us that the decision to lift restrictions was being used as a negotiating tool in discussions with
234
US authorities. It is a rather odd negotiating tool—to say that we will give everything away. She clearly thought that it was not entirely convincing herself, as she then said that there was no case for holding out for a reciprocal agreement because no change in US policy appeared in prospect.
It is extraordinary to argue that we should not attempt to get reciprocation because we do not believe that there is much chance of winning the argument. As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, said, it is particularly perverse given that we are getting quite deep into GATT discussions on that very issue. To surrender our negotiating position in such a way is very odd indeed.
The hour is now late and the arguments have been advanced. This discussion is all part of the wider debate that we have had about the good sense of allowing overseas investment without some control and protection. I warmly support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord McNally: My Lords, not for the first time in this journey, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. Lord Crickhowell. I should make it clear that we on these Benches have never been hostile to foreign ownership or production in our media industries. However, from the start of this exercise there have been two curious contradictions.
The noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Fowler. referred to the rum way of conducting trade negotiations, in which one throws in one's hand before the negotiations start. That ties in with another aspect—how far we have retreated in recent years. I started this exercise in the belief that we had in ITV, particularly a unified ITV with its own news provider, the basis of a company that could be a world player. It has always seemed odd to me that we should put that company in play at the most vulnerable time of its existence, rather than that it should be given the opportunity to regroup and find its real worth, as the Joint Committee suggested.
ITV was never given that chance, owing to what I can only call an animosity towards it from within the Government that has almost reached the stage of a vendetta. There appears to be .a belief that existing ITV management had somehow betrayed and let down the Government and that it was so worthless that almost anyone would do better at running ITV. I have never really got to the bottom of that, but it is true. I have spent the past two years attending seminars, round tables and conferences, and I have heard things at the margin from very involved people working at No. 10 and in departments. That animosity is not a figment of my imagination. The Minister must know as well as anyone else the contempt with which ITV has been referred to by people who have had a hand in drafting the strategy. It is both unfair and quite barmy, and it has produced a strange policy whereby we give away our negotiating hand in advance and then go forward on what can only be called a wing and a prayer.
I went to a Royal Television Society seminar address by Tessa Jowell. This takes us right back to Second Reading. She said that this was a magnificent win-win situation in which we would get American management,

235
skills and money while retaining the power to make our own programmes and sustain our own creative industries. It would be a wonderful win-win situation, but there is not one shred of evidence to support that possibility.
All of the pre-legislative committee's demands to give Ofcom the time to turn its expert eyes to this matter have been steadfastly refused. Instead, our approach continues to be that of a wing and a prayer. It is astonishing that some of the very successful names which might have sprung to mind a few years ago as welcome buyers of ITV have been responsible for some of the most massive losses and most astounding mismanagement in world corporate history. Again we see the danger.
In this part of the Bill, as in so many other parts, I think that the Government are mounting a tiger. I truly wonder where they will end up in that rather exciting ride.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. As I said at the previous stage, it is almost unbelievable that we should be giving away our rights without demanding something in return. The man in the street will find it even more unbelievable that the House of Commons did not debate this issue at all, and still more unbelievable that the House to which he must turn to serve as custodian of the nation's interests is liable to give in on it.
It has already been stated that, until quite recently, it was government policy and opposition policy that we do not give anything without getting something in return. The Government's response has been, "We have listened to representations"—but representations from whom? Have they come from the BBC? The BBC is against foreign ownership without reciprocity. Have they come from ITV? It is against foreign ownership without reciprocity. Have they come from Channel 4? Channel 4 is against foreign ownership without reciprocity. From whom have they come? Send your answers on a postcard, please. The only bodies that have offered any evidence to the Government in favour of foreign ownership without reciprocity is Sky and the allies of Sky. No one else is in favour.
We have heard claims at various times in the Bill's passage that we have the finest broadcasting system in the world and we must protect it. Do we really believe that? If we believe it, why do we deny our broadcasting system access to the biggest market in the world—to the United States, with which we share a common language? Why do we make it less likely that our broadcasting interests can achieve reciprocity in the United States by giving away our strongest card?
When the Government published the White Paper they shocked many by saying that they favoured a unified ITV. What was their justification? It was that such an organisation could play a part on the world stage. But would it be the world stage? We would have to forget America because America will not let us in. Perhaps it could be called the world second-stage stage. It is just a nonsense.
236
If we believe that reciprocity is desirable, as some Ministers have said it is, then surely we should play our cards to try to achieve that end. The way to do that is to refuse America entry into the UK until we get entry into America. I fully concede that the economies of scale are such that it is unlikely that a British company will take over one of the American networks, but it could at least take over individual television stations or radio stations in major city outlets in the United States. That would be a beginning. If we truly believe that we are better at this than the United States, then that is something in which we should have confidence. We should not be virtually ruling that out by giving the Americans what they want without their having to give anything in return.
It is worth remembering that America is the most powerful nation in the world with huge internal market power and yet it considers it appropriate to impose a limit that no foreigner can own more than 20 per cent of the American media. Why does it consider that appropriate? Why is it so afraid of competition from anywhere else in the world? Are there not perhaps lessons for us in that? Why should we give in so easily?
On Report it was said that all this was really covered by the plurality test. It is not. It is a totally separate issue. I have never met Signor Berlusconi and I do not know whether he is a nice man or not. He may well be a lot nicer than the British media portray him to be. If he applied to take over ITV, he would not fall foul of any nationality interests because he is an EU citizen, but under the public interest test one might wish at least to examine whether it was desirable that he should own our media. The two issues are totally separate. What would happen if an American media company tried to acquire British media? If we had reciprocity with the United States, that company would be allowed in. It would then pass or fail the public interest test, but without nationality being taken into account. It would stand or fall according to how it met the other tests to which Ofcom would subject it. But if it did not grant Britain reciprocity in the United States, it would not even reach that stage. It would not be considered.
It is honestly incredible that we are giving away something that we regard as one of Britain's finest achievements without a fight. I am extremely sad that the Government should have thought of this admittedly quite late in the day. It was not in the White Paper. It was only about a year ago that they dreamt up the idea of allowing foreign interests to come in without demanding reciprocity. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will change their mind.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. On the previous occasion the matter was debated I was completely convinced by the arguments. Having listened particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, again I am even more convinced than I was on the previous occasion. It seems such an obvious

237
first step that one should expect reciprocity between countries on ownership of such an important asset as our broadcasting system, or part of it.
The other advantage of the measure is that it would give Ofcom time to settle in before any reciprocity was arrived at and give the Government time to negotiate with the USA and come to a satisfactory conclusion. We heard it rumoured that that was exactly what was going on. In that case, why not wail until that moment? I very much hope that the Government will think again. We have heard some very important speeches this evening. They could not have been better put. I hope that they will carry the day.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that I have heard all this before. It has been interspersed with flattering quotes from my speech on Report, but otherwise the arguments have not moved on at all as regards the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and his supporters. We voted on foreign ownership amendments on Report and the Government's policy was supported on a Vote in this House. The aim of these amendments—leaving aside whether they will succeed—is to overturn on Third Reading the Vote of this House on Report. That is the truth of the matter. They are aimed at ensuring that television channels in this country will not be opened up to foreign ownership.
The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, argues that the Government should negotiate reciprocity on foreign ownership. Generally. the United Kingdom does just that. The Government are strongly committed to trade liberalisation and work hard with their EU partners and key world trade organizations—I was fascinated to hear about GATT negotiations going on, because my officials and DTI officials know nothing about them!—to remove the barriers which currently block so many potential trading opportunities. However, we do not always work multilaterally if we see something in our interest.
The benefits of opening up markets to foreign investment, as I made clear on Report—and no one has sought to contradict that—are proven. A more liberal investment environment has facilitated increased overseas investment. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I am glad to hear again of his success as Secretary of State for Wales in encouraging inward investment. By 2001, the world stock of foreign direct investment was equivalent to 21 per cent of world gross domestic product, compared with less than 6 per cent in 1982. It is that investment that we want in this country, and it is those opportunities that we want to have overseas.
Some people argue that we are undermining a common European Union position, and that the United States is on the brink of moving on this. Let me reassure the House. There is no common European Union position to undermine. A large number of EU and EEA countries have unilaterally liberalised: Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal. Spain, Denmark, Finland, Belgium and Luxembourg and the only other native English speaker—Ireland.
238
In the World Trade Organisation, the European Union negotiates on a common position under Article 133 of the Treaty of Rome. As many noble Lords will know, France effectively maintains a veto on cultural matters and did so at Doha and in Seattle. Unless France has a drastic change of heart, there will he no negotiations on this topic. In other words, it is a matter for individual member states.
So we could enter a long dialogue with the United States about some form of bilateral deal, because that is all that is open to us. We could spend years on this. However, considering the comparative gain for the United States against the comparative gain for this country, I do not somehow think that it will be top of the Federal Communications Commission's priorities.
It is important to remember that some investment is already possible in the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, acknowledged that. A United Kingdom company could own up to 20 per cent of a US company with a broadcast licence, or 25 per cent of a company whose subsidiary company comes with a broadcast licence.
In reality, the restrictions in place are unlikely in practice to hinder UK investment in US communications. It is doubtful that any British company would be in a position to take a stake larger than what is permitted anyway. As I said on Report, would a company such as Granada, with advertising revenues of £440 million, be likely to try to buy an NBC or a CBS, which share £3.2 billion of advertising revenue between them? If the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, thinks that we can buy individual TV companies in the United States without involving NBC, CBS or the other companies, I do not think he understands very much about the structure of television in the United States.
Perhaps I may remind the House that it is not only the Government who do not think that reciprocity is a key issue. The Puttnam committee has been mentioned on a number of occasions. I remind the House that this is one of the few issues on which the Puttnam committee was divided; and, as I understand it—I do not know about majority or minority views—the conclusion of the committee was that the issue of reciprocity was not "pivotal". It had some reservations about foreign ownership more generally, but it stated:
"we do not view the argument on reciprocity as pivotal".
The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen of Pimlico, made a similar point in more demotic terms.
The fact is that we do not want to wait for the potential benefits for the viewer. Our critics, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and others will say, "But it won't be better for the viewer; investors will just dump their programmes here". The remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Gordon, about Berlusconi absolutely proved my point on this issue. He said that Signor Berlusconi could not come to this country and flout all our rules. The same applies to any potential investor from outside the European Economic Area. The system protecting content is such that any investor. including those—
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. There is a fundamental difference which is that Signor Berlusconi owns Italian media which do not broadcast in the same language as we do. The American media do and therefore they have the opportunity of vertical integration, which I have previously said is often called "dumping" by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his committee, in terms of the British media. That is the fundamental difference.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend did not make that argument at all in his speech. Also he did not wait for me to make the opposing point that I now propose to make. My point is that investors, including those who would be allowed in by the amendment that was tabled and defeated on Report, must abide by our system. That includes quotas for original production, European Union production, regional and independent production, and it also includes the power of Ofcom to be able to review licence commitments on change of control to ensure that new owners maintain the standards of the old. How does that allow for dumping?
There are provisions allowing Ofcom to review licence obligations for regional programming and production, and original production, and news and current affairs programmes at any time and, after consultation, change the licence. Ofcom will also have to protect the local content of radio. Ofcom 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 to maintain the quality and range of the service.
Unlike the United States—the debate has been very much about 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. Ofcom will have the power to regulate these provisions, imposing fines where necessary, and ultimately, revoking licences of broadcasters who do not fulfil their licence obligations. All those powers will be available to Ofcom to ensure that the quality of our broadcast media will be retained, regardless of the nationality of its owners.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, does not choose to recognise the fact, but we shall also have the protection of the new plurality test. We can intervene and investigate an acquisition even if it serves only to replace a significant player rather than consolidating. In those circumstances we can look at the need for the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of broadcasting which (taken as a whole) is both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests; and the need for persons carrying on media enterprises, and for those with control of such enterprises, to have a genuine commitment to the attainment in relation to broadcasting of standards objectives set out in the Bill.
240
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and my noble friend Lord Gordon and others have argued honourably and consistently for the amendment. I recognise their sincerity although I believe that they have failed to keep up with the changes that have taken place in the Bill, particularly the changes that took place on Report as regards foreign ownership and today on plurality.
I believe that this is an opportunistic amendment. Bearing in mind that the House voted last week at Report stage for opening up to foreign investment, to attempt to frustrate and to reverse that decision of the House at Third Reading is an undesirable proposition. If the amendment is moved to a Division I hope that it will be defeated.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, for their support. All the Back-Bench speakers who have spoken in this debate have supported my proposition. The only person who has spoken against it is the Minister.
In particular, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, that the man in the street will regard it as unbelievable that we should be giving away our rights in this way. Clearly, that will be the view of many people in this country. The Minister at one stage slightly criticised the media knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. Perhaps I may say to him that I suspect that the noble Lord's knowledge of the media is rather deeper than that of many on the Government's Front Bench.
The noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, is also wrong in saying that I am arguing against foreign ownership. I am not; I am saying that if there is to be foreign ownership, there should be reciprocal arrangements. That is the argument. It is fairly simple and straightforward. It is not being put opportunistically, as he says; it is the argument that I and my colleagues have been putting consistently during the passage of the Bill.
I shall not repeat all our arguments. I want to make two points. In no way is this an anti-United States amendment. As I have made clear at every stage. I am strongly pro-American. In no way is this anti-free trade. I am also strongly in favour of free trade: businesses competing with one another on a level playing field. But in the case of television and broadcasting, the playing field will be anything but level. Basically, the Bill allows United States' companies to buy ITV in Britain, and now ITN with it—so ITV and ITN, quite a purchase—without any reciprocal arrangements for British companies. That is what the public will find when they understand the implications of the Bill—and that is what they will find so hard to understand. They will also find it hard to understand why this House and both Front Benches back that particular proposition.
That arrangement is neither sensible nor in our national interests and, frankly, I have found few people who think it is. The hour is late. I have

241
absolutely no illusions. I know perfectly well that many will have gone home. As I look around the House I see many noble Lords I have not seen at earlier stages in the Bill. The Whips on both sides appear to have done their jobs. So I am under no illusions. But I also say this: there is an important principle here. The position of both Front Benches is, frankly, disastrous and they will both come to regret it. So I believe that that opposition, however small, should be expressed and should be on the record. I want to take the view of the House on the subject.
9.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 71) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 121.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Brougham and Vaux. L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McNally, L.

Cohen of Pimlico B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Crickhowell, L. [Teller]

Monro of Langholm, L.

Monson, L.

Elder, L.

Northbrook, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Falkland, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fowler, L. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Geddes, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Gordon of Strathblane. L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Greenway, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Henley, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Tope, L.

Laird, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Andrews, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Crawley, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Attlee, E.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Bach, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Desai, L.

Billingham, B.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blatch, B.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bragg. L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brett, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gale, B.

Brookman, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Burlison, L.

Gilbert, L.

Buscombe, B.

Glentoran, L.

Byford, B.

Golding, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Goudie, B.

Carter, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Chandos, V.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Chester, Bp.

Hanningfield, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

242

Harris of Haringey, L.

Patel, L.

Harrison, L.

Pendry, L.

Haskel, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hayman, B.

Radice, L.

Higgins, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rawlings, B.

Howe, E.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Renton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rooker, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Saatchi. L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Sainsbury of Turville. L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Sawyer, L.

Jones, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Kimball, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Layard, L.

Smith of Leigh. L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Luke, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Thornton, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Vivian, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Waddington, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Wakeham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Warner, L.

Mar, C.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Whitaker, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Whitty, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wilcox, B.

Mitchell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord President of the Council)

Montrose, D.

Noakes, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.58 p.m.
Clause 347 [Restrictions relating to nominated news providers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 72:
Leave out Clause 347.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 356 [Grants to access radio providers]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 313, line 44, at end insert—
"() The Secretary of State may by order provide that OFCOM may also make such grants as they consider appropriate to the provider of any service of a description of service in relation to which provision is for the time being in force under section 242."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 73, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75 to 77 and 79 and to Amendments Nos. 74 and 78 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
Amendments Nos. 74 and 78 would enable the Secretary of State by order to extend the grant-making power in the Bill to cover local digital television services. We are prepared to accept the intention behind these amendments and have therefore tabled government amendments which will allow access radio grants to be extended by order to cover local digital television services.
We would, however, stress that this should not be taken as a sign that we propose to extend grants to local television in the near future. We do not want to raise unrealistic expectations. It will be difficult to secure any resources for access radio services, never mind having sufficient resources to support local TV as well.
However, if circumstances change in the future, it may be possible to provide support for local TV services, and it makes sense to "future proof" the Bill in the way proposed by these amendments.
We think it is unlikely that grants would be given to for-profit organisations, but do not believe that we should absolutely rule it out in advance. This is consistent with the approach in Clause 260, which refers to access radio services being "primarily" for the good of the public rather than for commercial reasons. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I rose from these Benches at Report to talk about the importance of community radio and television. We are grateful that the Government have seen fit to table their own amendments which concede provision for Clause 356 to be extended to cover the possibility of supporting future community television. This is perhaps the minimum necessary for the Bill to recognise the increasingly converging nature of community media. With regard to our Amendments Nos. 74 and 77, I would like to make a couple of points. Amendment No. 74 specifies that in extending the fund to cover local digital television, it should be limited to services
"not run for commercial purposes".
We do not consider it necessary or appropriate for the fund to be used to subsidise services whose purposes are primarily commercial. The government amendment does not make that distinction clear, although it would be in the power of the Secretary of State to act later should he see fit to do so by order in Parliament.
Amendment No. 78 and the government Amendment No. 77 both have the effect of removing the words "access radio" from the face of the Bill. We welcome this development. Access radio as a term is problematical and, in the firmly held view of the Community Media Association in particular, its use would be detrimental to the viability and success of community radio in the United Kingdom. The government proposals for access radio are broadly fully in line with the understood concepts and practice of community radio. Only the name "access radio" is new.
This is confusing to funding agencies, as well as policy and opinion formers and others whose support of community radio is important. It sends a message about government commitment to and understanding of the sector. Supporters and practitioners of community radio have been seeking recognition for 20 years. To those in today's converging community
244
media sector, it seems perverse finally to recognise the demand for appropriate legislation but not to call the sector what it calls itself.
I do not think that I need to dwell on this any further. The point has been well made and recognised by the Government. Access radio is a weak brand name and community radio a strong one. I do not think that I need to add anything further. I thank the Government yet again for tabling their amendment.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I shall demonstrate to your Lordships what very briefly means. All listen. The purpose of these amendments is to future proof the Bill to give Ofcom the flexibility that we need.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 77:
Page 313, line 45, leave out "under" and insert "by virtue of"
Page 314, line 2, leave out "under" and insert "by virtue of"
Page 314, line 6, leave out from "to" to "a" in line 7 and insert "a licence mentioned in subsection (4).
(4) Those licences are—

(a) a licence under Part 1 of the 1990 Act, or under Part 1 of the 1996 Act, which is granted in accordance with any provision made by an order under section 242 of this Act; and"

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 314, line 9. at end insert—
"() No order is to be made containing provision authorised by this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 359 [Interpretation of Part 3]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 316, line 43, at end insert—
""Channel 3 licence" means a licence to provide a Channel 3 service:"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 367 [OFCOM's functions under Part 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 326, line 45, leave out "or (4)" and insert "to (4A)".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 368 [OFCOM's functions under the Competition Act 1998]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 328, line 11, leave out "or (4)" and insert "to (4A)".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 372 [Newspaper public interest considerations]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 85:
Page 329, line 17, leave out "section 58(2)" and insert "subsection (2) of section 58"
Page 329. line 24, after "a" insert "sufficient"
Page 329. line 27, at end insert—
"(2C) The following are specified in this section—

(a) the need, in relation to every different audience in the United Kingdom or in a particular area or. locality of the United Kingdom, for there to be a sufficient plurality of persons with control of the media enterprises serving that audience;

(b) the need for the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of broadcasting which (taken as a whole) is both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests; and

(c) the need for persons carrying on media enterprises, and for those with control of such enterprises, to have a genuine commitment to the attainment in relation to broadcasting of the standards objectives set out in section 315 of the Communications Act 2003."

