Sitting of 3 June 2003

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

    Accident and Emergency Services
    Andrew George: What advice he has given to hospital trusts in respect of measuring the 2004 accident and emergency four-hour wait targets. [116524]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): We have issued detailed guidance on how to measure the number of patients attending accident and emergency departments, and the number of those patients seen, treated and admitted or discharged in four hours or less from arrival. All trusts with an A and E department are required to measure and report these numbers.
    Andrew George: But patients are no better off for being treated in other parts of the hospital while being taken off the four-hour wait times, and they are still being treated on trolleys. The recent BMA survey
    2
    showed that both before and after the monitoring period in March, A and E departments met much lower thresholds. Doctors are worried that the process is distorting clinical priorities. Does not the Minister share my concern that hospital trust administrators are finding ever more inventive ways of treating targets rather than patients?
    Mr. Lammy: No, I do not. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Royal Cornwall hospital, part of his local trust, is taking positive steps towards the A and E target and exceeding it, because of the new medical assessment unit that is in place and because of the £2 million that the trust has put in to establish a new ward. People should not wait longer than four hours in our emergency departments. His trust and trusts around the country are making tremendous progress on the target that we set for the end of 2004.
    Judy Mallaber: In an emergency, a four-hour wait for a liver to turn up for a transplant can be too long. Will my hon. Friend ask the Crown Prosecution Service to stop the prosecution against a senior ambulance driver for ferrying a liver, and will he consider the possibility of amending the law to exempt transplant vehicles?
    Mr. Lammy: I have sympathy for my hon. Friend's constituent. Clearly, the case is before the court and it would be wrong of me to comment on it at the Dispatch Box. We wait to see what determinations are made.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Is not the Minister embarrassed about the number of trusts that are forced to cheat to meet the target? Is he not concerned that the British Medical Association survey showed that a majority of respondents in A and E felt that the measures taken
    "had distorted clinical priorities … and many said that waiting times for patients with the most serious conditions had increased."

    3
    It was also reported that there were concerns that
    "patients were being rushed through A & E, inappropriately admitted, or transferred to the wrong department."
    Does not that make the target a sham, undermine confidence in statistics, undermine the Government's credibility, and involve the distortion of clinical priorities and resource allocation? Should he not stop it now?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman knows that the BMA surveyed only 30 per cent. of its members. Only the Liberal Democrats could think that that was a majority. It is not a majority, and indeed the BMA did not survey all trusts. There has been tremendous performance towards the A and E target that we set for the end of next year, because of the hard work, dedication, innovation and commitment of nurses and doctors in our A and E departments across the country. There has been investment and the target has focused and concentrated minds. The hon. Gentleman should make a distinction between the extra resources and capacity that go into trusts to achieve that milestone and those targets, and the fiddling, which is a disgraceful accusation to make of nurses and doctors across the country.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend will be aware that A and E services have been monitored over many years by community health councils, which are due to abolished at the end of August. Could he explain to the House why CHC staff received a letter this weekend indicating that they will not be made redundant within the three-month period as they expected, and what the statement that the Department is to make later this week will tell us about the future of CHCs and their replacement bodies?
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend is right that by independent monitoring, CHC staff made a great contribution to our A and E departments through casualty watch. There are on-going discussions with the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and CHC members about that. I shall make a statement in due course about the issues that my hon. Friend raises.
    Dr. Liam Fox: The Minister must accept that the entire monitoring exercise on A and E was a charade. The hospitals knew when they were to be measured, and they knew that they had to meet the Government's targets or they would be punished, because this is the "Targets R Us" Government. More importantly, the majority of doctors—not just those in the BMA—have said that the waiting time for those with more serious conditions went up during the monitoring period, and that operations were not scheduled at all or were cancelled. In effect, patients suffered so that Ministers could take credit. What does that say about the moral foundations of the Government's policy?
    Mr. Lammy: The milestone focuses minds. It means that hospitals across the country put in investment, resources and innovation to ensure that people are waiting no longer than four hours in our A and E departments. Does the hon. Gentleman want to return to the situation under the Tories, in which people were
    4
    waiting six, seven, eight or nine hours in our A and E departments? Does he want to return to trolley waits in our A and E departments lasting 24 or 36 hours? Of course not. When he quotes the BMA, he is being selective. The chairman of the BMA's A and E committee said:
    "Many of the doctors surveyed were proud of the level of service they provided in the week of monitoring"
    and said that that is clearly dependent on continuing staffing levels. That is because of the investment that the Government are putting in. The hon. Gentleman knows that and he should support our A and E doctors and nurses, not seek to undermine them.
    Dr. Fox: What fantasy is this—the idea that no patients are waiting more than four hours? Simply because the Government fiddle a survey, it does not mean that that is what is happening in the real world. In the real world, extra staff were taken on, staff were asked to work longer shifts and patients were shifted from one part of the system to another. It is not us who are undermining the staff, but the Government, with their constant interference and imposition of targets on them. The targets are now the only thing that matters, irrespective of their effects on doctors, nurses or patients in the system, and no matter what the distortions of clinical priorities. As long as Ministers are kept happy, that is the main thing. We have seen the waiting list figures fiddled and the star ratings distorted, and while the Prime Minister struggles with his 45 minutes to Armageddon and the Chancellor plays fantasy economic growth, the Secretary of State is doctoring the casualty figures. Is it any wonder that in this country it is not only Cabinet Ministers who feel that they are being duped?
    Mr. Lammy: It was a milestone set for the end of March. That is very straightforward. The target is for the end of the year, next year. There has been improvement month on month in our A and E departments since September. As to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that that figure for the end of March was not sustainable, we saw average improvement in April as well.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that, if we are trying to ensure sensible use of A and E services and maximise throughput, the corollary is that minor injuries units must be effective? Like many hon. Members, I am concerned that minor injuries units that are seen, rightly or wrongly, as a substitute for some withdrawn A and E services, should have the maximum availability in terms of hours. Will he please address that issue and, in particular, consider the Orsett hospital in Thurrock, where the minor injuries unit is not open to a sufficient extent in terms of compensation for my constituents?
    Mr. Lammy: I shall undertake to do that. My hon. Friend will know that minor injuries units and walk-in centres make a tremendous contribution to emergency services and should sit alongside mainstream A and E services, medical assessment units, clinical decision units and a lot of other initiatives to ensure a quick throughput in our A and E departments and across the board.

    Digital Hearing Aids
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the provision of digital hearing aids. [116525]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Over the next two years, we are investing £94 million to make the benefits of digital hearing aids fitted as part of a modernised service available more widely on the NHS. All NHS hearing aid centres in England will be providing digital hearing aids by April 2005.
    Mr. Turner: I am glad to hear it, but my constituents are concerned that they have to pay for digital hearing aids, while in wealthier places on the mainland, they are available free on the NHS. Will the Minister explain why she wrote on 27 May:
    "If the services commissioned by a PCT…do not meet the needs of a particular patient, then GPs do also have freedom to refer elsewhere using the Out of Area …arrangements",
    while my health trust and PCT both confirm that the nearest pilot site is Winchester and that there is no referring outside area?
    Jacqui Smith: That is why it is important that everybody, wherever they live, gets access to digital hearing aids on the NHS. St. Mary's hospital in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is keen to take part in the modernising hearing aids scheme, and by April 2005 it will have the opportunity to do so. His constituents, along with those in the whole of England, will, for the first time, be able to get their digital hearing aids not by going private, but through the NHS.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are some 2 million hearing aid users and perhaps another 2 million who should be using hearing aids. Will she take it from me that to move in three or four years from a position in which no digital hearing aids were available on the NHS to one in which they are 100 per cent. available is a highly commendable achievement? Does she accept that that speed of progress is related to the training and availability of audiologists; and will she assure the House that appropriate training and recruitment of audiologists is taking place to complement the measure?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend, who has some expertise, is absolutely right. It is important that we not only introduce new hearing aids, but support that with a modernised service so that people can have the checkups and preparation that are necessary to make the best use of digital hearing aids. We can do that, first, by helping staff to work in a different way and, secondly, by increasing the number of audiologists. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that from this September, three additional degree courses for audiologists are starting, with more to follow in coming years. Those courses, which are funded by the Department of Health, will ensure that we have the staff in place to match the extra investment that will make the service available to people using the NHS in England.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Given that the principal logjam is in gaining access to an NHS
    6
    audiologist, what progress is being made in giving private hearing aid dispensers access to the NHS contract for digital hearing aids?
    Jacqui Smith: I am interested not in encouraging people to go out of the NHS privately, but in enabling people within the NHS to get digital hearing aids for free. That is why we have started private sector pilots in Leeds and Shrewsbury that use capacity in the private sector to ensure that more NHS patients get digital hearing aids, and why we are developing a national framework contract to allow us to use capacity in the private sector for NHS patients.
    The hon. Gentleman's question highlights the difference between Members on this side of the House and those on the other side. He, like the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), wants to encourage people to pay and get out of the NHS; we want to encourage people to get the service that they deserve in the NHS, and that is what we will do.