(2) After that section there shall be inserted, in Chapter 2 of Part 3—
"58A CONSTRUCTION OF CONSIDERATION SPECIFIED IN SECTION 58(2C)

(1) For the purposes of section 58 and this section an enterprise is a media enterprise if it consists in or involves broadcasting.

(2) In the case of a merger situation in which at least one of the enterprises ceasing to be distinct consists in or involves broadcasting, the references in section 58(2C)(a) or this section to media enterprises include references to newspaper enterprises.

(3) In this Part "newspaper enterprise" means an enterprise consisting in or involving the supply of newspapers.

(4) Wherever in a merger situation two media enterprises serving the same audience cease to be distinct the number of such enterprises serving that audience shall be assumed to be more immediately before they cease to be distinct than it is afterwards.

(5) For the purposes of section 58 where two or more media enterprises—

(a) would fall to be treated as under common ownership or common control for the purposes of section 26, or

(b) are otherwise in the same ownership or under the same control,

they shall be treated (subject to subsection (4)) as all under the control of only one person.
(6) A reference in section 58 or this section to an audience shall be construed in relation to a media enterprise in whichever of the following ways the decision-making authority considers appropriate—

(a) as a reference to any one of the audiences served by that enterprise, taking them separately;

(b) as a reference to all the audiences served by that enterprise, taking them together;

(c) as a reference to a number of those audiences taken together in such group as the decision-making authority considers appropriate; or

(d) as a reference to a part of anything that could be taken to be an audience under any of paragraphs (a) to (c) above.

(7) The criteria for deciding who can be treated for the purposes of this section as comprised in an audience, or as comprised in an audience served by a particular service—

(a) shall be such as the decision-making authority considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case; and

(b) may allow for persons to be treated as members of an audience if they are only potentially members of it.

(8) In this section "audience" includes readership.

(9) The power under subsection (3) of section 58 to modify that section includes power to modify this section."

(2) In section 127(1) of that Act (associated persons to be treated as one person), for the word "and" at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
"(aa) for the purposes of section 58(2C); and"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 373 [Adaptation of role of OFT in initial investigations and reports]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 92:
Page 329, line 32, leave out "newspaper" and insert "media"
Page 329, line 36, leave out "newspaper" and insert "media"
Page 330, line 4, leave out "newspaper" and insert "media"
Page 330, line 7, leave out "or (2B)" and insert "to (2C)"
Page 330, line 8, at end insert "broadcasting or"
Page 330, line 9, at end insert—
"(8A) In this Part "broadcasting" means the provision of services the provision of which—

(a) is required to be licensed under Part 1 or 3 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 or Part I or 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1996; or

(b) would be required to be so licensed if provided by a person subject to licensing under the Part in question."

Page 330, line 13, leave out "subsection" and insert "subsect ions (8A) and"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 374 [Additional investigation and report hr OFCOM ]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 93 and 94:
Page 330, line 21, leave out "newspaper" and insert "media"
Page 330, line 27, leave out "newspaper" and insert "media"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 375 [Extension of special public interest regime for certain newspaper mergers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 102:
Page 330, line 38, at beginning insert "In"
Page 330, line 39, leave out from "cases)" to "subsections" in line 40 and insert ", for"
Page 331, line 6, leave out "either"
Page 331, line 8, leave out "or"
Page 331, line 10, at end insert "or
(iii) the condition mentioned in subsection (3D) was satisfied."
Page 331, line 27, at end insert—
"(3D) The condition mentioned in this subsection is that, in relation to the provision of broadcasting of any description, at least one-quarter of all broadcasting of that description provided in the United Kingdom, or in a substantial part of the United Kingdom, was provided by the person or persons by whom one of the enterprises concerned was carried on.""
Page 331, line 28, after "(6)" insert "of that section"
Page 331, line 29, leave out from "(6A)" to first "The" in line 8 on page 332.
() After that section there shall be inserted—
"59A CONSTRUCTION OF CONDITIONS IN SECTION 59(3C) AND (3D)

(1) For the purpose of deciding whether the proportion of one-quarter mentioned in section 59(3C) or (3D) is fulfilled with respect to—

(a) newspapers of any description, or

(b) broadcasting of any description,

the decision-making authority shall apply such criterion (whether value, cost, price, quantity, capacity, number of workers employed or some other criterion, of whatever nature), or such combination of criteria, as the decision-making authority considers appropriate.

(2) References in section 59(3C) to the supply of newspapers shall, in relation to newspapers of any description which are the subject of different forms of supply, be construed in whichever of the following ways the decision-making authority considers appropriate—

(a) as references to any of those forms of supply taken separately;

(b) as references to all those forms of supply taken together; or

(c) as references to any of those forms of supply taken in groups.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) the decision-making authority may treat newspapers as being the subject of different forms of supply whenever—

(a) the transactions concerned differ as to their nature, their parties, their terms or their surrounding circumstances; and

(b) the difference is one which, in the opinion of the decision-making authority, ought for the purposes of that subsection to be treated as a material difference.

(4) References in section 59(3D) to the provision of broadcasting shall, in relation to broadcasting of any description which is the subject of different forms of provision, be construed in whichever of the following ways the decision-making authority considers appropriate—

(a) as references to any of those forms of provision taken separately;

(b) as references to all those forms of provision taken together; or

(c) as references to any of those forms of provision taken in groups.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) the decision-making authority may treat broadcasting as being the subject of different forms of provision whenever—

(a) the transactions concerned differ as to their nature, their parties, their terms or their surrounding circumstances; and

(b) the difference is one which, in the opinion of the decision-making authority, ought for the purposes of that subsection to be treated as a material difference.

(6) The criteria for deciding when newspapers or broadcasting can be treated, for the purposes of section 59, as newspapers or broadcasting of a separate description shall be such as in any particular case the decision-making authority considers appropriate in the circumstances of that case.

(7) In section 59 and this section "provision" and cognate expressions have the same meaning in relation to broadcasting as in Part 3 of the Communications Act 2003; but this subsection is subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section.""

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 376 [Adaptation of role of OFT in special public interest regime]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 103 and 104:
Page 332, line 16, leave out "or (2B)" and insert "to (2C)"
Page 332, line 24, leave out "or (2B)" and insert "to (2C)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 377 [Additional investigation and report by OFCOM: special public interest cases]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 105 and 106:
Page 332, line 37, leave out "or (2B)" and insert "to (2C)"
Page 333, line 3, leave out "or (2B)" and insert "to (2C)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 378 [Public consultation in relation to newspaper mergers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:
Page 333, line 18, leave out "newspaper" and insert "media"
Page 333, line 20, leave out "or (2B)" and insert "to (2C)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 380 [Advice and information in relation to newspaper mergers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 109 and 110:
Page 335, line 5, leave out "and (2B)" and insert "to (2C)"
Page 335, line II, leave out "and (2B)" and insert "to (2C)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 383 [Monitoring role for OFT in relation to newspaper mergers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 111 and 112:
Page 336, line 21, leave out "or (2B)" and insert "to (2C)"
Page 336, line 28, leave out "or (2B)" and insert "to (2C)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 384 [Enforcement powers in relation to newspaper mergers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 115:
Page 336, line 37, leave out "or" and insert—
"() an intervention notice which mentions any other media public interest consideration in relation to a relevant merger situation in which one of the enterprises ceasing to be distinct is a newspaper enterprise;"
Page 336, line 39, after "(2B);" insert "or
() a special intervention notice which, in relation to a special merger situation in which one of the enterprises ceasing to be distinct is a newspaper enterprise, mentions a consideration specified in section 58(2C);"
Page 337, line 17, at end insert—
"() In this paragraph "newspaper public interest consideration" means a media public interest consideration other than one which is such a consideration—

(a) by virtue of section 58(2C); or

249

(b) by virtue of having been, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, concerned with broadcasting and a consideration that ought to have been specified in section 58."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 385 [Alterations concerning newspaper panel of Competition Commission]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 337, line 26, leave out "Part 3 of" and insert "paragraph 20A of Schedule 8 to"
On Question, amendment agreed to
Clause 388 [Review of media ownership]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 122:
Page 338, line 39, leave out "section 278 of this Act and section 32 of the 1990 Act" and insert "sections 278 and (Disqualification from appointment as news provider)"
Page 339, line 3, at end insert "or other media enterprises"
Page 339, line 12, leave out "in relation to news provision" and insert "under sections 279 and 280"
Page 339, line 13, leave out "59(6E)" and insert "59(6A)"
Page 339, line 14, leave out "newspaper" and insert "media"
Page 339, line 15, leave out subsection (5).
On Question. amendments agreed to.
Clause 402 [General interpretation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 352, line 42. at end insert—
""purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (4) of section 262 and subsections (5) and (6) of that section shall apply for the purposes of any provision of this Act referring to such purposes as they apply for the purposes of a report under that section:"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip how long he believes the House should continue sitting.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, we shall continue until we finish, but the intervention has delayed proceedings by another 20 seconds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 124:
After Clause 405, insert the following new clause—
"MODIFICATIONS CONSEQUENTIAL ON REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING DIRECTIVES

(1) This section applies if it appears to the Secretary of State that regulations under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68) for giving effect to Community obligations imposed by the Communications Directives have come into force before the passing of this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) repeal any relevant provision of this Act which appears to him to be unnecessary, or to have become spent, in consequence of the regulations;

(b) make such other modifications of the relevant provisions of this Act as he considers appropriate in consequence of the regulations;

(c) revoke provision made by the regulations; and

250

(d) make transitory or transitional provision in relation to anything done by or under the regulations.

(3) The Secretary of State's power under this section includes power to make consequential amendments of enactments not contained in this Act.

(4) In this section—
"the Communications Directives" means—

(a) the Access Directive, that is to say, Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities;

(b) the Authorisation Directive, that is to say, Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services;

(c) the Framework Directive, that is to say, Directive 2002/ 21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services;

(d) the Universal Service Directive, that is to say, Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services;

"relevant provision of this Act" means a provision contained in—

(a) Part 1, 2 or 6; or

(b) Chapter 1 of Part 5.

(5) No order is to be made containing provision authorised by this section 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, I am in the unusual position of moving an amendment that I hope is unnecessary. The fact that I am moving it does not mean that the Government believe that the Bill will not receive Royal Assent before the Summer Recess, nor that the European Community directives will not he implemented through the Act and the instruments made under it. However, it would be irresponsible of us not to have a contingency plan.
The plan has been in the public domain since March. It consists of a set of regulations to be made under the European Communities Act 1972, which would enable us to fulfil our Community obligations for the interim period between 25th July and the date on which the relevant provisions of the Bill could be eventually commenced. The DTI has consulted on those interim regulations. The response to the consultation, together with the revised draft of the regulations, is about to be published.
The substance of the interim regime would be the same as the regulatory regime that will be established once the Bill is passed. But the effect of making such interim regulations would be that the regulatory framework that would exist when the Bill was passed would not be the same as that which it had been drafted to replace. That would, for example, make redundant a number of the amendments contained in Schedule 17 to the Bill and a number of the repeals and revocations contained in Schedule 19.
The power proposed in the new plans would enable the raft of technical and legal modifications that would have to be made to the Bill once enacted, as a result of the making of the interim regulations, to be effected in

251
the most efficient manner. It would enable the foundation of the new regime to be shifted to the new Act with a minimum of delay.
I hope that the new clause proves unnecessary, but it would be irresponsible of the Government not to provide for the possibility. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am gratified by the Minister's introduction of the amendment. It is intriguing to find this curious way of getting around a problem. None the less, I am delighted that it is there. I simply ask the Minister to explain how, under this procedure, the Bill remains substantially amendable. That is how the regulations that it seeks to circumvent need to be resolved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, however we implement the legislation, ultimately it must be done through the Bill—it must be done through primary legislation. We have the power under the European Communities Act to make interim provision. That involves certain changes in transitional provisions. However, fundamentally, we must implement the directives, and we will do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 407 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Fowler Lord Fowler moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 359, line 14, at end insert—
"() This Act shall cease to have effect at the expiry of five years after it receives Royal Assent, unless before that time a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament has reported on the operation of this Act, and the report has been debated in both Houses."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I gather that there is some speculation that I may divide the House on this amendment. For the benefit of those below the gangway, I give the assurance that I will not divide the House. I hope that that improves their arrangements. For old time's sake, in the case of the former Minister for Transport, I hope that that helps him.
The point of this amendment is very simple. It may seem draconian that the Act should fall in five years, given the time and effort expended on it. It may just he that not everyone would welcome a long debate on a new Act. That fate is easily avoided by setting up a committee of both Houses to scrutinise the effects of the Act in practice and to see how it has worked out.
The aim is not to reopen old debates, but to examine whether the intention of the Bill has been realised; in other words—if I could have the Minister's attention for just 30 seconds—I propose a post-legislative scrutiny committee. The Bill has benefited enormously from pre-legislative scrutiny. Again, I pay tribute to the committee, its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and my noble friend Lord Crickhowell.
I know that the business managers grumbled about the delay. Indeed, the present Leader of the Commons called the proceedings a "filibuster". I do not believe that there was a filibuster. The choice is whether you want speedy legislation or good legislation. To my
252
mind, the pre-legislative scrutiny strengthened the Bill immensely. I hope that that example will be followed with other legislation.
In my experience as a Minister, some of the worst errors are made after the Bill becomes an Act, not because the Bill is not clear or that Ministers intentions have not been set out, but because those intentions have not been acted upon. Ministers move on to other departments, so they are not there to check. New Ministers and civil servants do not give the same priority as their predecessors.
I remember that when I was Social Services Secretary, my then Minister of State, John Major, gave the clearest commitment to the Standing Committee examining the social security reform Bill that the change in the position of widows, and their rights under the state earnings related pension scheme would be the subject of a publicity campaign. Ministers moved on, there was no such campaign and civil servants gave the wrong advice in leaflets. It is inconceivable that errors of that kind would take place if there had been post-legislative scrutiny.
The only argument that could be made against such a proposal is that we could have a communications Select Committee. However, my experience of Select Committees is that they are not accustomed to, nor do they want to go through, the sort of line by line examination that I have in mind. I also think that the advantage of a post-legislative scrutiny committee, which should become standard for major Bills, is that if civil servants know that the implementation of the Bill will be subject to scrutiny, their priority will be to ensure that they are meticulous in carrying out the intentions of the Bill and in fulfilling all pledges that are given.
This Bill is very long and much depends on whether Ofcom has the right powers. The Government have introduced new measures such as the plurality test, which may or may not prove significant. However, at some stage during the five years after this Bill becomes an Act, a post-legislative scrutiny committee should be set up to consider how well the legislation has worked in practice. That would he to the benefit of this House and, above all, to the benefit of the public. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I support this proposal. I do not think that it cuts across the idea of a media Select Committee. However, the idea of "Puttnam II—The Sequel" has many attractions. Next time round, I will try to work out how to get publicity in the newspapers for what I am trying to do with the Bill without every story being accompanied by the most wonderful photograph of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Regardless of what the story is about or the origins of the story, newspapers still get the same wonderful picture from their libraries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: He should grow a beard, my Lords.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I think not.
The idea proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, gives us an opportunity. Governments that stay in office for a while lose their desire for danger, and pre-legislative scrutiny has proved a dangerous exercise. However, I believe that it brings better legislation. It has been a great exercise, although, in the corridors of Whitehall there will be those who say, "Don't try it again, or if you do, don't put somebody as assiduous as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in charge of the committee". The idea of post-legislative scrutiny is one which, in one of the Government's more radical moments, they should consider favourably.
10.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, having heard his speech, I absolve the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, of any intention to kill the Bill after five years. He did not make that suggestion, and I am grateful for that.
This is the last Bill that wants post-legislative scrutiny. It has been a long and, some people would say, tortuous procedure. We started with the publication of the communications White Paper in December 2000; we had consultation on the White Paper; we had further consultation on media ownership in January 2002; we published the Bill in May 2002; and we had pre-legislative scrutiny under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. By the time that Ofcorm is up and running, the process will have taken three years from start to finish.
I recognise that it is not the noble Lord's intention that we should start all over again in five years' time, but even the threat of post-legislative scrutiny of the kind that he proposes—I assume that he means it seriously; I do not think that he means it to be a paper exercise—would wreak havoc on the communications industry. The provision that he proposes would mean that everything that Ofcom did, everything that the industry did and everything that is done on behalf of consumers—all of those things—would be put into the melting-pot. It does not say anywhere in the amendment what would happen if the Government had to give effect to the post-legislative scrutiny and there had to be amendments to the Bill. None of those things is in the amendment; it is only the beginning of an idea of an amendment. It is the nucleus of an amendment, but it has not been thought through.
It is not within the Government's gift to set up committees of Parliament anyway. We could not accept the amendment even if we wanted to. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that we are not giving up on the idea of pre-legislative scrutiny. As he knows, we have just proposed the setting up of a Joint Committee of both Houses for pre-legislative scrutiny of the gambling Bill for which I will be responsible. I look forward very much to that. We are in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny; we are not afraid of it. We recognise that there are dangers, but we think that there are huge opportunities.
In any case, there are plenty of procedures for reporting to Parliament. The Secretary of State and Ofcom must report on the carrying out of their
254
functions by virtue, respectively, of Clause 387 and paragraph 12 of the schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002. They will have to report annually. Both reports will be laid before Parliament, and the usual channels can provide for debate. It is then for Parliament to decide whether and how to scrutinise and debate the reports. I am sure that there will he plenty of interest in this Chamber and in another place, when that time comes.
I do not oppose in principle and in all circumstances the idea of post-legislative scrutiny, but we should give the industry, Ofcom and everybody concerned an opportunity to settle down and implement the provisions of the Bill. Above all, we should not introduce post-legislative scrutiny for a Bill that has already had such a degree of pre-legislative scrutiny.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, I guess that that is the nearest that I shall get to agreement with anything that I have said during the passage of the Bill, albeit in the very mild form in which the noble Lord put it at the end of his speech. I shall do as I said, and I shall not seek to divide the House.
There is a serious question to be considered by Parliament. I stand by what I said: many of the problems with legislation are due not to the drafting of an Act but to its implementation. I make no complaint about the pre-legislative scrutiny that the Bill has had. It has been a model of that. However, I guarantee that problems, issues and faults in the legislation, which none of us can forecast at the moment, will become apparent. Governments generally would he wise to think of the post-legislative stage in a way that they have not done previously.
The Minister has been almost helpful to me, and I thank him for that. As this is the last word that I shall say in the debate, I also thank him for his courtesy during the Bill's passage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Functions transferred to OFCOM]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 361, line 10, leave out paragraph (e).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Approval, imposition and modification of networking arrangements]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 406, line 37, at end insert—
"() Where the defaulter is a partnership constituted under the law of Scotland, the power of the court to punish the defaulter includes power to punish a member of the partnership."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment to paragraph 13 of Schedule 11 to the Bill. Under paragraph 12 of that schedule, Ofcom may by notice require a person to produce such information and documents as they consider necessary to determine for the purposes of Section 290 or that schedule whether the competition tests have been satisfied. Those information provisions are enforced