    Mental Health
    Dr. Ian Gibson: If he will exempt from prescription charges people with mental health problems in need of continuing care or treatment. [116526]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Improving services for people with mental health problems is a priority for the Government. We aim to help those who may have difficulty in paying prescription charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements. By using a prescription prepayment certificate, no one need pay more than £32.90 for four months, or £90.40 for 12 months, for all the NHS medication that they are prescribed.
    Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, what does she make of the report by Mind and Health Which? on the hidden costs of mental health, which found that 83 per cent. of people with experience of mental distress had not received the care or treatment that they needed and felt that they could not cope with life or recover, and that 59 per cent. of them were unable to afford the treatments and drugs that were on offer? Does not that represent a lack of boldness?
    Ms Blears: The report is an excellent piece of work that is based on service users' experience. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), will meet representatives from Mind tomorrow to discuss the report's findings. It covers not only medication and prescriptions, but psychological therapies, art therapy and complementary therapy.
    On access to prescriptions, if more people got pre-payment certificates they would find that a tremendous help in meeting the costs of medication. It is important to try to expand the non-drug treatments that are available in the range of mental health services. We are doing a great deal of research into therapies involving

    7
    psychological counselling, and to get more capacity into the system we have 1,000 people training to be able to provide those non-drug therapies within the NHS.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Is the hon. Lady aware of the survey conducted by the Depression Alliance which showed that up to 50 per cent. of those suffering from mental problems are now turning to herbal medicines, and to aromatherapy in particular? Does she not think that it would be helpful if the certificates to which she referred could encompass herbal medicine and aromatherapy, to help those affected? Is she not also absolutely ashamed of the Food Standards Agency report on vitamin supplements, which has caused such confusion? Does she agree that many doctors prescribe and encourage patients to take vitamin supplements, and that the idea that the whole nation is on the same quality of diet is absolutely ridiculous?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that primary care trusts can now commission a whole range of therapies, because they have the resources at the front line of the service. He is also aware that there has to be a proper evidence base for those therapies to be provided. Continuing to raise the game of complementary practitioners is an important part of the service and increasing regulation. In the mental health field, a whole range of therapies is beginning to be evaluated, and the involvement of people with mental health problems in arts projects, for example, is proving extremely helpful in alleviating some of their problems and symptoms. So this is not just a matter of traditional complementary therapies; a whole range of alternatives is beginning to be offered under this Government to people with long-term mental health problems.
    Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will take note of the Mind report's recommendations and consider implementing them? Where gaps in provision are found—perhaps research needs to be commissioned to identify them—will the Government take steps to ensure that those gaps are filled?
    Ms Blears: As I have said, the Mind report is an extremely useful piece of information based on service users' experience. I would draw Members' attention to its recommendation on ensuring that, in accordance with the Mind prescribing protocol, people with mental health problems are involved in the clinical decisions about the kind of medication that should be prescribed. Time and again, we have found that when we get expert patients involved, the medical outcomes are much better. The Mind protocol is an excellent piece of work and we shall certainly look at all the report's recommendations to see what we can take up.

    Hospital Trust Deficits (Worcestershire)
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the measures being taken to tackle the deficits of (a) the Worcestershire acute hospitals trust and (b) the South Worcestershire primary care trust. [116527]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The West Midlands South strategic health authority is currently working with both trusts to ensure a return to financial balance at the earliest possible opportunity. This will be helped by an increase of more than 30 per cent. in the resources available to the South Worcestershire primary care trust in the period 2003 to 2006.
    Mr. Luff: I thank the Minister for that answer. Despite the increase in resources of which he speaks, however, the South Worcestershire primary care trust is consulting on a range of painful options involving cuts in the local health service, including downgrading the minor injuries unit at Evesham community hospital, and the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust is suffering in a real struggle to bring its large cumulative deficit back into balance. On three occasions, Ministers have refused to answer my parliamentary questions on when the hospital trust will be obliged to write off its cumulative deficit. It is important for the doctors and nurses at the hospital to know what cuts in their services might be threatened, in order to bring the deficit down. I would ask the Minister—[Interruption.]—I have asked this question three times before; this is the fourth time. When will the hospital trust be obliged to write off its cumulative deficit?
    Mr. Hutton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the health service in his constituency. He will know that NHS regulations require trusts to restore financial balance within three years of the deficit arising, and that is the time frame within which his local trust must operate. I hope that that answer is helpful to him. As he is not being partisan today, I would like to offer him this comment in an equally non-partisan spirit. I hear his concerns about the resources going into his local NHS—we all do, on this side of the House—but I would simply ask him to reflect on the plausibility of his critique, given that his party voted against the resources going into the national health service at all. I hardly think that he is in a position to bemoan the lack of resources going into the NHS in Worcestershire when he and his hon. Friends voted against the increases.
    Mr. Michael Foster: Will my right hon. Friend conduct an urgent review of the services provided by Worcestershire acute hospitals trust and South Worcestershire primary care trust to see exactly what the impact of a 20 per cent. cut in funding would be on those services?
    Mr. Hutton: I am not sure that I need to carry out a thorough review to decide that. Such a cut would be devastating for the NHS in my hon. Friend's constituency, and the one sure way to prevent it from happening is to make sure that that lot never get returned to office.
    Dr. Richard Taylor: What response does the Minister plan to make to the highly critical

    9
    report from the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, which has just been issued, on the situation at the new Worcestershire hospital?
    Mr. Hutton: I have not had the chance to read the report, but, like all reports written by the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, I will study it very carefully indeed.