255
by the contempt of court provisions in paragraph 13 of Schedule 11. The amendment reflects the special legal nature of Scottish partnerships by stating that where a defaulter—that is, a person who has failed to comply with an information notice—is a partnership constituted under the law of Scotland, the power of the court to punish the defaulter includes the power to punish a member of the partnership. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Corresponding obligations of the BBC and Welsh Authority]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 423, line 8, leave out "fair treatment of" and insert "equalisation of opportunities for"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Financial penalties under the Broadcasting Acts]:
Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendments Nos. 129 and 130:
Page 433, line 2, leave out "and" and insert—
"(5B) A determination or estimate for the purposes of subsection (2A) or (5) above of the share of multiplex revenue"
Page 433, line 36, leave out "and" and insert—
"(6B) A determination or estimate for the purposes of subsection (2A) or (6) above of the share of multiplex revenue"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as probably my last contribution to this Bill from the Dispatch Box, I have been given the opportunity to make a virtuoso performance to a crowded Chamber. Accordingly, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Media ownership rules]:
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Schedule 15 [Amendments of Broadcasting Acts]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 447, line 15, leave out paragraph 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 16 [Further amendments in connection with newspaper mergers]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 133 to 136:
Page 491, line 24, leave out "59(6E)" and insert "59(6A)"
Page 491, line 26, leave out -59(6E1" and insert "59(6A)"
Page 491, line 28, at end insert—
"() After the entry relating to "Anti-competitive outcome" there shall be inserted—
"Broadcasting Section 44(8A)"
"() After the entry relating to "Market in the United Kingdom" there shall be inserted—
"Media public interest Section 44(8)""
consideration
Page 491, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert—"
Newspaper enterprise Section 58A(3)""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Transitional Provisions]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 538, line 19, after first "a" insert "person (whether or not a"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraphs 3 and 4 of this schedule, which were inserted on Report, provide a wider range of savings for agreements that are in some sense conditional on the holding of licences under the 1984 Act. However, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, questioned whether they would be effective to save certain rights of Crown Castle, the transmission services company, which are expressed by references to licences held by other persons. Officials have discussed the situation with Crown Castle, and I am happy to table amendments that the company confirm will resolve their concern.
These amendments broaden the references to licence under the 1984 Act, so that licences can be held by any person. That will effectively save any rights or obligations expressed by reference to licences held by persons who are not party to the agreements. The consequential amendments clarify the rights and obligations in question for a person who is a party to the agreement. I should also like to move three small amendments correcting minor errors and omissions in these paragraphs. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 137 to 144.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that he can move only the first amendment, Amendment No. 137, and that he speaks to the rest of the amendments.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess. That was pointed out by my noble friend Lord McIntosh as I sat down.On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 138 to 145:
Page 538, line 40, at end insert "or electronic communications service"
Page 539, line 27, after "person" insert "("the contracting party")" .
Page 539, line 28, at end insert "or another person (whether or not a party to the agreement)"
Page 539, line 34, leave out "that person" and insert "the contracting party"
Page 539, line 36, leave out "the case of a person who" and insert "relation to a case in which the person in question".
Page 539, line 46, at end insert "or electronic communications service"
Page 550, line 21, leave out "or electronic communications service"
Page 558, line 42, leave out paragraph 35 and insert—
"Continuity in relation to appointed news provider
35 Where a body holds an appointment for the purposes of section 31(2) of the 1990 Act immediately before the date of the commencement of section 278 of this Act—

(a) that appointment shall have effect in relation to times on and after that date as an appointment for the purposes of arrangements entered into in accordance with conditions imposed under section 278 of this Act;

257

(b) the arrangements under which that appointment was made shall have effect in relation to such times as arrangements so entered into; and

(c) so much of the appointment or arrangements, or of any agreement to which the body is a party, as makes provision by reference to the body's ceasing to be nominated under section 32 of the 1990 Act shall have effect in relation to such times as if references to ceasing to be so nominated were references to becoming a body falling within section (Disqualification from appointment as news provider)(2) of this Act."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 19 [Repeals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 146 and 147:
Page 574, column 2, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—
"Sections 30 to 36."
Page 580, line 7, leave out "and 75" and insert "to 76"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 148:
Line 5, leave out "newspaper mergers" and insert "mergers involving newspaper and other media enterprises"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, the hour is late. However, as I have spent two years of my life and other members of the House have spent significant periods of their lives on this Bill, it is important to make one or two small points before the Bill passes. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, did the House a favour in raising the issues that he did. I want to speak very briefly about the principle of pre-legislative scrutiny—about what I and, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, have learned from it—and offer the Government a few observations.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, say that there was no question about the future of pre-legislative scrutiny, but that was not the story that we were being told two or three months ago, when the general word around my party was that we were seriously damaging the future of pre-legislative scrutiny by appearing to be so pernickety.
The Government would do well to look again at the report of the committee and reflect on the way in which they reacted to the initial recommendations a year ago. Hours and hours of legislative time could have been saved had the Government been more moderate and more thoughtful in their response. We have made enormous progress on the Bill, but a great deal of that progress could have been made by a more thoughtful response in the first place. I take some blame for that. It is important for me to say that I think I allowed an over-adversarial relationship to be created between the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and the Bill team.
258
The lesson that I would offer to anyone chairing a prelegislative scrutiny committee in future is not to allow that division to occur. It was unnecessary, but it has, I stress, caused this House many unnecessary hours of debate and dissent.
I have learnt an extraordinary lesson about the parliamentary process. It is fundamental that in any forthcoming discussions in this Chamber about the future of the House of Lords, someone must take into account who will do the job of scrutinising legislation. If one thing has been absolutely apparent, it is that no form of adequate scrutiny took place before the Bill came to this House. It has been a total disgrace. No one yet has been able to explain adequately why no proper scrutiny currently takes place in another place. That is a very serious issue. I hope that someone somewhere will read these remarks and address them in a serious way.
I would also suggest that any government tie pre-legislative scrutiny to a commitment to take Committee stage out of the Chamber. It would free up time in this Chamber; it would move governrnent business along; and I do not believe that any damage would occur in the process. I pass that on as serious advice because, again, hours and hours of time could have been advantageously saved.
I shall leave the last word to a man I admire very much—the founder of CNN, Ted Turner. Why Ted Turner? Ted Turner is exactly the type of media entrepreneur that I think this Bill was intended to encourage into a possible interest in this country. On 30th May, he wrote in the Washington Post:
"the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to adopt dramatic rule changes that will extend the market dominance of the five media corporations that control most of what Americans read, see and hear. I"—
Mr Turner, and not me, sadly—
"am a major shareholder in the largest of those five corporations, yet—speaking only for myself, and not for AOL Time Warner—I oppose these rules. They will stifle debate, inhibit new ideas and shut out smaller businesses trying to compete.…When the smaller businesses are gone, where will the new ideas come from? Nor does this trend bode well for new ideas in our democracy—ideas that only come from diverse news and vigorous reporting".
He continued:
"Even more troubling are the warning signs that large media corporations—with massive market power—could abuse that power by slanting news coverage in ways that serve their political or financial interests. There is always the danger that news organizations can push positive stories to gain friends in government, or unleash negative stories on artists, activists or politicians who cross them, or tell their audiences only the news that confirms entrenched views. But the danger is greater when there are no competitors to air the side of the story that the corporation wishes to ignore".
Anyone looking at the news coverage of this Bill as it has gone through Parliament would have seen a marked difference between the coverage it got in certain publications and the almost complete blank it received from others. Ted Turner went on to say:
"Naturally, corporations say they would never suppress speech. That may be true. But it's not their intentions that matter. It's their capabilities. The new FCC rules would give them more power to cut important ideas out of the public debate, and it's precisely that power that rules should prevent".

259
I hope that through the amendments that we have recently attached to this genuinely excellent Bill, we have precisely addressed Ted Turner's worst fears, and as a consequence we may continue to enjoy the best and most plural broadcast environment in the world. We are handing the Bill on to the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and I am reminded very much of when my father taught me to ride a bicycle. He spent many hours running up and down the street, holding the saddle of my bike, until one day I turned around and realised that he had let go and was not there.
Tonight we have let go of the bike. The noble Lord, Lord Currie, will be asked to pedal away and all our best wishes and—speaking for myself—our dearest hopes go with him and with Ofcom. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Bill has been important. We have covered very interesting and important areas in a remarkably good spirit, albeit at great length.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I know that the Minister will groan inwardly, but there are two points that I want to make. I wish that I could wish the Bill Godspeed with the same confidence as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, but the more I have looked at the issue, the more I have seen large global forces at work that will not go away. I said that the Government have mounted a tiger, and I wonder how many in a few years' time will be making mea culpas similar to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the 1990 Broadcasting Bill.
The other thing that I have been left with, apart from the wonderful experience of serving under the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on the pre-legislative committee, is a determination that the next stage of this matter—the defence of the BBC and the BBC Charter—is a battle that has to be won. I send the Bill on with that in mind.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, this has been an amazing experience for all of us. I want to thank all noble Lords for the great courtesy that they have shown throughout the debates and I wish the Bill well.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, as chairman of Ofcom, I express my thanks for the enormous care and thoroughness with which your Lordships have considered this Bill. The House has lived up to its fine reputation as an effective revising chamber. In many respects, the Bill leaves the House in a much better shape than when it arrived. I pay tribute to noble Lords from all parts of the House for the care and consideration that they have given to it.
Ofcom is very much the servant of statute, and my colleagues and I have been aware that it is for Parliament to determine Ofcom's duties, responsibilities and powers and for us to make that work to best effect. That is why I have intervened sparingly in the debates. However, I
260
have listened carefully and read all those contributions that I have been unable to hear in person. The debates that we have had will inform how Ofcom moves—or cycles—forward, and they will certainly inform the way that we set up and proceed to carry out the duties that Parliament has laid upon us.
As a result of the successful amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on Report, Ofcom now has the word "citizen" as part of its principal general duty. I, for one, would be delighted if that word remains firmly in the principal duty of Ofcom when the Bill finally emerges from the parliamentary process, which it has not yet quite done. That would provide welcome clarity.
We have struck a good balance, giving Ofcom clear instructions but also flexibility to deal with the unforeseen—to strike the best balance for the public interest in each individual circumstance. However, there is one issue that I must flag up. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, had a second impact, which was to put the citizen's interest above that of the consumer in the area of broadcasting and spectrum, but not in that of telecoms. That creates different duties in different parts of Ofcom's activities, which will cause difficulty. It will make Ofcom subject to judicial review and may reduce the effectiveness of Ofcom. It will be the big players, not the small players, who will take advantage of that.
I hope that the Bill in its final form will cast Ofcom's general duties in terms that put the citizen and consumer interest in parity. I emphasise that point, because some noble Lords said that they were not altogether clear where I stood at Report. The citizen's interest is very much at the heart of what Ofcom wants to achieve. My fellow members are in no doubt about the deep concern that the House has for the interests of citizens.
The communications industry is not like any other industry; it is central to our society and our democracy. That is something that the Ofcom board feels with both its head and its heart. However, we believe that if Parliament defines Ofcom's general duty in terms of parity, we are confident that in all circumstances—both those we can foresee and those we cannot—we will be able to reach the best solutions in the public interest. Those solutions should properly reflect the keen concern for citizens that have been expressed in this House.
If we are able at the end of the parliamentary process to have both clarity and parity in Ofcom's general duties, we will have a truly excellent Bill that will serve the public interest and enable Ofcom to pursue it to best effect.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am sure that all these speeches have been slightly out of order, but I cannot allow the Bishops' Benches not to be included in these final remarks. God speed the working out of the Bill and the job of Ofcom.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe in speeches on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, and I try to avoid them, but they have been made. Therefore, the very least that I can do for the sake of courtesy is to express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have taken part in proceedings on the Bill. I hope that they listened very carefully to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, a minute or two ago.
Above all, I want to pay tribute to the work of the members of the Bill team who have been fantastic, both in the quality of the advice that they have given
262
and the way in which they have taken up the challenges that have been brought to the Bill in this House, which, as has been said, is rather different from the way in which matters are considered in another place Having said that, once again I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Extradition Bill
  (Seventh Day)
  Tuesday, 8th July 2003.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): It may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall continue to go through the Bill clause by clause; Members of the Committee will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at Report when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
  I should remind your Lordships of what will happen if a Division is called in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and it will resume 10 minutes later.
  Clause 65 [Extradition offences: supplementary]:
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 140:
  Page 35, line 19, leave out from "in" to the end of line 20 and insert "Schedule (European framework list)"
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 142, 143, 263 and 268. Amendment No. 269, which is also in this group, will be spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
  The group of amendments raise two separate issues, both of which are of considerable importance. Because of the form of the amendments, they must be taken as a single group. The first issue is whether the present European framework list should be included in the Bill. That is covered by Amendments Nos. 140, 143, 263 and 268. The second issue is whether there should be some form of special treatment for the category of racism and xenophobia, which is one of the 32 items on the European framework list. That is covered by Amendments Nos. 142 and 269. The problem arises—I do not complain about this or suggest that it could or should have been done differently but simply place the point on the record—because Amendment No. 269 is
  GC 54
  not free-standing; it amends Amendment No. 268, so the two amendments must obviously be grouped together.
  The purpose of the first sub-group, if I may call it that, is to ensure that there is parliamentary control over any additions to the European framework list. Under Clause 65(3), the European framework list is the list of conduct as set out in Article 2.2 of the European framework decision. That means, or is assumed to mean, the list as it is enforced at any given time. Under Article 2.3, the European Council may add new categories of offence to the list. The decision must, of course, be unanimous but, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, that decision is taken by the executive, not by Parliament. As the Bill stands, there is no provision for the involvement of Parliament in the addition of new offences.
  We believe that it would be entirely wrong for the executive to be able to extend the exclusion of dual criminality without approval by Parliament.
  The Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons stated in paragraph 55 of its first report of 2002–2003 that:
  "We consider it highly undesirable that Parliament should have no say in regard to future changes to the categories of offence listed in the framework decision. We therefore recommend that list of offences be imported directly into the Bill".
  The Select Committee went on to state at paragraph 56 that:
  "The Bill should also provide that any statutory instrument made under this delegated power should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure".
  The Government have conceded that exclusion of the need for prima facie evidence in category 2 cases requires an order in council approved by both Houses. We believe that the same should be the minimum requirement for any addition to the European framework list.
  The amendments will achieve this by, as a first step, putting the existing contents of the list into a new schedule. That is dealt with by Amendments Nos. 140 and 268. We then provide that that list can be amended by an order in council using the affirmative resolution procedure. That is covered by Amendment No. 143 and, as a minor consequential amendment, by Amendment No. 263.
  I turn now to the second issue of racism and xenophobia. We are not hostile to the principle of including this as one of the categories in the list. We already have in the United Kingdom several offences which are based on racism or aggravated by it. Xenophobia is perhaps more contentious because it is a word which, up until now, has not been recognised as having any specific meaning in the United Kingdom criminal law. It means, I suppose, hatred of foreigners irrespective of their race. There is uncertainty as to what it means as a legal concept.
  In introducing the list, Article 2.2 refers to offences in the list as they are defined by the law of the issuing member state. That means that the actual terms of the law must be covered by legislation in the member state. But that expression surely cannot mean that the state

  GC 55
  can exclude dual criminality by creating a new criminal offence and labelling it xenophobia even if it has no real connection with xenophobia. We therefore still need to consider whether any particular offence can reasonably be regarded as falling into the category of racism and xenophobia and will therefore be excluded from the dual criminality requirement.
  It now happens that the European Council has before it a draft framework decision on racism and xenophobia. The European Union Committee has reported on that new draft framework decision. Although agreed, the report has not yet been published. I understand that it will be published very soon, within the next day or two. It would have been helpful if it had been available for today. It will of course be available on Report.
  I understand that the current draft framework decision does not include a specific definition of racism and xenophobia for the purposes of the European arrest warrant. I regret that. It includes, I understand, a list of offences which would be regarded as offences of racism and xenophobia. Those offences include some that would not normally be regarded as coming within the meaning of racism and xenophobia—for example, offences related to discrimination on grounds of religion.
  The list is important because, in the absence of a specific definition of racism and xenophobia in the draft framework decision, the question whether any offence is an offence of racism and xenophobia is likely to be decided on the basis of whether the offence is on the list which will appear in Article 1 of the draft framework decision, or is at least similar to an offence on that list. In the absence of any definition or list, it will he very difficult to decide what "racism and xenophobia" means. Progress on the framework decision on racism and xenophobia has slowed down. Therefore, it is inappropriate to consider including racism and xenophobia on the list for the European arrest warrant when a framework decision on racism and xenophobia is pending but has not yet been agreed.
  After the events of last week, I can understand why the Italian presidency might not wish to get involved with the question of what constitutes xenophobia. I recognise that we are, of course, supposed to implement the framework decision by 1st January 2004. In practice, it is pretty clear that that is not going to happen. So far, only three states—Spain, Denmark and, I think, Sweden—have yet ratified the framework decision and implemented it in their domestic laws. That process is almost certainly unlikely to be completed by 1st January 2004. Austria has an opt-out, and there are problems with Germany and Poland, where there are constant issues about the constitutional propriety of implementing the framework decision because of the tradition in their laws against extraditing their nationals.
  It seems perfectly reasonable for us to say that we will not treat "racism and xenophobia" as included in the list until we have the framework decision, which will at least give us some guidance as to what that is
  GC 56
  intended to mean. For that purpose, I tabled Amendment No. 142, the effect of which is to delay the application of the list to racism and xenophobia until the new framework decision is agreed.
  Amendment No. 269, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, goes somewhat further in one respect and less far in another. It permanently leaves out "and xenophobia" from the list in the proposed schedule, and therefore leaves "racism" on its own but does not defer the implementation of the list as so amended. I am not altogether happy with Amendment No. 269. I am sure that she will not put it in this way, but some support for it seems dependent on the belief in some quarters of the right of the true Brit to go abroad and make grossly xenophobic remarks about foreigners. However, it is important that dual criminality should be excluded from racism and xenophobia offences only where, first, those offences are serious, and secondly, where it is reasonably clear as to what they are. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I added my name to Amendment No. 143 to support the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. As he mentioned, Amendment No. 269 is my amendment to his Amendment No. 268. Like him. in one sense one regrets that we have to complicate matters by having the two debates together, but I am afraid that that is how things had to fall within the context of how the Bill is drafted.
  My original notes refer to the fact that there are a number of very important matters in this group of amendments, and that I shall take some time to set out my argument. I am changing that, as I shall not take some time. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has more than adequately covered not only the principles but many of the arguments that have to be made. He said admirably much of what I would say, and I agree with him substantially.
  I shall skip some of my remarks and refer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, towards the end of his remarks. He raised the issue of definitions of xenophobia and racism, pointing out that either we should define what these offences are or there ought to be a list of offences by which we can recognise them, thus introducing clarity. He is quite right; I do not argue in any way that people from this country should be able to travel elsewhere and make what I would consider to be serious xenophobic comments. While I understand that, having watched England play and having drunk a few too many beers, someone might make certain unwise minor remarks, I certainly would not commend any comments such as those made by Signor Berlusconi, or anything of that ilk.
  We need further clarity in this area, and it is because of that concern for clarity that I turn to the shadowy list of 32 offences not currently included on the face of the Bill. Not all of those offences are yet clear and, of course, not all are offences in this country. The issue here is that, although it grieves us. we would rather see the list set out in the Bill than introduced off the face of the Bill, if only so that others can see exactly what we are being saddled with. So although we do not like