    Foundation Hospitals
    Mr. Chris Mullin: How candidates for membership of governing boards of foundation hospital trusts will be chosen; and if he will make a statement. [116528]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill states that members of each NHS foundation trust board will be chosen by election. Direct elections will help to ensure that NHS hospitals work more closely with the local communities they serve.
    Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for that reply. Although I have no objection in principle to my right hon. Friend's plans to devolve power within the NHS, I still struggle to understand his proposals on accountability. How will candidates be selected? Will they nominate themselves or will they be chosen in some other way, as yet undecided? Is there not a danger that, if we are not careful, we shall end up with foundation hospitals that are less rather than more accountable to the public they serve? I know that that is not what he is aiming at.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right about that. The principle is that we want to ensure that local staff and local members of the community have a greater say in how local hospitals such as his own, which have applied to become an NHS foundation trust, are run. That must be right. If we are to achieve more responsive local services, with the best will in the world, that cannot be imposed from Whitehall or from the top down. There has to be a much greater local element of accountability than there has been to date.
    On the provision for how people will be elected, obviously, the NHS foundation trusts are a membership-based organisation and we want to ensure, as far as we can, that as wide a swathe of the local community as possible become members of NHS foundation trusts. I think that my hon. Friend is aware that the Bill provides for secret postal ballots from among the members who will be involved in direct elections to the hospital governing board. He is also aware that local members of staff will have an opportunity to be represented on the governing body, so, for the first time, local staff and local members of the community will have a direct say in how the hospital is being run.
    Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the Secretary of State saying that he wants to encourage the widest possible membership of foundation hospitals. In that spirit, will he consider extending membership to all people on the electoral roll in the relevant area? If he
    10
    does not want to go that far, will he tell the House what active measures he will take to promote wide membership, which many of us would welcome?
    Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is important that the membership of NHS foundation trusts is as large as possible, representing the local community. There are a number of options, and one is to achieve that through advertising in the local media, which would encourage local people to become members. Alternative options include allowing people to register to become a member of an NHS foundation trust when they register, for example, to vote in a local election.
    Mr. Keith Bradley: Can my right hon. Friend explain this to me? If a specialist hospital such as Christie in my constituency becomes a foundation hospital, who will be the electorate for membership of it?
    Mr. Milburn: As my right hon. Friend and I have discussed previously, the position of specialist hospitals is somewhat at variance with that of most district general hospitals, for example. [Interruption.] Although the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) laughs, he is the first to say that the NHS is not a uniform service. Indeed it is not. Specialist hospitals have a very different make-up and serve a very different catchment population from district general hospitals. That is why it must be right, as the Bill does, to allow some flexibility in the governance structure.
    Specialist hospitals, in part, serve the local community, and members of the local community would have the right to become members of the NHS foundation trust. Equally, the vast majority of users of a hospital such as Christie are drawn not from the local community, but from patients and, due to the hospital's excellent services, those patients come from not only the north-west, but across the whole country. That is why the Bill gives flexibility—precisely so that patients and the public can be represented on the governing body of such organisations.
    Mr. Simon Burns: Will the Secretary of State reflect on criticism from the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Health? It said that the plans for the constituencies to elect the governing boards would be determined by unelected NHS organisations. As a result, the Committee said that the board of governors would function simply as focus groups, advisory panels or talking shops. On reflection, does the Secretary of State not think that it would have been better to be more consistent in deciding on the constituency bodies that would elect governing boards, and thus to avoid confusion, anomalies, disappointment and a system that prevents the boards from carrying out their functions effectively?
    Mr. Milburn: That sounds suspiciously like a return to precisely the centralised control and Government intervention that the hon. Member for Woodspring warned us against a moment ago. The hon. Member for

    11
    West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is a member of the Select Committee as well as a Conservative Front Bencher—[HON. MEMBERS: "Surely not!] Indeed he is.
    Mr. Burns: I am multi-skilled.
    Mr. Milburn: That is one way of putting it, although I am not sure it is the most appropriate.
    Obviously we will consider the Select Committee's recommendations extremely carefully. Indeed, we are already doing so in Committee. It must be right, however, for local people to have a greater say in the running of their hospitals.
    There is a straightforward choice. We can do what we have done for so many years under both Conservative and Labour Administrations, and presume that if we parachute people on to the governing boards of NHS hospitals we will create more locally accountable services; or we can do what we propose to do, and ensure that the democratic principle, which is good enough for social services, also applies to the way in which we run our health services, so that people have an opportunity to decide who is running the local hospital.