  GC 57
  the list and we shall never like it, while we are being forced to accept all 32 offences, we see merit in what the Liberal Democrats are trying to achieve.
  I recall. when reading the Hansard report of the debate in another place, that the Minister said in response that if, between the Bill leaving another place and being debated here, concerted pressure to see the list was maintained, the Government would consider again whether the list should be put in the Bill. I hope that, when she responds to the amendments, the Minister will be able to bring us up to date on the Government's consideration of this matter.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has already quoted extensively from the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee. Like him, I agree entirely with those views, in particular, for the sake of reference, with what is set out in paragraphs 53 to 56 of the proceedings.
  I turn now to the issue of xenophobia itself. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was unhappy with my Amendment No. 269 as it stands. Of course I have tabled it as a tool with which to open consideration of the general issue of xenophobia. In any case it must be in the nature of a probing amendment since we are debating it in Grand Committee. I want to make it clear that whatever the Government's response, I shall want to consider my position on the matter of xenophobia in that light before we return to the matter on Report to consider how the Bill might be amended.
  At this point it is right that I should put on the record the fact that we support the thrust of Amendment No. 142 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which, as he explained, would place a form of embargo on including the offences of racism and xenophobia in the list until the member states of the European Union have adopted a framework decision on them. The noble Lord has made an important point and I am grateful to him for today putting on the record what he understands is the updated status of the debate on those matters. It is important that we learn from the Minister how far those discussions have progressed.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I am grateful to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for tabling these amendments, thus giving us the opportunity to consider again—as the noble Baroness has invited us to do—how we define what would constitute an extradition offence under Part 1.I believe that I am in a position to give noble Lords some good news as regards including the list of generic offence categories on the face of the Bill.
  As the noble Baroness has just indicated, this is a topic which has been raised a number of -times during the passage of this Bill through another place and in this House. There is no doubt it is clearly and rightly a matter of considerable interest. Perhaps I may first consider the effect of Amendments Nos. 140, 143, 145, 263 and 268 which pertain to the list of offences as set
  GC 58
  out in Article 2.2 of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant. I intend then to turn to Amendments Nos. 142 and 269, which focus specifically on the racism and xenophobia offence categories. I understand that there is great interest in these matters and therefore I shall seek to explain fully our reasoning in relation to the amendments. In that way I hope to satisfy the probing nature of the amendments and to give both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord no just cause to return to these issues on Report.
  The effect of the first of these amendments is relatively clear. They import the list of 32 generic offences categories set out in Article 2.2 of the framework decision on to the face of the Bill and provide that any changes to those categories would be subject to approval by both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, these changes were recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee and were tabled in similar terms for debate in another place. It has been our contention that the Bill makes it clear that the list of offence categories to which the dual criminality test is sometimes disapplied is contained in Article 2.2 of the framework decision. Clause 65 makes this quite clear, and we do not believe that it gives rise to confusion or ambiguity.
  Furthermore, we want to ensure that the Bill contains the necessary flexibility to deal with any changes in the list. Although there are no plans afoot to alter the list, it is worth stressing that any changes would require a unanimous decision of the Council. That has been mentioned, rightly, by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and noble Lords will know that that means each and every state being in agreement. I do not think there is any danger that changes which would add items to the list which were contentious or trivial would come about with any degree of ease. Nevertheless, we recognise that there are strong feelings on this matter. In the light of that, we intend to bring forward government amendments, at a later stage, which will set out on the face of the Bill the 32 offence categories listed in the framework decision. We will also need to find some way to accommodate any changes to the list—unlikely though I believe such changes to be—without the need for further primary legislation. We are still considering how best this can be achieved. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this as good news.
  I should now like to turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 142 and 268 which seek to amend the racism and xenophobia category. I am very grateful to the indication given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that he is not hostile to the inclusion of xenophobia in this clause per se.
  The list is significant, for it sets out the categories of offences—and they are broad headings, not specific crimes—for which the dual criminality test is disapplied. This is in line with one of the fundamental principles of Part 1—that a person should not be able to escape justice just because they manage to skip

  GC 59
  across the border. I was very grateful to hear that echoed in the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
  I recognise, as did the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the United Kingdom does not use the term "xenophobia" in its legislation. However, I respectfully suggest that it is not for us to pass judgment on the type of offences contained in other EU countries' legislation. That is not in the spirit of mutual recognition and co-operation. We have traditionally respected each other's cultures, laws and traditions and have understood why things are framed differently.
  Removing xenophobia from the list, as Amendment No. 269 would do, reinstates the dual criminality test for offences classed as xenophobic in other member states. This means that a person who has committed a xenophobic offence such as Holocaust denial in Germany could not be extradited because that is not recognised as an offence in this country. We really do not see why that should be so.
  Before any noble Lord seeks to pick me up for drawing on the example of Holocaust denial, which I shall be using again in a moment, perhaps this might be a convenient moment to draw your Lordships' attention to the annexe to the report of the Home Affairs Committee on the Bill, which was published last December. It contains the Government's response to some questions which the Committee had earlier sent. Included in these is the list of responses from certain other EU member states to the question of which offences in their countries fell within the definition of racism and xenophobia. I think noble Lords will find it quite illuminating.
  It also explains why we so often draw on the Holocaust denial example. There are quite simply very few offences in the racism and xenophobia category that we would not recognise under our own law. We call the offences by a different name, but the substance of the issues are very clearly spelt out in our legislation. It is right to remind ourselves that in relation to racism and issues involving culture of that nature, Britain has a very proud tradition and a very fine legislative framework with which to deal with them.
  Amendment No. 142 seeks to restrict the removal of dual criminality for racist and xenophobic crimes to those covered by the framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia when it is approved. In the mean time, all offences which fall under the racism and xenophobia category will be subject to a dual criminality test. While I can appreciate that it is desirable to seek some measure of commonality in law on racism and xenophobia across the EU, the framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia is a separate instrument from the framework decision on the European arrest warrant, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, fully recognised. Not only that, but the framework decision is designed to set only some minimum standards. If a member state feels the need for a law which goes above and beyond those covered by the framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia and a British
  GC 60
  citizen goes to that country and, while there, commits the offence, he or she should not be exempt from extradition.
  I am sure all Members of the Committee can understand why, for all sorts of historical reasons, Germany feels that it must have an offence of Holocaust denial on its statute book when most of the rest of Europe does not. If a British person goes to Germany with deliberate intent to deny the Holocaust—and we can all think of a certain historian, although I use that term in the loosest possible sense, who might want to do that—I see no reason of principle why we should refuse extradition if he manages to come back to Britain before the German police can arrest him.
  In addition, I fear—and this has been hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—that there is a logjam on the measure to combat racism and xenophobia and progress could be stalled indefinitely. I made reference to this at Second Reading. That being the case, I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is not desirable to reinstate the dual criminality test for all offences which fall under the racism and xenophobia heading on the off-chance that a separate EU instrument may be approved.
  No doubt we shall return to these issues, but in the mean time, I repeat that we intend to bring forward amendments to put the list of 32 generic offences categories on the face of the Bill. I hope I have said enough about the clauses in relation to xenophobia to reassure your Lordships in relation thereto.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, speaks to his amendment and naturally, as we are in Grand Committee, withdraws it, perhaps I may add a couple of remarks and questions to the Minister.
  She referred specifically to the arguments that we have had many times about xenophobia being included in the list of offences for which dual criminality will no longer be a requirement. One of our arguments is that if such a narrow band of offences comprise xenophobia, it would be far better if the Government were to define them. We could then at least have a debate about whether specific offences should be included. That refers back to a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in introducing his amendment: that at least if there were a list of the offences, there would be greater clarity.
  The Government always refer to Holocaust denial as being an important offence in Germany—and it is. The problem is that it appears that that item on the list of 32 is being designed against one particular writer—like the noble Baroness, I shall not dignify him with the name of "historian"—who has taken a particular course, as he considers his right. We are trying to achieve a system whereby the Bill can operate satisfactorily not just for individuals now but for the whole of its future. We are still concerned that it will not do so while xenophobia appears on the list, unless

  GC 61
  we also include Amendment No. 142. I hear what the Minister says about Amendment No. 142 and shall of course listen carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says, but I give notice that during the summer I shall carefully consider what progress is made on that because he has raised a matter vital to this part of the Bill.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rises to reply, like other noble Lords, I welcome the fact that the 32 offences are to be included in the Bill. That is essential, but I am not quite so pleased about how they may be altered. I should have thought that the Minister could have given us an assurance this afternoon that any alteration would be made, if not by primary legislation, at least by affirmative resolution. I did not hear her give that assurance. I should have thought that that was an easy—and essential—assurance to give us at this stage, to save our time on Report.
  With regard to racism and xenophobia, I think that every one of us knows what racism is. We can define racism quite easily. For example, I am Welsh. When I came to England, I got used to being described as a Taffy—and a Taffy who went into a butcher's shop and stole a leg of beef. As it happens, we were able to shake off that sort of racism in those days. We laughed it off and gave back as good as we got. But times have changed. So I think we understand what racism means. But I am not at all sure that anyone in this room—including me—really knows what xenophobia means.
  Before I came out, I looked in my dictionary. It states that xenophobia means dislike, hatred or fear of foreigners. People can be imprisoned for disliking a foreigner, for hating him—not doing anything about it; just hating him, as far as I can see—or even for being afraid of him. There are some foreigners of whom I have had experience in my lifetime of whom I am still afraid. How are we to define xenophobia given those dictionary terms?
  The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, instanced the disgraceful remarks of Signor Berlusconi, but I would not describe them as xenophobic. I would describe them as insulting and unnecessary and, if I had been Mr Schultz, I should have replied that Signor Berlusconi was giving a good imitation of Signor Mussolini. But I am not at all sure that I would have said that he was being xenophobic. It is extremely difficult to define that crime—because that is what it will be, a crime—of xenophobia.
  I could go on at great length so could we all—but that word does not have a place in the Bill. Nor, indeed, should it have a place in the law of any other nation of the European Union because it smacks of the withdrawal of freedom of speech. It is essential in a free society that you should be able to speak freely—without the intent to hurt or insult people but to give your view on virtually everything.
  I therefore do not believe that that word, which can have so many definitions and which is viewed in different ways in different cultures, should be part of
  GC 62
  any Bill passed in this country. Indeed, I recommend that the Government say, "No, no, no, no", to its inclusion in any list. Having said that, I hope that the views of the Committee will be taken into account before we reach Report.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I endorse what the noble Lord said. I have said more than once during our proceedings—I apologise for saying it again—that what most people who understand the Bill are frightened about in it is that they may make a mistake and commit a crime without knowing it. The noble Lord—and my noble friend Lady Anelay— reflected the British attitude to such matters. People often make a casual half joke, which in this country is understood as a joke that is perhaps a little near the edge but which would in another country be regarded as xenophobic. That could easily happen. That is a real risk if we include the offence and make it possible for people to be extradited for it.
  I think that the noble Baroness said that the Government are trying to find a way of adding a new offence to the list. Does she mean other than by order or simply that they are wondering whether to do so by affirmative or negative resolution? Are they contemplating another way? If so, can we know what the alternative is so that we are prepared when she tables her amendment at the next stage?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may first deal with the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. We are still considering how we should deal with any alteration to the list, so I cannot tell her whether it will be by affirmative or negative resolution. We are at present considering how to respond. We have taken on board what has been said in Committee about the importance of changing the list. As I said earlier, we think it unlikely that any significant changes will be made to the list very soon. The noble Baroness will know that when enlargement takes place, there will be 25 or 27 member states, and there are hugely important issues for us to address
  The work on the framework decision involved many hours, months and years of deliberation to reach this stage. Your Lordships will see that the list is fairly comprehensive. It covers the majority, almost to the exclusion of the offences that should be covered. At present, we do not see the need to increase the number of offences, not least because your Lordships will see that the list deals with generic types of crime as opposed to specific crimes. That leads to what I said earlier—we have not defined them and we use different names. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who rightly raised the same issue, that we shall continue to consider the matter. I can assure him that everything said in the Committee will be taken into account.
  However, I must say as gently as possible that we cannot really define the nature of other countries' offences and how they craft offences within their own states. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that these laws should not have a place in any other nation in the EU. As is the case with other

  GC 63
  countries, we are not subject to anyone else's diktat. I know from the many contributions that the noble Lord has made to our debates in a very energetic and thoughtful way that he would be absolutely appalled if anyone else in Europe sought to tell us what should be on the face of our statute book.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Unfortunately I have to deal with things that are. It is true that I not only would resent but would always resent being told by other countries what we should do. But, of course, the whole essence, and indeed the whole concept, of belonging to the European Union depends on democracy and free speech. If you do not believe in that, you really should not be in the European Union. It was in that sense that I said that the term "xenophobia", which is difficult to interpret, should not be part of any free and democratic state which believes in free speech. If it is, then that state should not be in the European Union in the first place.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I believe that takes us down a very difficult and thorny path. Of course, implicit in the debate that we have had is a recognition that certain forms of xenophobia are illegal in our own legislation and are also illegal in the legislation of other states. However, the issue is whether we can confine how this generic term should be used.
  I believe it is right to say that the countries which at present have crafted their laws while pursuing the generic term "xenophobia" have all created laws which pertain to the needs of their particular state. Of course, I recognise the sympathy that has been shown and the acknowledgement that has been expressed in this Committee and, indeed, elsewhere with regard to the nature of Holocaust denial in relation to Germany. We are not including this generic term on the face of the Bill for any one writer. I believe we all know that that is simply an example of the problem that we might need to face.
  Therefore, we cannot have a definitive list because we cannot force any other EU partner to say that it will never seek to change its law. As I said earlier in Committee, the whole premise upon which this issue is founded is that we work in comity with our partners and we respect their traditions and their ability as democratic states to craft laws which meet the needs of their systems. Provided the offences fall within the criteria set out in the framework decision, we believe that we should properly respect that agreement. I do not believe that we will be able to give the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the definitive list that she seeks, because that is simply not within our control. We can say what it is now and where there is dissonance or difference, but we would not be able to say that for all time. Certainly, before the list changes, we could determine what each European Union state believed to be included within the generic term. I hope that Members of the Committee will understand the limitations that we face in relation to these matters.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I am, of course, grateful to the Minister for telling us that the framework list will now be brought into the Bill. That is plainly a major step forward and one that I certainly applaud.
  I agree, somewhat unusually, with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and, perhaps less unusually, with the noble Baroness. Lady Carnegy. Like them, I am puzzled as to why the Government are not prepared to take the obvious course in relation to adding new offences to the list, which would be through an Order in Council approved by the affirmative resolution procedure. It seems to me that anything less than that would be entirely inappropriate.
  On xenophobia and racism, the Government are, of course, much less accommodating and indeed have not moved at all. I understand the difficulties that the Government face, but the issue certainly worries us. If I might hark back to a debate that we had at our previous sitting, I think that our concern would be that much greater if the Government were to insist on applying the abolition of the dual criminality rule to offences that carry—to use an oxymoron—a minimum maximum sentence of 12 months, when they could perfectly legitimately stick to the minimum maximum sentence of three years, which is the sentence that is required by the European framework decision.
  In light of that, the inclusion of racism and xenophobia in its present and entirely undefined form becomes increasingly objectionable. That will have to wait for another occasion to be further debated, as I have every expectation that it will be. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 141 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 144 to 145A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 145B:
  Page 35, line 25, at end insert—
  "(7) Where an alleged offence is the subject of an arrest warrant but the offence was committed by a participant in an international sporting event, that warrant must be referred to the Home Secretary who must make a decision separate to any decision of a United Kingdom court as to whether extradition to the requesting country would be proper in all the circumstances."
  The noble Baroness said: I tabled Amendments Nos. 145B and 268A to respond to a specific concern that was raised with me a couple of weeks ago. I gave notice to the noble Baroness's Bill team that the matter would be raised.
  As we have said repeatedly throughout the debate on Part 1 of the Bill, significant safeguards are being removed. We have concerns about that. The Bill has also provoked concerns from many people who feel that they may be vulnerable to arrest under the European arrest warrant for extradition where

  GC 65
  currently they feel they are not so exposed. Those fears are, perhaps, nowhere more acute than in the international sporting community.
  As a matter of course, accidents abound in international sport, whether in motor racing, equestrian sports, yachting, rugby or football—all those sports lead to players sustaining serious injuries. Depending on who is found to be at fault in accidents of that nature, it is possible that extradition may be sought under the category of murder or grievous bodily harm. More concern will be voiced, especially among the motor-sports community, if legislation is introduced for corporate manslaughter and that becomes a category of offence in the list of 32.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Baroness mentioned a number of points in connection with international sporting events. Is there anything that is not caught by the criminal law in any event?
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I should move the amendment at this point.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Deputy Chairman has every right to think that, after the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I had completed speaking to my amendment. I had not; I had actually spoken to a quarter of a page. There are four pages and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will excuse me if I complete the rest, as that will answer his question. I raise the issue because members of the motor-sports community in particular are concerned by exactly the point that he raises; that is, under the Bill, they would be exposed to extradition where currently they feel they are not. They feel that something new is developing; hence the amendments. Members of the sporting community want to ask the Government to put on the record whether their fears are properly grounded.
  I have previously referred to the fact that, in debates in another place on the Criminal Justice Bill, the Home Secretary said that the Government plan to introduce a new law on corporate manslaughter, although we do not yet know what kind—
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.20 to 4.30 p.m.]
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I was referring to the fact that we know that the Government are considering introducing a specific offence of corporate manslaughter, although we do not know as yet in what form. The issue will become topical because it is anticipated that certain arrests will be made tomorrow in regard to the Hatfield train crash. So it will certainly be in the forefront of our minds.
  We are all aware of the horrors of the Ayrton Senna case. It fuelled a massive inquiry which, it has been rumoured, may well be re-opened. On 1st May 1994 Ayrton Senna was killed when his car spun off the Imola race-track in northern Italy. He was negotiating a fast bend, one that he and other drivers had previously taken at top speed with great ease. He did
  GC 66
  not collide with another car and there seemed to he no reason for him to veer off the road. However, a unique set of factors, I am advised, combined to cause the fatal accident.
  There was an immediate investigation into the accident. Motor racing experts believed that the cause must have been mechanical failure. They believed that Ayrton Senna could not have lost control of his vehicle for any other reason. An inquiry concluded that the accident was caused by a snapped steering column. As a result, manslaughter charges were brought against six members of Senna's Williams racing team, including Frank Williams himself. All were eventually acquitted and, in 1997, the prosecutor's appeal was rejected.
  But the snapped steering column theory gave way to a new explanation at that time that Senna's death was simply a freak accident, a tragic consequence of a unique combination of factors. Given Ayrton Senna's status within Formula 1 and given that there had been two deaths at Imola over that weekend in May 1994, it is hardly surprising that it took no time at all for journalists, motor-racing experts, fans and others to come up with possible reasons for the accident.
  I have spent some time referring to that specific case because it has focused the mind of the international motor sport industry on the issue of extradition. It has highlighted the complexities of fatal or near fatal accidents in that industry, one where it is hard, if not impossible, to ascertain who is to blame. We know that inquiries are often long and controversial but it is absolutely clear that accidents such as that involving Ayrton Senna are not infrequent.
  Not only the motor sports industry is concerned about this issue. We should bear in mind that the Olympics are to be held in Athens in 2004. We have brought forward the amendments to probe this complicated issue. We feel that the motor sports industry has a right to be wary of the implications of the European arrest warrant. It is concerned that every case involving accidents or injuries could lead to the possibility of numerous arrest warrants being issued for the prosecution of those involved.
  As to the earlier intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the difference between the extradition system in the Bill, which will be used in the future, and the extradition system that has pertained until now is that the existing arrangements have a back-stop in that the Home Secretary is able to decide whether or not an extradition should go ahead. That falls within Part 1. As we have discussed this matter on previous occasions, I shall do no more than outline that point telegraphically.
  We have been told several times by the Minister and her predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that the purpose of the European arrest warrant is to fight international crime—not only terrorism but drugs trafficking, fraud and so on. Everyone is wholeheartedly behind the Government in that fight. But we would argue that an accidental death or injury in an international sporting event resulting from a combination of unfortunate circumstances, such as in