    Primary Care (Elmet)
    Colin Burgon: What expansion of primary care facilities are (a) under way and (b) planned in the Elmet constituency. [116529]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): A significant amount of investment is being undertaken in East Leeds primary care trust—some of it at the Allerton Bywater and Kippax health centres in my hon. Friend's constituency, where new facilities are planned for the coming year. Other PCT investment will improve and expand primary care facilities in the area, and increase the range of services available to local people.
    Colin Burgon: I am glad to learn that, as we speak, work is in progress in my home village of Allerton Bywater. Perhaps my hon. Friend has been furnished with the list including Wetherby and Swillington, whose health centres are also to be improved. Does she agree that, although hospitals may be considered more glamorous, we should never lose sight of the fact that the facilities provided by PCTs, and those who work in them, should be a Government priority when it comes to investment?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For most of us, PCTs are the front door to the NHS, and it is from them that we and our families receive most services. It is through them that the NHS has an impact on our lives. That is why the extra £1 billion that the Government are investing in primary care over the next three years is so crucial. It will have an impact on my hon. Friend's constituency and on the constituencies of all Members, regardless of whether they voted for the money in the first place.

    Primary Care Trusts
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: If he will make a statement on NHS primary care trusts' deficits at the end of 2002–03. [116530]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Audited accounts for primary care trusts for the year 2002–03 will not be available until the autumn. Local health services, however, received an average cash increase of just under 10 per cent. for that financial year.
    Mr. Stunell: What comfort can the Secretary of State give Stockport PCT, which reports that it is rolling forward a deficit of £2.5 million into the current year and is now committed to a programme of £6 million of financial reductions in that year? My constituents face reductions in access to magnetic resonance scans, ophthalmology services and minor surgery, and my GPs face a £600,000 reduction in their prescribing budget. Will the Secretary of State ensure that Stockport's health service has the resources that it needs to restore those services to my constituents?
    Mr. Milburn: My understanding is that at the end of this financial year, Stockport primary care trust will deliver a balanced budget. Secondly, over the next three years it will receive increases of 9.13 per cent., 8.88 per cent. and 8.57 per cent. Those are cash increases for the local PCT—which, of course, is a lot more than the Liberal Democrats ever promised for the health service.
    Dr. Howard Stoate: The extra resources given to PCTs are very welcome indeed, and as my right hon. Friend will know, the GP contract is out for voting among GPs. That is an important part of the Government's plan for improving primary care, but I ask him to reassure my GP colleagues that the GP contract really is a step forward in improving recruitment and retention, and to ensure that the extra resources given to PCTs really will find their way through to GP surgeries. The worry remains that some of the money given to PCTs never gets as far as it should, and that GPs and their patients do not get the benefit that they ought to.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I know from my discussions with GPs and primary care organisations that this issue is a real cause of concern for them. However, there are guarantees that the money will get through—presuming, of course, that GPs decide to vote yes in a ballot that the British Medical Association will be holding. My hon. Friend will be aware that the new contract negotiated between the NHS Confederation and the BMA represents a real step forward not just for GPs but for NHS patients—not least because it guarantees a 33 per cent. increase in funding for primary care services. Such funding is long overdue and will make a real difference to GP surgeries throughout the country.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: The Secretary of State will know that many of these debts and deficits are the result of past mismanagement by a small number of

    13
    NHS trusts and health authorities. Does he think that the burden of that should be borne by local service users or spread more evenly over the whole of the NHS?
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As he is aware, the way out of the financial difficulties that arose in his own area, for example, was for it to borrow NHS resources from other areas that underspent on their budgets in a particular year, so it cannot be right simply to wipe the slate clean, thereby penalising those areas that have managed their budgets properly. We need the right incentives in place to ensure that, in all parts of the country, financial management is always given the priority that it deserves. Equally, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are making extra resources available, through the NHS bank, to areas such as Avon, Surrey, Sussex, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, in which particular financial difficulties have arisen.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Has the Secretary of State had a chance to read the letter from Dr. Neil Coleman of the Avenue Medical Centre, in Slough, a copy of which I sent to him? Dr. Coleman says that it would be possible to state that if the new contract can work in his practice, with high disease prevalence, it can work in any practice throughout the country. He also volunteers the Avenue as a pilot programme for the new contract. Could the Secretary of State spread this enthusiasm to other areas, in order to develop the contract?
    Mr. Milburn: I will do my best. Although there has been controversy about the new contract, when GPs see the detail they will understand how they will benefit. Of course, their surgeries will benefit and there will be additional financial investment, but like most people working in the national health service, family doctors are after an improvement in services to patients. Crucially, that is precisely what this contract offers.