  GC 67
  the Ayrton Senna case, is in a different vein. It is important that the Government should set out why they believe that such cases should be included in the extradition procedure.
  The position of sport within the international community is unique and my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has recently been appointed as our Shadow Minister for Sport, covering both Houses, will deal later with that specific issue.
  The amendments seek to ask the Government to put assurances on the record as to why international sport should not be concerned. If they are able to put such assurances on the record, no one—apart from the international sporting community—will be happier than we.
  The first amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State retained discretion in matters relating to international sport where extradition was being sought. The second amendment would make an exception in the category of events of murder and grievous bodily harm in circumstances where the offence was committed by a participant in an international sporting event.
  I accept that my amendments are not perfectly drafted. They are a tool for debate. I appreciate in particular that participants in sporting events raise specific problems. I look carefully at the noble Viscount in saying that because I am sure that he will tear apart the drafting. As the Minister often tells us, it is a small thing, but my own. It is my fault entirely. I could not think of any other way. I understand full well that they could be thought to include fans in the terraces cheering on their teams. I know they are faulty. They are brought forward in an attempt to raise the issue and to give the Government the opportunity to satisfy the international sporting community that it has nothing to fear, because at the moment that fear is real. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I raised an objection earlier to the amendments we are now considering. Everything the noble Baroness has said supports my objection. I understand why she raises the issue and she is entitled to adduce some sort of evidence—I emphasise the words "some sort of evidence"—before the Committee, but there is nothing in this. I have a real objection to debating issues merely for the sake of debating them. I understand why she does it, but I believe that she is wrong.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Before the noble Lord goes any further, perhaps it might assist if I give him some of the background. I shall be a little indiscreet in so doing.
  This matter was raised behind the scenes in another place with my honourable friend. There was an attempt to seek assurances from the Government on the record. Those reassurances were not given on the record. We are sure that the Government made serious and concerted attempts to give the assurances behind the scenes. Those were not accepted. What I am doing, therefore, is perfectly proper in the circumstances. We
  GC 68
  want to give a significant part of the public—those involved in international sports—the opportunity to be heard.
  I made clear in my opening remarks that the fear is that Part I removes safeguards. We have discussed the safeguards in great detail in the past and I do not feel that it is proper for me to do so again. If the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. wants me to rehearse those arguments once more, I shall—but I suspect that I will try the patience of the Committee.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Never. Impossible. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, knows that I have the highest regard for her, but I believe—and I am prepared to emphasise the point—that it is possible to achieve her aims in another way—for example, by tabling Questions or by seeing the Minister privately. If she cannot do that, there are other ways—for example, the newspapers, the broadcasting media and so on. It is wrong in principle to address an issue here which can be addressed in other ways.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I need to intervene at this point because the noble Lord is going to the heart of what I consider to be the principle of parliamentary democracy—namely, the right of the people to have their issues raised here. If the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, believes that that is not proper, then I am afraid that he and I have completely opposite views on the function of Parliament.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Nothing the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has said alters what I said before. I have the highest regard for her, notwithstanding her intervention. However, I believe that addressing issues on the basis that "It is not really material but we want to do it" is wrong. I have made my objection very clear, but nothing will alter my friendship for the noble Baroness notwithstanding that.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: These are moving interventions but perhaps we might speed matters up so that we can hear whether the Minister is prepared to go a little further in public than her colleague in the other place. A clear explanation has been given by my noble friend as to why she has brought the amendments forward—it seems entirely proper—and we look forward with keen anticipation and some optimism to a positive response from the Minister.
  Viscount Bledisloe: Before the Minister responds, I cannot resist the temptation cast before me to draw attention to the many defects in the drafting and to say something about the substance.
  As to the drafting, it is amazing that, first, it applies only if an act has been committed—so it is no good for someone who is innocent, only for someone who is guilty. Secondly, it governs only a participant in a sporting event—so the various manufacturers and managers to whom the noble Baroness referred would not be affected. Thirdly, and even more curiously, it is not limited to offences committed in an international sporting event. If the fight Mr Tyson had in his hotel

  GC 69
  had been an international sporting event, it would have applied to him in relation to his rape. But it does not. The drafting is, if I may say so, miles out.
  Secondly, and much more importantly, I simply see no substance to the amendment. Why on earth should those who consciously go to a foreign country to take part in a sporting event have greater protection than casual visitors to that country if it is said that, in the course of that sporting event, they killed or injured someone grievously by going miles outside the sport? What criteria is it suggested that the Home Secretary apply? In the case cited by the noble Baroness, the Home Secretary is seemingly to investigate matters of high mechanical technology and first-guess the court of the country as to what the real cause of the accident is.
  Why on earth should those who choose to indulge in the noisy and tiresome sport of motor racing have greater protection than those who take their car to a foreign country and merely drive it around? The amendment seems misdrafted, misconceived and altogether undesirable.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry that the noble Viscount is quite so critical of my noble friend. The amendment is probing, and we are all sorry that it is not better drafted, but the fact remains. It occurs to me that people get extremely worked up at sporting events, feel rather nationalistic, and do not always play absolutely fair. In the high dudgeon of a sporting event, it is possible that someone might be charged with corruption, swindling or fear of foreigners. That seems a very good example of the problems of the Bill, albeit that the solution may not be such an amendment.
  Lord Moynihan: I am reeling and recovering from the idea that anyone could describe motor racing as noisy and tiresome. It is, of course, one of the finest sports in the land, and we should be very proud of our success in it. Equally, we should have a duty associated with that pride in supporting our motor-racing teams and all those associated with motor racing in international sport when they travel to Grand Prix around Europe and the world.
  One of the important arguments levelled against the amendment is that there is nothing in it—that we should simply raise the issue with the press because it has no basis in legislation. That is totally misguided. My noble friend Lady Anelay was wise to focus on the extraordinary implications of the Senna case. That case goes right to the heart of a widespread concern in British sport as to the safeguards that exist in the context of extradition that will be lost with the passage of the Bill.
  There is no doubt that it is wise for the Committee to focus, first and foremost, on the fact that there is widespread concern, and not only in motor racing. The amendments address that concern. There .5 knowledge and awareness that there could be a costly government penalty, not only in the pit lanes of every motor-racing team in the land, but for all those involved in motor
  GC 70
  sports, cycling, boxing and all sports in which there is an element of danger and. in extreme circumstances, in which someone can be injured or killed.
  In particular, the Bill will damage the high standing of motor racing, and will render the United Kingdom less likely to be the leading home to the sport. A s has been expressed by other Members of the Committee, we are worried that it will severely deter voluntary officials from taking up assignments, not to mention those who are asked to be responsible for licensing or to accept the job of a steward in a European event. If the Bill is passed, they may simply say no.
  That is not only my view. In the first week in which I have been back in this job, I have spoken to Frank Williams, discussed the subject with Bernie Ecclestone in the House, talked through the implications with Max Mosley, as well as seeking advice and support from a range of governing bodies. I have to report—I would like the Minister to reflect on this before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House—that no one in sport sees anything but damage to the organisation and management of international sport, the support staff, volunteers and employees if the Government's legislation is passed unamended.
  Members of the Committee have asked what is so special about sport—what makes it different from other areas in European law. The position of sport in the international community is unique. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and I had the opportunity to review and reflect on that in some detail when it came to the Nice treaty, when I was on the Front Bench in a different capacity. To use a phrase that he used earlier, different issues are seen in different ways in different countries and cultures. For that reason, and because there is no legal basis for sport within European treaties—sport is on the whole self-regulating through international bodies—sport is rightly subject to the subsidiarity principle and is a matter for member states.
  EU states agreed a declaration on sport in Nice in 2000, however. Again, I urge the Government to have another close look at that before Report, subject to the wisdom of the Minister in accepting in principle the thrust of what is behind opposition amendments today. I fully appreciate, however, that they are probing amendments, in the true practice of the House and, indeed, another place. The idea is to probe government thinking and, if necessary, come back at a later stage with more polished amendments to address the valuable contributions that Members of the Committee have made.
  That is essential. If the matter is not addressed, there will be very genuine concern across British sport about the grey area between the laws of different member states and the self-regulation at the heart of sport. That is especially so in sports where there is a high level of danger such as those that I mentioned, sometimes leading to injury or very regrettably to death, despite the highest standards of safety applied by the international and national governing bodies. Unless the problem is addressed, there will be real concern that the Government have let down British sport by

  GC 71
  taking away the safeguards that it has at present. From all those to whom I have spoken in my first week back in the job, that view is unanimous. If that voice is misplaced, it is incumbent on the Government to address it in detail and allay the concerns that exist outside this House.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I ask the Minister to address in her remarks a more modest aspect of international sporting events. She or her officials may be aware that a number of school sporting tours to the continent are having to be cancelled because of the difficulty—the impossibility in terms of costs—in obtaining insurance cover for people participating. In particular, the problem revolves around rugby tours in France, where there have been accidents and where, regrettably, people have been left not dead but paraplegic because of difficulties in the scrum.
  Referees and coaches have been involved by the government in France—I am not quite sure at what level of government—in the inquiries and prosecutions following that. Referees have been involved because they are responsible for controlling the game, so the fact that that happened in scrums is believed to be their responsibility. The coaches have been involved because they are alleged to have engendered an overaggressive attitude towards the playing of the game that has led to undue physical violence, leading to the paraplegic and other damages to which I have referred.
  So far, the problems have been with insurance—the costs of dealing with the inquiry and providing cover for it. Supposing that the Bill were passed unamended, when members of the opposing team were inadvertently injured—no one properly suggests that there has been an attempt to injure them deliberately; indeed, some of the injuries have been among those from English schools—would coaches and referees from schools in this country fall to be extradited under Part 1?
  Lord Goodhart: In listening to the speeches of the noble Baroness. Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I have been reminded of the immortal words of the legendary Bill Shankly, who said, "Football isn't a matter of life and death—it's more important than that". Looking at the amendment, I can see no reason whatever why sport in general, or motor racing in particular, should be given an exemption that does not apply across the board.
  Why should people involved in sporting accidents who are accused of manslaughter be entitled to an exemption that does not apply to the United Kingdom manufacturer of a product sold to some other country of the European Union where there is an allegation of defects so serious and negligence so great that it amounts to manslaughter? No exemption is entitled to the manufacturer in such a case. and I can see no reason for making a special exemption for sport. After all. when it comes to a choice between justice and sport. justice is the more important of the two.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: For the same reasons as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I cannot support the
  GC 72
  amendment. It is too narrow. One immediately has to ask whether international sport covers professional or amateur events. If it covers both, what about the entertainment industry? A lot of ballet dancers can get badly hurt when dancing on stage, for example. Circus performers are certainly at great risk. Why should the provision not apply to them? Scouts on a jamboree could be at risk, and could have just as deserving a case as an international sportsman.
  If the amendment were differently worded and applied to all people who might be at risk of extradition, and if the appropriate Minister had the last say, that would be a different matter. We had a discussion about that earlier in our deliberations. By taking away the political judgment in the high court of Parliament. if I can put it that way, we now have one of the laws of unintended consequences. As I said earlier, I believe that there are circumstances when the political authority has the right to intervene to defend the interests of a British citizen.
  Before Report, I hope that people will reflect on that. Perhaps we can table an amendment to ensure that, in certain circumstances, all citizens will in the ultimate degree have the benefit of the protection of the political authorities in Parliament.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have had a very full debate and I have rarely heard such sporting contributions to an amendment. I hope that what I have to say in response will give a modicum of satisfaction to all Members of the Committee. Before I do so, however, perhaps I may warmly welcome the noble Lord. Lord Moynihan. back to a much more familiar place on the Front Bench. I congratulate him on his new role as the shadow Minister for Sport in both Houses. I shall be very interested to see how he exercises his duties in the other place, although they will not have the pleasure that we have had this afternoon.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: As a substitute.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: But never as good. We have first-team players here.
  I should say straightaway to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that, notwithstanding the imperfections which were so graphically and succinctly outlined by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I accept absolutely that she tabled the amendment in order for us to debate it. I do not seek to make further sport of the issue at her expense.
  We have some interesting issues to discuss here, although if this were a sporting event then I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. that I think he would lose. But this is far more important than a mere game and therefore I say to him that I really do not think there is much to fear; we are not changing the system so as to make sportsmen and women and those engaged in sporting activities more disadvantaged than they are at present.

  GC 73
  I listened with great care to all that was said by the noble Lord, to seek to ascertain from him the basis of his concerns. He explained that he thought that damage would be caused to sport—he made many assertions to that effect—but I had a little difficulty in getting a clear statement from him on exactly what those concerns were based. Having said that, I hope that I shall be able to give a definitive response, but if there are other matters of particular concern to Members of the Committee, I hope that, after my explanation, they will say so.
  It will probably not surprise the Committee to learn that I do not think we can single out sporting activities in the way suggested, which was the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Stoddart, and in a different way by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I am sure that the Committee will recall that we touched on this issue when we considered Amendments Nos. 112 and 126, relating to conduct which may have occurred in the United Kingdom. On that occasion I sought to deal with some of the anxieties that had been raised by people in the sporting world. The noble Baroness was kind enough to indicate those anxieties at the time and I sought to address them.
  I pointed out then that the Bill as now amended provides that if any part of the conduct occurs in the United Kingdom, we can extradite only if that conduct would be seen as illegal over here. On that basis, I do not believe that those who run the United Kingdom-based Formula 1 teams need have any concerns about the introduction of the European arrest warrant. The amendment provides that where death or serious injury has resulted from a sporting event, the case should come to the Secretary of State for him to decide whether extradition would be proper. I have to ask what the word "proper" means for these purposes. I can foresee all kinds of legal challenges turning on that point. I mention this element because I know that it is very much a part of the plea which has been made—that the Secretary of State should remain engaged.
  I also do not believe that it would be sensible to single out sport in this way. Tragically, sporting activity can lead to serious injuries and deaths, but it is not the only such activity. If we were to accept the amendment, presumably we would then face pressure for an equivalent provision from every UK mining company engaged in work overseas and from every construction company undertaking jobs in other countries. They would pursue the same theme. No doubt airlines would join the queue for a special exemption, as would almost any British company which owned or ran a factory outside these shores. Quite simply, I do not believe that that would be workable.
  Those individuals whose specific actions lead to death or injury will continue to be liable for extradition, as they are at present. Those who have not been directly involved, but who perhaps set the general company policy and direction from the United Kingdom, will be able to establish that part of their action took place in this country, so they will be safe from extradition as long as their conduct was not
  GC 74
  deemed criminal over here. If their conduct would constitute an offence in the United Kingdom, there is then no reason why they should be exempt from extradition, but so long as the United Kingdom does not regard their conduct as criminal, they are protected from the possibility of extradition.
  I hope that the noble Baroness will be content with that assurance, but it is right that I touch on the other position she raised because, as she pointed out, there is an issue as regards what would happen if. in due course, corporate manslaughter became a matter of criminal consequence here in the United Kingdom. If corporate manslaughter were to become a criminal offence in this country, punishable with a term of imprisonment in excess of one year, it would become an offence which could be capable of extradition.
  Of course, as I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, it is the function of Parliament to decide whether corporate manslaughter is a proper offence that should appear on our statute book. If it should, the conditions on which it should be established and any safeguards that are necessary will, I know, be anxiously and creatively debated—if in no other place, then right here. I have enjoyed the company of noble Lords on a number of Bills and I do not anticipate that they will stray very far when that issue comes to be debated. At that point all the vigour and verve brought by noble Lords to the consideration of this matter will be heard.
  As I have said, individuals directly responsible for death or injury will be extraditable, as they are at the moment. Let us look at the position of the Secretary of State in this. One has to ask whether the Secretary of State would have a reason to refuse an extradition request where it involved death or injury, whether or not it occurred in a sporting context. I ask that because these are extremely serious matters which need to be resolved in a court of law.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked what would be the position in terms of school sports and pointed out the fears that have arisen in relation thereto. I can respond to the noble Lord by saying that that self-same matter has become an issue for the playing and maintenance of sporting conditions in this country. I refer to claims properly made by those who have been injured that rely on lack of proper regulation, lack of proper instruction or lack of proper opportunity. Such issues are now a feature of sport, in particular those sporting activities perceived to be dangerous. Rugby, boxing and a number of other sports would be so classed.
  Here we face a challenge, not only internationally but in this country, to ensure that the way in which we regulate sport—the noble Lord pointed out that sport is self-regulated and it is right that it should be—means that the regulations in place enable our young people and all those who engage in sport to do so safely, in accordance with the law, and to ensure that there are no breaches. I say that because the knowledge that there are justiciable consequences for negligence and failure have enabled us to maintain very robust