    MRI Scans
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on waiting times for MRI scans. [116531]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): A patient's clinical condition will determine how long they may have to wait for a scan. Emergency cases need to be seen immediately; other cases will be carried out as quickly as possible, depending on the clinical priority of all patients waiting to be scanned.
    Dr. Cable: In my local district general hospital there are 800 sick people, all of whom have been waiting for more than eight months for a diagnostic scan. How much credibility does the Minister attach to the staff's explanation that although early diagnosis is crucial in avoiding life-threatening diseases, it is given low priority by health service administrators because such diagnosis means more patients, longer waiting lists and missed targets? Will she investigate this potentially serious distortion of clinical priorities?
    Ms Blears: Early diagnosis and early treatment are top priorities for the Government, because it has been shown that they result in much better health outcomes for patients. That means increasing capacity, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the New Opportunities Fund has provided for 57 extra MRI scanners and cancer plan funding for 50 extra MRI scanners and 50 CT scanners—a vast improvement in the amount of modern equipment in our NHS, which will enable many more scans to be carried out. In 2001–02, the last year for which figures are available, an extra 73,000 scans were carried out in this country to secure early diagnosis and much better treatment. Capacity is improving, and the hon. Gentleman's local hospital was provided with a new CT scanner in April this year, which should go some way towards improving the local position.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for her advice and for outlining an interesting programme to the House. However, I know of patients in my constituency who are diagnosed early, but for whom it takes months rather than weeks to have the MRI scan. Is she satisfied that the equipment is being used to its full advantage, and if not, will she ensure that it is?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As well as making more equipment available, we also need trained and qualified staff to operate it, and we have increased the number of radiotherapists in training by 55 per cent. We are also working on programmes to enable assistant and advanced practitioners to carry out procedures that were previously carried out only by radiologists. A report published today on pilot programmes carried out across the country shows that radiographers can extend their skills and make a real contribution to shortening waiting times for patients, which is so important.
    Tim Loughton: Ninety-five per cent. of patients attending hospitals for scans require diagnostic imaging services that are delivered by radiographers. However, last year the Audit Commission found that 250,000 patients had to wait up to five months for MRI scans, with an estimated national shortage of 5,000 radiographers. Since then, the Royal College of Radiologists believes that the position has deteriorated. Given that new recruits are simply not entering the profession, that too many radiologists are leaving early and that the Society of Radiographers has just become the first health service union to vote against "Agenda for Change", which would have meant a working year that was three weeks longer without extra pay, how on earth is the Minister going to meet her new recruitment targets by 2004 and bring down waiting times for scans without counting it as yet another top priority?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman has a cheek, in view of the cuts in training places—not just for radiographers, but for GPs, doctors, nurses and a whole range of services—that took place under the Conservative Government. We are not only turning around those cuts but securing growth in the service.

    15
    Radiotherapy training places are now up by 55 per cent. from 1997 levels. Furthermore, radiographers are welcoming the new ways in which they can extend their skills. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman listens to the information that I am providing, he might learn something. I urge him to read, in detail, the report on radiography published today, which shows that projects on skills mix have enabled advanced practitioners to interpret X-rays. They can now put the markers on the X-rays, which identify where breast lumps are, and other practitioners can carry out basic radiotherapy. It is not just about increasing capacity, but reforming and redesigning how the service works, using imagination and creativity, which the hon. Gentleman lacks.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Is not one way of improving services that require expensive machinery such as MRI scanners to extend the hours of operation, assuming that we can secure the staff to carry out those tasks?
    Ms Blears: As usual, my hon. Friend makes a good, practical, down-to-earth and common-sense suggestion. The Audit Commission found that the majority of machines were being used for more than 10 hours a day, but we can do much more to achieve round-the-clock working. Through "Agenda for Change" and the changes to the pay system for consultants, we need to ensure that we have flexibility in the system so that we can make maximum use of our theatres, diagnostic equipment and the new investment that the Government are putting in to the national health service.