  GC 75
  conditions of safety which have greatly enhanced the opportunities available to people to engage in sport in a safe and secure fashion.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: While I accept all that the noble Baroness has said, the point I sought to make is that it is not clear exactly what are the justiciable conditions she has just referred to in France and Italy in relation to, say, a British football referee taking a school sporting event in which an injury occurs. I understand that until now there has been the failsafe of the Secretary of State. Under this procedure, that failsafe will no longer be available, so that such a referee, perhaps a schoolmaster doing his best, could be extradited to France, Spain or Italy without being able in any way to hold back the procedure in order to discuss the justiciable conditions in that country vis-?-vis the ones in place here.
  I cite here people who are not engaged in any form of commercial activity. They are only endeavouring to improve the educational experience of schoolchildren. Notwithstanding the points made in the Minister's response, it seems to me that what is needed here is clarity and knowledge of how those countries treat these kinds of events. At present there is a great fear that what goes on in those countries is quite different from our approach; it is a much more legalistic and less insurance-based process.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the fears expressed by the noble Lord, but I should say to him that that is the position now. I say that because at the moment countries can seek the extradition of sports coaches and referees. Whether they are extradited would depend on the offence for which extradition is sought. If it is an offence of serious injury or manslaughter, those people will be extraditable, as they are now.
  It is important for us to remind ourselves of and understand the process that is to he adopted both in relation to Part 1 and Part 2 applications. It is a judicial process during which the skilled district judge will have an opportunity to consider whether the grounds have been made out. Earlier in Committee we were able to explore the way in which that can be done. It is not proposed that there should be ministerial involvement in Part 1 cases. However, as the Committee knows, in Part 2 the Home Office will satisfy itself, first, that the request comes from a bona fide source; secondly, it is for the court to consider; and thirdly, the Home Secretary will make the surrender decision and consider the basis for extradition.
  Nothing that we have done in this part will impinge on the need to go through the same legal process. We would argue strongly that those who are anxious about the changes should be no more anxious than they are at present—and we hope that they are appropriately anxious about the way in which they discharge their duties.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for her full and clear explanation of the Government's position. She has quite properly recognised the
  GC 76
  concerns that have been expressed by representatives of the motor-sport industry as well as by people involved in other sporting activities. It is right that, for our part, we should go back to those who have expressed anxiety and seek their view on the position as the noble Baroness has laid it out today.
  There is one point that I should have made in opening this wide-ranging debate which has covered many different sports I do not have any personal interests to declare here. Perhaps that is more of an embarrassing admission than anything else, but with regard to motor sports, I have to say that as yet I have not even been to a motor race. My noble friend the shadow Minister for Sport looks a little shocked at that revelation, but I have to say that the closest I have ever come to a Formula I car was when Team McLaren was kind enough to hold a British Heart Foundation charity event in Woking. We were allowed to get as close as possible to the car, but not close enough to spoil the paintwork.
  I raise these questions not out of personal interest but out of interest in all matters raised with Members of this House by individuals and organisations outwith this House. I understand the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that they do not see sport as something special that needs different treatment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, really got to the core of my difficulties in this part. He said that I have drawn these amendments too narrowly and that we should he concerned about the generality of people who will be affected by Part 1. He is right in saying that we lose the protection of the backstop of the Secretary of State's decision.
  When the Minister was answering my noble friend Lord Hodgson about the impact on school sports, she referred, quite rightly, to the fact that in Part 2, the Home Secretary's position remains. We support that entirely, as we have said in the past—we simply lament that it is going from Part 1.
  We shall consider the position very carefully between now and Report. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I will look carefully at drafting an amendment that will not fall foul of the very proper chiding that I received on this drafting from the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
  5.15 p.m.
  Clause 66 [The appropriate judge]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 146:
  Page 35, line 28, at beginning insert "subject to subsection (1A),"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 146, I should like to speak to Amendments No. 147, 232, 233, 237 and 238 as well. This is the last group of amendments to Part 1—pause for cheers, I think.
  The amendments are intended to probe the issue of who should be "the appropriate judge' in Parts 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Extradition cases in England and Wales are handled by Bow Street Magistrates' Court. I am sure that all those who have been working on the Bill realise the complexity of extradition law. I certainly admired the way in which it was handled by the judges at Bow Street when I was observing them.
  The Bill allows the Lord Chancellor—while he still exists—to designate as the appropriate judge in England and Wales any district judge (magistrates' courts) and in Northern Ireland any county court judge or resident magistrate. In Scotland. the sheriff of Lothian and Borders will be the appropriate judge. That seems a somewhat curious state of affairs. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who wrote to us after we had a meeting on Scotland. Let me say again that it was a most useful departure to have that meeting on Scottish law matters. The letter written subsequently answered so many questions that my noble friend Lady Carnegy was able to withdraw several amendments.
  Paragraph 2.2 of the letter made it quite clear on what basis the appropriate judge had been so named in Scotland:
  "Part 1 makes reference throughout to the appropriate judge. For Scotland this is defined in clause 66 as the Sheriff of Lothian and Borders. This continues the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Lothian and Borders to hear extradition cases as provided for under the 1989 Act. It makes sense to do so for two reasons. Firstly it will build the experience of extradition gained by sheriffs in Lothian and Borders since the enactment of the 1989 Act and secondly there is insufficient extradition business in Scotland to justify hearing extradition cases in more than one Sheriffdom".
  I would like to pick up on the two reasons and say why I think they could be argued to apply equally well to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  Bow Street Magistrates' Court has considerable expertise in hearing extradition cases. I have some concerns about the implications of designating other district courts which have never before dealt with extradition cases.
  How many courts is the Lord Chancellor intending to designate for this purpose? What criteria will be followed in so designating them? Our amendments would ensure that no court could be designated under Parts 1, 2 or 3 unless the judges have undertaken the required course of training and development in extradition procedure, as introduced by this legislation.
  With due humility, I made sure that the Bow Street magistrates knew I was tabling this amendment. I made it clear that I appreciated that they would not need any training and that I was not seriously saying that they would all have to troop off for a specified course of training but was trying to probe the Government's intentions. I was intrigued by their response that it is quite difficult to provide training in this matter because of its rarity and the fact that it has been concentrated in the hands of so few people. If the Government are going to roll cases out to other courts, it will be quite difficult to provide training, much of which has to be done on the job, especially since the
  GC 78
  Government tell us that they expect an expansion of extradition business, if I can call it that, as a result of the Bill.
  The second reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was that there are not many extradition cases in Scotland. I should have thought there might be even fewer in Northern Ireland, although I have not looked at the figures recently. As for England and Wales, we know that figures average at about 100 cases a year. Could the Minister clarify how many district judges are likely to be designated? We accept that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the courts are properly funded and resourced to carry out these cases. Have they assessed the costs for ensuring that more courts deal with these cases, rather than just Bow Street?
  I observed the difficult conditions under which Bow Street operates. It is not the most lavishly equipped court. I am trying to be diplomatic—I do not mean to be too offensive to the Government. I realise that some money has been spent on Bow Street Magistrates' Court, but not a lot. It still operates under very difficult conditions. What estimate have the Government made of future budgetary needs to ensure that Bow Street is fully able to deal with cases in the appropriate conditions without sitting cheek by jowl, as happens in Court 3 at the moment? I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having tabled the amendments; they provide us with the opportunity to set out more clearly how we see this aspect of extradition working in the future.
  As the Bill is drafted, Clauses 66 and 139 define the appropriate judge for hearing extradition cases under Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. The appropriate judges are as follows: in England and Wales it is any district judge designated by the Lord Chancellor—while he exists. In Scotland. it is the sheriff of Lothian and Borders and in Northern Ireland any county court judge or resident magistrate designated by the Lord Chancellor.
  I do not think anyone has any doubt that cases in Scotland will be handled well by the sheriff of Lothian and Borders. What may in due course change is how cases in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are dealt with. At present, anyone arrested for extradition purposes anywhere in any of those three countries is brought to London for the case to be heard at Bow Street Magistrates' Court. Although Court 3 may not be the most salubrious of settings, it is nevertheless a very sensible location.
  There is a good reason for this central location. Extradition law is very specialist and Bow Street has a cadre of district judges and clerks who have a great deal of expertise in this area. It has been very helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has spent time there, although I am not sure that it was something she delighted in doing. I spent a bit of time there some years ago for other reasons—I cannot remember when or why, but it was not the most gratifying experience. I pay tribute to her for her particular interest in this matter and for taking the time to understand how things work.

  GC 79
  The Government believe they need to examine whether it is sensible for every extradition case in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to be heard in London. It is commonly understood that there will be an expansion in the numbers of cases heard. While at the moment it is a tiny handful, we all accept that there will be an increase. For that reason, we think there should be or will be a small number of judicial centres outside London where these cases can be dealt with.
  There are sound practical reasons for this. If a fugitive is arrested in Carlisle, Cornwall, Cardiff or Coleraine, it does not really make sense for them to be transported all the way to London for the extradition hearing. For that reason, we envisage having district judges presiding over extradition hearings in a handful of judicial centres outside London. What is a handful? There will be perhaps three or four, all of which will need several district judges to make sure they can provide year-round service and cover. So it will be a small number of people. We believe that they will need to be trained but we do not expect the demand to be immediate. I suspect that it will be a slow and incremental process, with the new locations dependent upon the number of requests received, the balance of where the cases fall, the areas in which they fall and where arrests are made.
  The other reason why the development of regional centres dealing with extradition cases will be a slow and gradual process is because, as I have already indicated, extradition law is complex and specialist. Clearly, before any place could begin operating as a regional extradition centre, there would need to be a sufficient number of district judges and clerks based there who were fully conversant with our extradition law and the requirements it imposes.
  That brings me to the heart of the amendments. I agree absolutely with the spirit behind them. District judges must receive proper, effective and skilled training and development before they can expect to preside over extradition cases. I can give the assurance that the noble Baroness is after—the Lord Chancellor is very seized of this point and no district judge will be designated to handle extradition cases unless he or she has been properly trained for that role. We believe that to be very important. They will need to be very skilled and to include in their CV much relevant experience, perhaps based on practice.
  It would not be in the United Kingdom's interest, the fugitive's interest, the requesting state's interest and certainly not in the interests of justice to have a person who was unqualified and ill prepared in charge of an extradition case. I can give the assurance that that will not happen.
  Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 are concerned with who can issue outgoing extradition requests. If your Lordships care to look at Clause 149, you will see that the field is rather that for hearing extradition cases wider since it includes any JP or, in Scotland, any sheriff. The reason is that issuing an outgoing European arrest warrant is very similar to issuing a normal domestic arrest warrant, with the same
  GC 80
  considerations applying. Nevertheless, I can assure your Lordships that we will be issuing guidance to JPs—the noble Baroness has experience in that field—on the exercise of this new function.
  I hope that, having heard what I have said, and, in particular, the firm undertaking that no district judge will be designated without proper training, the noble Baroness will agree with my earlier suggestion that we are at one on the point and withdraw her amendment with some comfort.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that no district judge will be able to hear a case unless he or she has been properly trained prior to that. It is important to consider that when these complex cases are rolled out to this handful of centres they are not only properly dealt with but the courts are properly resourced.
  I referred—not too flippantly, I hope—to Court 3; I do not want to be flippant about the circumstances under which its operates. Court 3 is probably the smallest court that one could get into, so the number of interpreters necessary and the interest of the press makes things quite difficult. I suspect that it is used less frequently than the others, because people whose cases are heard in Court 3 are on bail—it is not a secure court. The other courts also labour under difficulties, and I hope that the Government can take on board the budgetary implications of rolling out these cases to other courts nationwide.
  Just before I withdraw the amendment, I notice that yet again, as the Minister mentioned, the clause refers to the Lord Chancellor. It therefore crosses my mind again what a torrent of legislation we shall face if the Government persist in wanting to abolish the post of Lord Chancellor. We shall need to change every reference to that post in our legislation. I must say that I look on that task with dread. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
  Clause 66 agreed to.
  Clause 67 agreed to.
  Clause 68 [Extradition to category 2 territories]:
  [Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 68 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This is one of very few clause stand part debates in Part 2 to which I have given notice that I should like to speak.
  Part 2 retains some of the protections that will now be excised from Part 1. We generally welcome what is in Part 2 and have said several times that we feel that Part 2 would do the job for extradition in total; we do not need Part 1. But that does not mean that we have no problems with Part 2; there are still matters that we need to scrutinise and probe—most importantly, the provisions laid out in Clause 83. We still wonder which countries will be in category 2. When I read the record

  GC 81
  of proceedings on Part 2 in another place, I noticed that my honourable friend Nick Hawkins remarked on that point:
  "It would be even more helpful if the Government were to produce a comprehensive list, because this afternoon the Minister was able to refer only to countries such as Canada, Switzerland and Australia".— [Official Report, Commons, 14/1/03; col. 141.]
  The Minister gave an evasive response. but we have subsequently managed to discover a little more about which countries might be designated as category 2. The Home Affairs Select Committee report in another place showed that of the 139 extraditions from the UK during the three years from 1999 to 2001, 57 were to non-EU member states and 23 of those 57 were to the USA, while the others were to Australia. Canada, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, India, Lithuania, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland and Uganda.
  Furthermore, on 20th May—after the Bill had left another place—the then Minister, Mr Robert Ainsworth in answering a Written Question listed all the countries with which the UK has extradition agreements, falling into four categories: Commonwealth countries, British Overseas Territories, parties to the European Convention on Extradition and those with which we have bilateral extradition treaties. Countries in the fourth category include not only the USA but Iraq, Colombia and Liberia, to name a few.
  It is important that the Government give us some idea of which countries we are referring to when we discuss Part 2 procedures. It struck me that countries which would fall into category 2 territories range from those which could indeed guarantee a just and fair trial to those with appalling records on human rights and corruption. For that reason, it is imperative that the Order in Council for designating category 2 countries should be made by affirmative resolution. We are grateful to the Government for conceding that point early on.
  However, perhaps this is the appropriate time for the Government to put on record why they dropped the idea of having four tiers of designated countries, as suggested in the draft Bill. It is clear that there is a great disparity between Canada and Liberia in the quality of their justice systems. On that note, the creation of a sub-tier is what really worries us in Clause 83. In that clause, we learn that some category 2 count ries—we do not know which—will be exempt from the requirement to provide prima facie evidence and that that will be done by Order in Council. A sub-tier seems to us a worrying thing to create, being neither one thing nor the other.
  In response to a previous amendment, the noble Baroness answered the remainder of the questions that I should otherwise have asked now. However, I look forward to hearing from the Minister the Government's thoughts behind the Part 2 procedure in general, and, in particular, which countries it will cover.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I answer the noble
  GC 82
  Baroness. I am sure that she gave notice that she intended to speak to clause stand part, but that fact did not seem to permeate down to me. Because of our work schedule, I accept that that is probably entirely my fault.
  As the noble Baroness said, category 2 will break down into three broad categories: those with whom we have a bilateral treaty—our bilateral treaty partners— Commonwealth partners and the non-EU members of the European Convention on Extradition. ECE partners are all listed. Perhaps the Committee would find it helpful to read the Home Office publication, The Law of Extradition: a review, in the March 2001 edition. It sets out all the countries that are within the European Convention on Extradition. If it would assist the Committee, I am happy either to read them into the record now or provide the list in due course. Perhaps it is easier if I read them now.
  As the Committee will know, the ECE was opened for signature in 1957. It came into force in the United Kingdom in 1991 and all ECE extraditions are governed by Part 3 of the Extradition Act 1989. The following countries have been designated by Order in Council under Section 4(1) of that Act: Albania in 1999; Austria in 1991; Estonia in 1997; and Finland, France, Germany and Greece in 1991. Hungary was designated in 1993; Iceland, Israel and Italy in 1991; Latvia in 1997; Liechtenstein in 1991; Lithuania in 1995; Luxembourg in 1991; Malta in 1997; and Moldova in 1998. The Netherlands and Norway were designated in 1991; Poland in 1993; Portugal in 1991; Romania in 1998; Slovakia and Slovenia in 1995; Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey all in 1991; and the Ukraine in 1999.
  The Commonwealth partners with whom the United Kingdom has extradition arrangements encompass most Commonwealth countries under the Commonwealth scheme that was first adopted in 1966. The arrangement relies on parallel legislation supported by a formal undertaking on speciality—or specialty; I am never quite sure which we decided on in the end—perhaps I shall stick with specialty and hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if they disagree.
  As the Committee will know, in the United Kingdom extraditions are governed by Part 3 of the Extradition Act 1989 and the prima facie requirement applies, although the scheme was amended in 199 I to allow for alternative arrangements to be reached on a bilateral basis. The United Kingdom still applies the prima facie requirement to all requests from Commonwealth partners on which I know that we shall touch later. The noble Baroness has tabled an amendment to which I telegraph that I shall say that she has forgotten the Commonwealth. This may be an opportune moment for us to include it.
  The provisions of the Extradition Act relating to requests from Commonwealth countries differ in some respects from those relating to foreign states. There is no provision for making representations prior to surrender, although the provisions are applied in practice. A person convicted in absentia must be

  GC 83
  treated as an accused person and there is no provision for special extradition arrangements with Commonwealth countries. Specialty provisions are slightly different; a certificate is issued by the Secretary of State confirming the existence of specialty arrangements.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.40 to 5.53 p.m.]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Before the break, we were dealing with the issue of Commonwealth partners. I believe that I can short-circuit the list of Commonwealth countries by saying that all members of the Commonwealth designated by Order in Council under Section 5(1) of the Act are included, save Pakistan, Namibia, Cameroon and Mozambique, which have not been designated under Section 5(1). In September 1992 an extradition treaty was agreed between the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of India. In saying that, I remind your Lordships that the Human Rights Act 1998 provision would apply in relation to all the countries about which I now speak.
  The bilateral treaty partners are to be found in Schedule I. Schedule 1 to the Act applies where bilateral treaties signed before 1989 under the Extradition Act 1870 are the basis for extradition arrangements. Most bilateral treaties date from the late 19th or early 20th century and are seldom used. The United States is the only treaty partner with which the United Kingdom has regular extradition traffic.
  The dates when the bilateral treaties were signed are as follows: Argentina, 1894; Bolivia, 1898; Chile, 1898; Columbia, 1889; Cuba, 1905; Ecuador, 1886; El Salvador, 1882; Guatemala, 1886; Haiti, 1876; Iraq, 1933; Liberia, 1894; Mexico, 1889; Monaco, 1892; Nicaragua, 1906; Panama, 1907; Paraguay, 1911; Peru, 1907; San Merino, 1900; Thailand, 1911; Uruguay, 1885; the USA, 1876; Yugoslavia, 1901; and Brazil in 1997. In addition, extradition between the UK and its overseas territories takes place under Order in Council made under the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. I believe that noble Lords are familiar with our overseas territories and therefore I shall not list them.
  The reason that we did not proceed with the four categories is that we thought there was no point in doing so. Three fell into the three categories and we had very similar conditions in relation to all the category 2 countries. I hope that that is a sufficiently comprehensive explanation to satisfy the noble Baroness as to why we have so defined this issue.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive answer. She has rectified the omissions made by her honourable friend Mr Robert Ainsworth in another place.
  At this stage, it may be helpful if I refer back to the clauses on which I have given notice of my intention to speak on the question of clause stand part. I believe that the confusion may have arisen in the Government's mind because, when we dealt with Part
  GC 84
  1, I had to lodge stand part objections to each and every clause because they were included in the second or third group of amendments that we discussed when I sought to delete Part 1 from the Bill.
  I subsequently gave notice of about only three or four clauses in Part 1 to which I wanted to see stand part objections left on the Marshalled List. I wanted to be sure that other noble Lords could participate if they so wished and I did not want to prevent them from having their rightful opportunity to speak.
  However, from Clause 68 onwards—we now reach Part 2 of the Bill—where notice of intention to oppose clause stand part is printed in the Marshalled List, as is the case for Clause 68, I shall indeed speak to those clauses. The next one will be Clause 83, which I have grouped with amendments in order to reduce the time spent on it. I notice that Clause 148 appears at the end of the groupings list, but we shall certainly not reach that today. I shall not pursue Clause 68 further.
  Clause 68 agreed to.
  Clause 69 [Extradition request and certificate]:
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 148A:
  Page 37, line 6, leave out subsection (10).
  The noble Lord said: I hope that I can be brief in dealing with these amendments and that your Lordships will not have too much difficulty in accepting them. They all refer to the Secretary of State's role in the certification process of a Part 2 extradition request and, in particular, to the documents that will be required to be sent to the district judge.
  When a request from a Part 2 country is received, the Secretary of State is required to certify that it has come from a bona fide source and that it contains the requisite information—the same role that NCIS and the Crown Office will perform for Part 1 requests. As the Bill is drafted, if the Secretary of State certifies a request, he is obliged to send all documents that he has received from the requesting state in connection with the request to the district judge, who will, in turn, disclose them to the fugitive. In turn, the district judge will disclose the documents to the fugitive.
  At first glance, all that appears to be completely harmless, but potentially it has some unsatisfactory and perhaps unintended consequences. The requesting state may, for example, provide the Secretary of State with highly sensitive intelligence information detailing how to locate the fugitive. That would then have to be shown to the fugitive after his eventual arrest.
  I am sure your Lordships would agree that that information could include details of informants or other intelligence material that has been obtained by means that we would certainly not want put in the public domain. That could of course have the potential, if revealed, to put individuals—and, by extension, perhaps, their families—at risk.
  The effect of the amendments that the Government are proposing would be that the Secretary of State would be required to send to the judge only the request, the certificate that he issues (certifying that the

  GC 85
  request has come from a bona fide source and contains the necessary information) and a copy of any Order in Council designating the country as an extradition partner.
  I should perhaps also add, for completeness, that the Secretary of State will retain discretion to send any other relevant papers. That would clearly include all those that may be of use to the fugitive.
  In normal practice, it is our assumption that all the papers received by the Secretary of State will be sent to the district judge. However, it is important that some discretion must be available to protect sensitive intelligence material. That is why we have removed the automatic requirement.
  I realise that that may offer some disquiet but, in the circumstances, noble Lords will probably find a way to agree with the amendments because they cover a very sensitive area of intelligence materials. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
  6 p.m.
  Clause 70 [Arrest warrant following extradition request]:
  [Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): If Amendment No. 150 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 151.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 150:
  Page 37, line 29, leave out subsection (4).
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 167 and 197 and the Question whether Clause 83 stand part. I have already drawn attention, when speaking to the Question whether Clause 68 stand part. to the fact that, whereas we welcome most of Part 2, there are some issues about which we need to raise questions and probe.
  I shall begin with Amendments Nos. 150 and 167. Amendment No. 150 would remove subsection (4) from Clause 70, and Amendment No. 167 would remove subsection (5) from Clause 72. Those subsections allow for an Order in Council to designate specific category 2 territories so that when they issue an arrest warrant or provisional warrant they need supply only information, not evidence. Our problem with that is that it effectively involves the removal of the prima facie case requirement on the face of the arrest warrant for certain unspecified category 2 territories. Clause 83(6) goes further. Clause 83(1) requires the judge to decide whether there is sufficient evidence for a case to be answered by the defendant on trial. Subsection (6) provides for the judge to pass over that consideration in the case of specified category 2 territories and to move on to the next stage of the proceedings.
  We have some concerns with that. We asked the Government to set out their justification for the exemption from prima facie evidence both for the warrant and for the judge's consideration at the hearing by an Order in Council which will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I welcome the guarantee given by the Minister with regard to a designation of a country as a Part 2 extradition partner. He said that any orders designating a country as a Part 2 extradition partner will also, if appropriate, contain provisions removing the prima facie requirement.
  Yet there still seems to us to be a potential for a new sub-tier of category 2 territories to be created. which essentially have one more safeguard for the British citizen removed. We are concerned about that. We have had plenty of debates in relation to Part I about the protection which the prima facie requirement provides. The country must provide information and we feel that it is important that there should be as much evidence as possible before someone is extradited. I believe that I can ignore some of my notes, given the Minister's response to the previous clause stand part debate.
  Our concern with category 2 countries that have no guarantee of the European Convention on Human Rights is that if we relax the safeguard with regard to prima facie rules, we have no assurance that. when extradition takes place, it will happen only when there is enough evidence for the prosecution to go ahead safely.
  Amendment No. 197 picks up on a point made by the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place. It stated:
  "We consider that the power delegated by Clause 83(6) is too broadly defined. As currently drafted, Clause 83(6) would allow any territory whatsoever to be designated as exempt from the prima facie case requirement.
  "We recommend that the power delegated by Clause 83(6) should be specifically limited to a power to make Orders in Council to exempt from the prima facie case requirement only: …those European states that are signatories to the European Convention on Extradition but that are not EU members … [and] any other state with which the UK has a bilateral agreement which requires that state, in making an extradition request, to meet evidential requirements equivalent to those set out in the Convention".
  We tabled Amendment No. 197 on the basis of that recommendation. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment to be a viable alternative to the current unspecified exemption in the Bill as drafted. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to these amendments but on this occasion I cannot support them because they would put the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations and be a great step backwards.
  Clauses 70 and 72 deal with, among other matters, requirements of prima facie evidence to be produced in category 2 cases. Clause 70(4) and Clause 72(5) provide that a request from a country specified by Order in Council need be accompanied only by information rather than evidence.

  GC 87
  Amendments Nos. 150 and 167 would remove those provisions with the effect that all Part 2 requests would have to be accompanied by prima facie evidence. I know that that is what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve. However, I am somewhat perplexed that she should do so on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, for reasons that I shall explore.
  The provisions in question hardly represent a new or startling development. If noble Lords look at Section 8(3) of the Extradition Act 1989, they will see that very similar wording can be found; in particular, the substitution of evidence by the word "information". We are not doing anything new by preserving the status quo. Those subsections are designed to meet our existing obligations under the European Convention on Extradition, the ECE, which we have now been operating for about 12 years.
  The UK ratified the ECE in 1991. It is hardly for me to make this point, but I am sure that the noble Baroness well remembers the complexion of the government who were then in being. Perhaps I need not remind noble Lords of the identity of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose company we have had on a number of occasions, or of the venerable and much loved then Attorney-General, whose company we may have this afternoon. Under the terms of the ECE, we cannot demand prima facie evidence and if we were to seek to refuse a request from an ECE partner on the grounds that it lacked prima facie evidence, we would be in breach of our international obligations. That change was one with which the Government were content and, sparing the blushes of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, I am in total agreement with the stance he took on that change. As on so many occasions, he and I seem to be at one.
  Were the amendments to be made, we would require prima facie evidence to accompany every single Part 2 request. The UK would have to withdraw from the European Convention on Extradition and seek to negotiate a new bilateral treaty with every single non-EU Council of Europe country, which I had the pleasure of listing earlier. At best, there would be a gap while those treaties were renegotiated; at worst, other ECE countries might not take it entirely kindly that we had withdrawn from the ECE and refuse to negotiate, leaving us with no extradition relations with the countries in question. Removal of the prima facie requirement has caused us no difficulties with ECE countries during the past 12 years. To go back on that now would be a retrograde step.
  Perhaps I may say something about the wider world outside the ECE. The Bill, like the Extradition Act 1989, allows for the removal of the prima facie requirement for any country in the world. However, there is one important difference. Following the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, we have agreed that orders removing the prima facie requirement all be subject to the affirmative resolution
  GC 88
  procedure, giving Parliament increased scrutiny opportunities. I know that the noble Baroness acknowledges that.
  Until now, no non-ECE country has had the prima facie requirement removed. We do not intend to change that generally; we intend to go slightly further, but only in a limited way. As the Committee will be aware, the new bilateral extradition treaty that we have negotiated with the United States will remove the prima facie requirement in respect of requests made by that country. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is especially exercised and spoke strongly of his opposition to that withdrawal. I am sure that we shall read of that issue in due course.
  However, we feel strongly that because of the history and nature of our long and well-established partnership with the United States, that will not cause us difficulty because it has faithfully honoured each and every agreement that we have ever had and given us no cause to believe that it will renege on the conditions that we have jointly set and agreed. I reiterate that we do not currently require prima facie evidence for a whole host of European countries, including places such as Latvia, Turkey and Albania. We can see no case for imposing a more stringent requirement on an established, mature democracy, such as the USA.
  I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is also concerned about the question of reciprocity. I must confess that I am a little puzzled about that concern. It is of course the job of this Parliament to decide what barriers and hurdles to extradition there should be. That includes setting the evidential test. If we take the view that for a country such as the USA, with a proper judicial system and where the rule of law is respected, the ECE standard is the appropriate one, that is an objective decision. So we must ask: why is that decision affected by what the other country decides to do? I cannot see how a decision to remove the prima facie evidential requirement from incoming USA requests becomes any more or less correct simply because, for constitutional reasons, the US cannot do the same.
  Beyond that, I assure the Committee that we have no current plans to remove the prima facie evidential requirement for any other of our bilateral treaty partners. There is a case for removing the prima facie evidential requirement for a small number of Commonwealth partners whose criminal justice systems can be trusted and with whom we have a significant volume of business. No final judgments have been made, but we have in mind, as I mentioned the last time that we discussed the issue in Committee, countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
  I am sure that noble Lords would not object to any of those three countries being exempted from the burden of having to supply prima facie evidence. Our relations with those countries are based on the Commonwealth extradition scheme—the London Scheme for Extradition Within the Commonwealth, to give it its full name. The Commonwealth scheme does not take the form of a binding agreement. Rather, it is

  GC 89
  a set of model principles around which all Commonwealth countries are expected to base their legislation. They can then designate all other Commonwealth countries that operate extradition on a similar basis as extradition partners. That is precisely what the United Kingdom has done, with the result that we have extradition relations with almost every other Commonwealth country.
  If the amendment were made, that would become impossible, which would be a very unfortunate step. Knowing the warmth of feeling that exists within Her Majesty's Opposition for the Commonwealth, I should be surprised if they sought that. I also know of the long tradition of communication with and support for the Commonwealth among Liberal Democrats.
  I hope that I have clearly stated the Government's intentions and that that has been useful. I remind the Committee that all Orders in Council designating countries as exempt from the prima facie requirement will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. so Parliament will have the fullest involvement.
  The amendments are not desirable. The first two would result in the UK being forced to withdraw from the ECE, while the last would deny us the opportunity to treat trusted Commonwealth partners on a par with our Council of Europe partners. Having heard what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that the Committee will recognise that Clause 83 effectively preserves the status quo. It is an important clause and I hope that the Committee will recognise that it should stand part of the Bill.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: The noble Baroness raised the question of reciprocity and spoke to it at some length, so I hope that the Committee will not object if I deal with my argument on that now. I intended to raise it by my next amendment, Amendment No. 151 A, but if I speak to that now it will save us having the same debate again then.
  I should say that Amendment No. 151 A is probably in the wrong place; it should have been tabled as an amendment to Clause 83 rather than Clause 70. As I understand it, Clause 70 deals with the information that must be provided to obtain an arrest warrant, but the actual hearing is dealt with under Clause 83. It is at that point that the question of the need to produce evidence arises.
  Having said that, it seems to me that it is inappropriate for the Government to have agreed to dispense with reciprocity in the new treaty with the USA. The United States gets from the agreement the benefit of the easier extradition of people it wants to have back in order to try them, but what does the United Kingdom get from it? I appreciate that other aspects of the treaty will simplify the extradition process on both sides and are unobjectionable, but I am concentrating on reciprocity. As far as that is concerned, the United Kingdom gets more or less nothing.
  GC 90
  In some limited sense it is an advantage to the United Kingdom that we can now extradite alleged criminals to the USA more easily and therefore do not have to keep them in prison here, but that is a fairly minimal advantage. We lose something of considerably more advantage—namely. the bargaining power to get the Americans to change their laws to enable us to get defendants back here more easily.
  There are other reasons for objecting to making extradition to the USA easier—for instance, the low standards of criminal justice in some states. While the noble Baroness refers to the observance in the United States of the rule of law—which is in general true—I am deeply concerned about agreeing a treaty of this kind at a time when the present Administration are showing their contempt for due process and the right to fair trial in relation to the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
  It is correct as a general principle that rights under extradition agreements should be reciprocal. As 1 understand it, the Minister said that there is no other agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party in which we have dispensed with the need for evidence except where there is equal and reciprocal dispensation the other way. In that respect the American treaty is unique. If that is so, it creates a bad precedent.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I support the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. 1 am very concerned about the present situation, particularly in regard to reciprocity. Like the noble Lord, I believe that we obtain very little advantage in the present arrangements. As he rightly said, at the moment there is a variety of standards of justice and in some states it is very minimal indeed.
  There is very little we can do about it. My noble friend should take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said because he is not without support on this side of the Committee. I want him to know that.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straightaway that I understand the concerns that the Committee has raised in relation to the issues now pertaining at Guantanamo Bay. Members of the Committee will remember the recent good and thorough debate on that issue which was answered by my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. It is right that those strongly held views should be expressed and noble Lords will have heard the Government's robust response in relation to them.
  I can assure the Committee that there is no question of the Government agreeing to extradite individuals to Guantanamo Bay. Any extradition to the mainland would be subject to the agreement that we have already in relation to capital and other punishments, and the human rights provisions contained in Clause 86 would prevail.
  Noble Lords will remember that we have discussed issues such as the right to trial, the right to representation, the right to interpretation and so on. I know and hear what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart,

  GC 91
  says in relation to the standards that may pertain in some states in the United States of America, particularly in the deep south—Texas featured very clearly in that discussion—where all is not as it should be.
  All I would say in response is that no country, including the United Kingdom, has a perfect criminal justice system. We still believe that the quality of justice in each of the states is on par with those to be found in the Council of Europe countries. As a result of our agreement there are some who would say that we are able to secure for those persons who are extradited from this country to the United States a better system of provision and protection than is available to United States citizens, particularly in relation to the application of the death sentence: capital punishment. To date, that part of the agreement with our US partners has, without exception, been honoured. If we compare what would happen to a person extradited from here with what would happen to an individual American facing the same charges and found guilty, in some states that person could not avoid capital punishment in the way that we have been able to secure avoidance for persons extradited from here.
  We are not looking at the individual concerns that we have about several countries, but at whether it is right and just for the United States to be treated in a way similar to that in which we treat other countries, with all the caveats and hedges we have put around it. We say that it is because we are able to ensure that our concerns are expressed and dealt with in a way that bites upon the operation. Clause 86 is a powerful instrument in helping us to do so.
  With the Committee's tacit consent, I hope that I have merged these answers with those 1 had intended to give to the next amendment. It will not help if I repeat much of the ground. I simply say that the prima facie requirement is not necessary in relation to this issue.
  I said earlier that, for constitutional reasons, the United States of America was in difficulty in providing reciprocity. I need to explain that further. For constitutional reasons the Americans are unable to remove the prima facie evidential requirement from a request made to them. If noble Lords look with care at the relevant provision enshrined in Article 4 of the Bill of Rights, they will see why that is so. It is not that they do not wish to; constitutionally they are not able to do so.
  Changes to the US Constitution are made very rarely and only with the greatest difficulty, so there was never any question that the US would be able to lift the prima facie burden from the United Kingdom. We are not in the same position. The Extradition Act 1989 enables us to remove the prima facie evidential requirement—as will the Bill if enacted—and the question for the United Kingdom was whether we should let the constitutional inability of the United States to remove the prima facie requirement influence
  GC 92
  the evidential standard that we set for requests made to the United Kingdom by the United States. We do not believe that it should.
  It is up to Parliament to determine the appropriate level of protection for people in this country whose extradition has been sought. We need to consider what evidence and safeguards there should be. If we conclude that in respect of a particular country there need be no requirement for prima facie evidence, we fail to see how that position suddenly becomes inappropriate if that country, for wholly understandable reasons, is unable to reciprocate.
  I hope that with that further and fuller explanation noble Lords will feel more content than they have been hitherto.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Baroness was right to say that it is no part of the view of Her Majesty's Opposition that the status of Commonwealth countries should be brought into question. We have the highest regard for them.
  The reason for this series of amendments is linked to our whole concern about the removal of prima facie evidence from Part I and our worry that in Part 2 we might end up with a system whereby the prima facie evidence requirement is also gradually whittled away. The amendments were tabled with that in mind. They were also intended to he a warm-up act for Amendment No. 151A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which we knew would be winging its way onto the Marshalled List.
  I am grateful for the Minister's indication that there are no plans to remove prima facie evidence from our bilateral partners except in the case of the United States. Our concern is that we might go further in future because the number of exceptions could increase.
  I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government's position on this matter. I have no doubt that we will need to look at the issue again, although in a more refined form, when we get to the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 151 to 152 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 152A:
  Page 37, line 33, after "constable" insert "or customs officer"
  The noble Lord said: I again hope to be brief in dealing with the amendments. I am confident that the Committee will have no difficulty in accepting them as they were trailed at an earlier stage and welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
  The amendments are concerned with the power of customs officers to carry out arrests in Part 2 cases. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill was amended on Report in another place to make it absolutely clear who had the power of arrest in Part 1 extradition cases.

  GC 93
  This put it beyond doubt that foreign police officers will have no power of arrest in this country in those matters.
  Among those given powers of arrest in Part I cases, as well as constables and service police forces, are officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. These amendments to Clauses 70 and 72 make corresponding changes to Part 2 of the Bill and give Customs officers powers of arrest in those cases. I should remind noble Lords that the definition of a "Customs officer" can be found in Clause 203(6).
  The Committee touched briefly on this subject on day three—it seems a long time ago—during our debate on the definition of a constable. I gave notice at that stage that these amendments had been tabled, as reported in Hansard at col. 304. Let me say a little more about how we envisage things operating in practice.
  We intend that when we receive a request from a Part 2 country the police will carry out the arrest in the United Kingdom even if the person is wanted for a Customs offence. However, there may be instances where, in pursuit of his or her normal duties, a Customs officer comes across someone who is wanted for an extradition offence. This is a perfectly plausible scenario because Part 2 arrest warrants will be entered on the police national computer, to which Customs officers have access.
  So Customs officers may raid premises looking for a Mr Jones, who is wanted for alleged VAT fraud, and encounter a different person, Mr Smith, who, when checked out through PNC, is found to be wanted for an extraditable offence. If the Bill were to remain unamended, customs officers in such a circumstance would be unable to hold or detain Mr Smith unless they had a Customs reason to do so. Thus Mr Smith, having committed an alleged indictable offence, could simply walk away. I am sure the Committee would agree that that would be most unsatisfactory. The amendments have been tabled to remedy the situation and to give Customs officers powers of arrest in Part 2 cases.
  Perhaps for the sake of completeness I should answer a question that may be asked. As I have indicated, in Part 1 of the Bill a European arrest warrant can be executed by a police officer, Customs officer and service policeman. Part 2 the Bill provides that any police officer will be able to execute an arrest warrant and, if these amendments are made, any Customs officer. The Committee may ask why there is no reference to the service police forces. The answer is quite simple. Clauses 75 and 72(6) allow the warrant to be directed to a specific person, which would enable them to deal with a situation where the person was known to be on a military base. However, service police officers will not, unlike Customs officers, come across those who are wanted for extradition by random chance, so there is no need to make explicit provision for them in this way. I hope that with that explanation the Committee will agree to the amendments.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 71 [Person arrested under section 70]:
  [Amendments Nos. 153 to 161 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 had been withdrawn .from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 71 agreed to.
  Clause 72 [Provisional warrant]:
  [Amendments Nos. 167 to 169 not moved.]
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 169A:
  Page 39, line 20, after "constable" insert "or customs officer"
  On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 73 [Person arrested under provisional warrant]:
  [Amendments Nos. 170 to 175 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 not moved.]
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 179A:
  Page 40, line 31, leave out "40" and insert "45"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I also want to speak to the two amendments on the same topic tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The area is complex and it would be appropriate if I set out the background and what happens at present. I apologise in advance if I have to speak at some length. I hope that I shall be able to present the framework so that Members of the Committee can understand how everything fits in. It is a difficult little journey on which we have to go.
  What we are concerned with here is provisional arrest in Part 2 cases and what happens immediately following it. In cases where the person has been provisionally arrested, he must be brought before a district judge for an initial hearing as soon as practicable. At the initial hearing, the judge must decide whether to grant bail or remand the fugitive in custody and give the fugitive information about consenting to extradition. He must also set the date by which the requesting state has to produce the full papers, and that is what the amendments are concerned with. Failure to meet the deadline leads to the fugitive's discharge.
  That is all fairly familiar as it is similar to what happens under the present system, but there is one important distinction. The Extradition Act 1989 is essentially silent on how long the period should he. By seeking, as we do in Clause 73, to set a firm time limit, we are providing a degree of clarity and certainty that has always been lacking. I trust that Members of the Committee will welcome that.
  Given that the Extradition Act 1989 contains no defined periods, it is worth looking at what the established practice is, not least because it determined how we went about framing Clause 73(10). In deciding how long to give the requesting state to produce the full papers, the district judge will look at which requesting state it is.
  Requesting states fall into three broad categories. The first is those countries which are parties to the European Convention on Extradition—the ECE—about which we have already spoken. In the case of a provisional request involving an ECE country, the district judge will apply the ECE procedures. Article 16(4) of the ECE states that following provisional arrest the requesting state has 40 days in which to produce full papers, and that, therefore, is the figure which our district judges will apply.
  The second group of countries is our bilateral extradition partners, and here the picture is much more mixed. Quite simply, our bilateral extradition treaties contain a wide variety of figures and the district judge will use whatever figure is in the relevant treaty.
  I shall give a few examples. Our treaties with Argentina and Ecuador put the figure at 30 days. Our treaties with the USA and Brazil put the figure at 60 days. Our treaties with Monaco and Iraq refer to two calendar months, while our treaties with Peru and Chile set the time limit at 90 days. I should make clear that, in relation to Monaco and Iraq, the two calendar months are not chosen. Therefore, we do not know whether those months will be February and December or whether some other arrangement will apply.
  Incidentally, it gives me great pleasure to refer to our extradition treaty with Brazil. Thanks to the escapades of a certain Mr Biggs, the myth that the United Kingdom has no extradition relations with Brazil appears to be a very persuasive one, which I am happy to knock down. That is a digression.
  The third group of countries which may be involved in provisional arrest cases is our Commonwealth partners. Here, the situation is even messier as our extradition relations with those countries are based on the Commonwealth extradition scheme, which does not contain any figure at all. The normal practice of our judges, when faced with a Commonwealth provisional arrest case, has been to set a 60-day deadline for the production of the papers, although it is fair to say that that has not been so in absolutely every case. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will see that at present we have a rather complex situation of which we must try to make some sense.
  However, there is one further, but very important, factor which I need to throw into this delightful mix. When the judge sets the deadline, he sets the time by which the papers must be received by the Secretary of State. He is not setting the deadline by which he, the judge, must have them before his court. So long as the Secretary of State receives the full papers at the end of the period which the judge has set, the judge can then set a further deadline for the papers, accompanied by
  GC 96
  the Secretary of State's authority to proceed, to come before him. Again, rather unhelpfully, the Extradition Act 1989 is silent on how long that second period should be. The normal practice is for it to be seven days, but there have been plenty of cases where longer periods—of 14 days or more—have also been set.
  Therefore, having looked at what we have now, perhaps I may set out the approach that we have sought to adopt and say why we now believe that an amendment to the Bill is required. As I have already indicated, we took the view that it would be beneficial to spell out, so far as possible, on the face of the Bill the time allowed for the production of full papers following provisional arrest.
  Accordingly, Clause 73(10) sets the limit at 40 days. Perhaps I may explain why we have gone for that figure. As I indicated, that is the figure in the ECE and we anticipate that a significant volume of Part 2 requests will come from ECE countries. For those countries, stating the 40-day limit in the Bill will make no difference in practice.
  By contrast, for Commonwealth countries, which are used to having 60 days in which to produce papers, this represents a very real change. They may find it an unwelcome change. But I am sure that Members of the Committee agree that, in the interests of the fugitive, we should try to reduce the period so far as we can. A period of 40 days is all well and good but, as will be appreciated, for some of our bilateral treaty partners it is longer than the treaty allows. However, for the great majority of them, it is shorter than the treaty permits. That is why we included Clause 73(10)(b). It allows us to vary the period to reflect the terms of the particular bilateral treaty so that when we come to designate, for example, Brazil as an extradition partner, the order will provide that Brazil will have 60 days rather than 40 days to provide full papers, to conform with our treaty with Brazil. I remind Members of the Committee that, following an earlier government concession, all the orders will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  If we did not have Clause 73(10)(b)—I am aware that one of the opposition amendments seeks to remove it—we could be faced with the situation where Brazil supplies full papers on the 55th day, fully in accordance with its international treaty obligations, only to find that the UK, contrary to its treaty obligations, has already discharged the person. I am sure that Members of the Committee would agree that that would be unsatisfactory. Equally, I am sure that they will recognise that seeking to renegotiate all our bilateral extradition treaties simply to deal with the issue would not be a sensible or practical approach. I hope that the Committee recognises that we need the flexibility provided by Clause 73(10)(b), and that the noble Baroness will not seek to press her amendment which removes it.
  Having set out the case for 40 days—one rather feels that that is appropriate for being in the desert—let me explain why we seek to amend it and substitute 45 days. The key point is that the Bill specifies that at the end of the period the papers must be with the district

  GC 97
  judge, having first been certified by the Secretary of State. We have deliberately sought to avoid the situation of the 1989 Act, where there is first a deadline for papers to get to the Secretary of State, and then a further deadline for him to get the papers to the district judge. Instead, there is a single deadline by which all the necessary documentation has to get to the district judge.
  The problem arises if, say, an ECE country provided the full papers on the 40th day—as it would be fully entitled to do under the terms of the ECE—it is most unlikely that we could get the papers certified by the Secretary of State and to the court before the fugitive had to be discharged. Accordingly, the Government seek to build in an extra five days to allow for the Secretary of State's certification function. That is similar to the second period allowed for in current legislation. The Committee will recall that I said a few minutes ago that the practice is for that period to be set at seven days or longer, so again we are shortening the process to the benefit of the fugitive.
  That is the case for the Bill and the amendment to it which we are proposing. I have already dealt with Amendment No. 181 from the noble Baroness, and explained why it would not be desirable in the circumstances. Let me turn to Amendment No. 180, which would remove the figure of 40 days and put in its place 28 days. It will not surprise Members of the Committee to know that I am not in favou7 of it. I have explained that we are bound by a number of international obligations. The shortest of those give our international partners 30 days to produce full papers, while most set a significantly longer period than that. Specifying 28 days in the Bill would lead to a large number of fugitives being released and the UK regularly breaching its treaty obligations. Neither of those would be desirable.
  I apologise for having spoken at such length, but the issues are important. I hope that the Committee will feel that I could not have explained the complexities without going through the issues step by step. The Government's approach brings a measure of certainty to what I hope all Members of the Committee will accept has been a somewhat confused area. It allows the United Kingdom to comply fully with its international obligations, while, at the same time, in a number of cases significantly reducing the time that countries will have to produce full papers. For the reasons that I have given, we do not believe that we need to extend the period in the Bill further than 40 days, but extending the period to 45 days simply copies the seven or more days that exist in current legislation. If noble Lords are not totally exhausted by that explanation, I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As the Minister said, I have tabled amendments in this group. I put them forward in order to probe the Government's intent in fixing the 40-day period. The noble Baroness has no reason to apologise for the length of her answer today because she has been able to give an explanation that was missing in the debates in another place. I appreciate the Government's concern to try to provide
  GC 98
  just one time limit within which all papers should reach the district judge in one fell swoop while reflecting the difficulties that may arise in different countries in so doing.
  When we looked at the Bill and saw the 40-day time limit, the first matter that came to mind was that there were no comparable limits within the 1989 Act. We then considered the matter further and thought that surely, in those 10 years, things must have improved with technology so that tighter time limits could he considered. Therefore, we chose our limit simply as a tool to open up the debate.
  I accept entirely the explanation given by the Minister. Therefore, she will be pleased to know that, because of her lengthy explanation, I do not intend to return to this matter on Report. However, I believe that it was important for her explanation to be placed on the record.
  Lord Goodhart: I concur entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I quite understand what she said but I want to make one or two comments. Given the age of some of the treaties and the length of time provided, it sounds as though they go back to the days when documents were transmitted by steamer, if not by sail—long before the days of air mail, let alone fax or e-mail. While I entirely understand why the Government chose that time limit, I want to express the hope that, when they negotiate new treaties, they will go for a somewhat shorter period.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I congratulate my noble friend Lady Anelay on these probing amendments. Seldom can a probe have disclosed so much. The only question that I want to ask, arising out of what I found a fascinating exposé by the Minister, concerns the extradition treaty with Brazil. If it could not get Biggs back for us, what went wrong?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble and learned Lord may remember that when I read out the list, I said that the Biggs extradition treaty was signed in 1997. Therefore, fruit came from the trouble that I know the noble and learned Lord may have had in relation to this issue when he was Attorney-General. We did get Brazil to agree. Those who sit beside me—indeed, I would include myself if the Government were so minded—would be quite happy to travel the world renegotiating these treaties.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 180 to 182 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 74 [Date of extradition hearing: arrest under section 70]:
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 185:
  Page 41, line 2, leave out "2 months" and insert "40 days"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 185, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 211. These are probing amendments and, again, concern the subject of time limits, although the argument is slightly different. I shall be brief.
  Amendment No. 185 concerns the time limit within which an extradition hearing on a Part 2 warrant must commence. Clause 76, which we are about to come to, states that in the case of such a hearing in Scotland, the judge's powers will be substantially the same as if the proceedings were summary proceedings. In such proceedings, according to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, a person awaiting trial must not be detained for more than 40 days after the complaint has come to court.
  If summary powers are being exercised, the Law Society of Scotland sees no reason to depart from the time limit set in Scotland. Indeed, the society suggests that, for the rest of the United Kingdom, a period of 40 days might be better than the two months proposed in the Bill. The society has asked how many days would constitute a period of two months. Would that be two calendar months? The amendment therefore proposes a limit of 40 days for the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Amendment No. 211 makes the same suggestion for the same reasons in relation to Clause 98. It would reduce the period during which the Secretary of State must respond with his decision on a person's extradition from two months to 40 days. After discussion with the Law Society of Scotland, I beg to move Amendment No. 185.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I rise briefly to say that the name of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie has been added to this amendment. On his behalf, I confirm that noble Lords on these Benches support the amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise to endorse what has just been said by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I recall that, in her response to an earlier group of amendments, the noble Baroness highlighted the difficulties of making arrangements when other countries specified periods comprising months but did not state which months. Here is set a limit of two months, but it is the case that different months contain different numbers of days. I shall be interested in an explanation of why the Government have alighted on such a period.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for tabling these amendments. They are concerned with the time limits set out in Part 2. Perhaps I may say straightaway that we are very willing to listen to arguments about the limits we have set and to questions as to whether they are right. We certainly do not claim to have a monopoly of wisdom in this area. There is an interesting debate to be had and I shall come to that in
  GC 100
  a moment. I was also very interested to hear what the noble Baroness had to say about the practice in Scotland.
  However, since one of the issues at stake is the time in which the Home Secretary has to make his decision in particular cases, this seems a good moment to try to respond to some of the issues that were raised earlier by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I believe that the matter was discussed during the first day or two of these Committee proceedings. Unfortunately I was not present and I do not know whether those days are now so thoroughly passed by that I do not need to address these issues: such peace has broken out in the Committee since those early heady days.
  At that point the noble Lord suggested that in certain particular cases my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had been dilatory, which led to delays. Noble Lords will appreciate why I cannot comment on individual cases, but I can answer the point in general terms. First, however, I can assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State takes his responsibilities in extradition cases very seriously and acts with all due expedition on every occasion. He certainly does not sit on cases unnecessarily—if, for no other reason than that no Home Secretary would want to see a valuable prison place taken up if he could possibly avoid it.
  As noble Lords would expect, the Home Secretary considers all representations very carefully. Therein lies one of the problems and one of the reasons why cases can appear to sit for a long time on the Secretary of State's desk. There is no limit to the number of representations that can be made or, more important, when. So the Secretary of State can have considered all the representations very carefully and be about to reach his decision when fresh representations are made. Those can and do amount to 10, 20 or even 30 full box files, all of which have to be studied in detail. Moreover, of course, the other side may need to be given the opportunity to respond to the arguments in the new representations.
  All of this takes time. I am sure that noble Lords would want all representations to be considered with the greatest care. I hope therefore that noble Lords will accept that perhaps it is not right to criticise my right honourable friend when he does exactly that and gives proper consideration to each and every one of those recommendations. Perhaps I may gently suggest that it is particularly unfair to chastise him by reference to individual cases knowing that in this House he is not in a position to answer directly, even though he would have a very good story to tell.
  I turn now to the specific amendments before the Committee. I am sympathetic to their motivation and I can reassure noble Lords that the Government are as keen as the Committee to ensure that no fugitive is held in custody for longer than is absolutely necessary. The Government would not want to create a system which contains avoidable inefficiencies.
  As currently drafted, Clause 74 requires that the main extradition hearing in a Part 2 case should begin within two months of the fugitive's first appearance

  GC 101
  before the judge. This is in cases where the person has been arrested under a full order request made under Part 2. Similarly, under Clause 98, if the judge has sent the person's case to the Secretary of State for consideration, the Secretary of State must decide whether the person is to be extradited or discharged within two months. In each case these amendments would reduce the period from two months to 40 days.
  The first point I should make is that our current legislation, the Extradition Act 1989, contains no time limits. Clearly there is no right answer to I he question. As I have said, I am perfectly willing to listen to the arguments put for different limits. It might be helpful if I explain in detail why we settled on the period of two months.
  I shall deal first with the time limit for the hearing to start. The two-month time limit has been given careful consideration. It aims to provide a balance between ensuring that the fugitive's case is heard as quickly as possible—we certainly do not want anyone languishing in gaol at the taxpayer's expense for longer than is absolutely necessary—while ensuring that the fugitive's solicitor has sufficient time in which to prepare his case.
  This may sound like an obvious point, but we must remember that in some Part 2 hearings the fugitive's brief may have to make a defence against a prima facie case. This could require obtaining witness statements and other material from the requesting state, which—let us he frank—may not have the communication facilities that we have come to expect in the developed world. I recognise that this also allows the requesting state the time to put together its own case and, in the interests of a comprehensive and just judicial process, I am sure that noble Lords would agree that that is right.
  If the 40-day limit were to be imposed, as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness suggests, I fear that the number of applications for a later date to be fixed would rise, particularly in light of the discussions in Committee on 19th June when it was noted that lawyers are a very thorough breed—this was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—and need a lot of time, and more if possible. One can anticipate that this would be an issue.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 211, which would reduce the amount of time the Secretary of State has to make his decision on a Part 2 case. Again I understand the desire of noble Lords to streamline the process as much as possible. As I have already outlined, the Secretary of State will have to consider various representations. Those representations will come primarily from the fugitive's legal representatives, although it is possible that the requesting state, other organisations such as Amnesty International, as well as members of the public, may also make representations about the individual's case.
  In order to allow sufficient time for these representations to be put together and submitted, we felt that a time limit of two months would be appropriate. Indeed, reducing the time-scale in Clause 98 might actually have the effect of putting the fugitive
  GC 102
  at a greater disadvantage if, for example, he was seeking to obtain material to counter assertions made by the requesting state.
  One matter that we shall certainly want to consider is whether we should seek to impose a deadline within the time limit by which all representations have to be submitted. This would ensure that the Secretary of State has proper time to consider them and avoid the problems of the late and multiple representations which bedevil the current system.
  If there is one recurring feature of the Bill, it is that extradition is a balancing act between the interests of justice and the need to safeguard those who are subject to the extradition process. These amendments raise such issues in a nutshell. We all want to speed up the process and, in particular, to ensure that those who are the subject of extradition are not held in custody for unnecessarily long periods. However, we need to ensure that both sides have adequate time in which to prepare their cases and to submit whatever representations they consider necessary.
  I hope that by now Members of the Committee will have detected that the Government are uncertain about the best approach to take. We will study the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, with the greatest of care. It may be that the course hinted at by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. of picking two months and putting a figure to it might be better—-we are really not sure. So we are open to further argument as to how to draw it. We want certainty; if certainty is better met by providing for 60 days or whatever, we can see that. We see the force of providing 40 days—I have explained at great length why we chose that time limit for other provisions. But we know there are difficulties in terms of what is happening on the ground.
  We have listened to what the district judges who have been dealing with these applications have indicated to us so that we could fashion something which will be practical and will work, but we are not tied to this figure. So if any Members of the Committee would like to make representations before we think again about this, I would be most grateful to receive them.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lady Anelay for their support. In particular, I thank the Minister for a very interesting and full reply—fuller than I expected. She said she would study what I had said. She will not find very much there because the argument for the precise need for 40 days was not given in my short speech. The Law Society of Scotland said that the summary proceeding in Scotland would normally allow 40 days, and it could not see why it should be longer. Its members will doubtless read with great interest what the Minister has said; I shall talk to them and see what they have to say.
  I was interested to hear that the Government were wondering whether to impose a deadline. I am sure my noble friend will want to consider that carefully, because it is an interesting idea.

  GC 103
  I have one question for the Minister about the discussions with Scottish Ministers when the Bill was being drafted. To what extent has there been a discussion between officials of the Scots Parliament about the desirability of trying to match, where possible, time limits in various parts of the Bill with Scottish practice? It is obviously desirable; the sheriff of Lothian and Borders will be familiar with that procedure, as are all those concerned. I expect that there have been discussions, but it would be interesting to know. If not, perhaps there should be before these proceedings are finished because new time limits are being set.
  I do not think Scottish Ministers are particularly worried about diverging, but it would be nice to know whether that has been properly discussed. Would the Minister like to reply before I withdraw the amendment?
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Although this issue is retained in terms of jurisdiction, on a case-to-case basis, those persons who are discovered to be in Scotland are dealt with as a matter of custom and practice by the Scots jurisdiction—by the Scots courts in accordance with their laws.
  We have kept in close contact with our Scottish counterparts on all aspects of the Bill. But extradition is a reserved matter, so ultimately it is for the United Kingdom Parliament to set the rules for the whole of the United Kingdom. The experience of our Scots colleagues is obviously very important. As the noble Baroness is aware, our Scottish colleagues have fewer cases with which to deal than those colleagues who deal with these matters in London. The nature and breadth of the countries from which and to which individuals are extradited are therefore very broad in the London jurisdiction.
  GC 104
  The noble Baroness is absolutely right: we shall continue to talk to our Scottish colleagues. But I say very gently that because of the difference in the volume and scope of the applications dealt with in London, the time frame within which individual matters must be dealt with may appear slightly different because of the number and nature of the countries to which and from which our Scottish colleagues will have dealt on extradition issues. We will certainly continue to look at this very closely.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the Minister very much for that explanation. It is probably not a major problem but the Law Society has raised an interesting point, and I shall talk to them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 186 not moved.]
  Clause 74 agreed to.
  Clause 75 agreed to.
  Clause 76 [Judge 's powers at extradition hearing]:
  [Amendments Nos. 187 to 189 not moved.]
  Clause 76 agreed to.
  Clause 77 [Initial stages of extradition hearing]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 189A and 189B:
  Page 42, line 5, leave out "under section 69" and insert "by the Secretary of State"
  Page 42, line 21, leave out "under section 69" and insert "by the Secretary of State"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
  Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think this may he a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until 3.45 p.m. on Thursday next.
  The Committee adjourned at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  The Lord Chancellor
  The Lord Chancellor
  Supreme Court
  Supreme Court
  ECHR Incorporation: Special Advisers prior to May 1997
  ECHR Incorporation: Special Advisers prior to May 1997
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Strabane: Unemployment
  Strabane: Unemployment
  Belfast Education and Library Board: DVD Language Policy
  Belfast Education and Library Board: DVD Language Policy
  Northern Ireland Education and Library Boards: Cultural Parity
  Northern Ireland Education and Library Boards: Cultural Parity
  Ulster Scots Language and Culture: Support
  Ulster Scots Language and Culture: Support
  Legal Services Ombudsman: Annual Report 2002–03
  Legal Services Ombudsman: Annual Report 2002–03
  Social Housing: Evictions
  Social Housing: Evictions
  Regional Assemblies: Referendums
  Regional Assemblies: Referendums
  Sudan: Embargo on Sales of Dual-use Equipment
  Sudan: Embargo on Sales of Dual-use Equipment
  Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  Bail: Electronic Monitoring
  Bail: Electronic Monitoring
  War Crimes Investigations: NHS Records
  War Crimes Investigations: NHS Records
  House of Lords: Monitoring of Members' Communications
  House of Lords: Monitoring of Members' Communications
  Zimbabwe: Asylum Claims
  Zimbabwe: Asylum Claims
  Counter-terrorism Detection: Advice to Businesses
  Counter-terrorism Detection: Advice to Businesses
  Race Monitor: Report
  Race Monitor: Report
  Defence Procurement: Gulf Operations
  Defence Procurement: Gulf Operations
  Iraq: Spanish Contribution to Allied Coalition
  Iraq: Spanish Contribution to Allied Coalition
  Defence Procurement: Industrial Participation
  Defence Procurement: Industrial Participation
  Iraq: Unexploded Ordnance
  Iraq: Unexploded Ordnance
  Iraq: Military Interpreters
  Iraq: Military Interpreters
  Iraq: Prisoners Captured by British Forces
  Iraq: Prisoners Captured by British Forces
  UK Troops: Insignia
  UK Troops: Insignia
  Iraq: Civilian Fatalities and Casualties
  Iraq: Civilian Fatalities and Casualties
  Iraq: Cluster Bombs
  Iraq: Cluster Bombs
  Armed Forces: Ethnic Minority Recruitment
  Armed Forces: Ethnic Minority Recruitment
  Iraq: Campaign Medal
  Iraq: Campaign Medal
  Food Supplements
  Food Supplements
  Plasma Transfusions
  Plasma Transfusions
  Schools: Earned Autonomy
  Schools: Earned Autonomy
  BBC: Funding
  BBC: Funding
  Litter and Road Safety
  Litter and Road Safety