    Respite Care
    Rev. Martin Smyth: What assessment he has made of the need for greater provision of respite care. [116532]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Carers make an enormous contribution to our country and to those for whom they care. We have supported carers through new legislation and by increasing funding to provide support and services. In particular, the carers grant will more than double to £185 million by 2006. That will provide 130,000 more short breaks for carers.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Minister for that answer, but does she agree with Mencap that those who care for young people—who may need more attention as they grow older—need more help in the form of respite care? Will she try to assess the unmet need and also talk to ministerial colleagues in Northern Ireland about the situation there?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am aware of Mencap's work, and it is partly why this year the learning disability task force—on which Mencap works with us, in the person of its chief executive, who plays an important role—has been asked, along with the implementation team that
    16
    works to develop the points set out in "Valuing People", to concentrate on how we can ensure that the general progress that we are making for carers includes those caring for people with learning disabilities. They, too, need access to the better services and deserve the support that can be provided.
    David Taylor: The hospice movement provides terminal and day care, as well as the respite care to which the question refers. Have the Government moved closer to the commitment by successive Governments to match the amount raised by voluntary funding with contributions from the taxpayer? Many adult hospices are struggling. Staunton Harold hospice in north-west Leicestershire closed some months ago, and it was a major provider of respite care for that area and for south Derbyshire.
    Jacqui Smith: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the important role that hospices play in respite care. That is why we have increased funding for palliative care, through NHS funding, by an unprecedented amount. We have also ensured that when the money goes into the system—the extra £50 million, for example—it gets through to benefit those who provide that important service in hospices and more widely through palliative care.
    Richard Younger-Ross: What is the Minister doing to make carers aware of the provision of respite care, so that they can take advantage of it? What education is she providing about carers assessments, which ensure that their needs are met?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman will know that under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 carers can receive an assessment of their needs. He makes an important point about the need to provide better information. We support Carers UK financially, to help it to run its helpline. We also support the learning disability helpline, alongside Mencap, to which about a quarter of the callers are carers. We also support some innovative ways of reaching carers, including the ring-around carers scheme, which uses telephone conferencing to ensure that carers are aware of their new rights to assessments and their ability to access some of the increasing investment that is being made to support them.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: Millions of people care for their relatives and friends 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks a year. They save the state millions, if not billions, of pounds, and ask for little in return. Does the Minister agree that the least that we can do is to provide respite care for those carers at the time that they deem that they need it?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He is right: carers make a massive contribution to this country and to the people whom they serve. In fact, six carers out of 10 have suggested that short breaks are often their most effective support. To enable us to provide such breaks, the Government

    17
    have doubled the amount of money going through the carers grant. In addition, we must make sure that the provision is more flexible. That is why we issued regulations—I think just last week—to develop the short-break voucher scheme. It is now easier for local authorities to issue carers with vouchers for their breaks, so that carers can take breaks at times, and with providers, that are more flexible and useful for them. However, my hon. Friend is right. The Government will do all that we can to support carers and the vital work that they do in our communities.

    GP Contracts
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When he expects the new GP contract to come into force. [116533]
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: If he will make a statement on the contract for GPs. [116536]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The general practitioners committee of the BMA is currently balloting GPs on the new general medical services contract. Subject to approval and the passage of the necessary legislation, we hope to begin implementation of the new contract next year. The new contract will bring significant benefits to both doctors and NHS patients, by rewarding improvements in care and by widening the available range of primary care-based services. The new contract will also mean that expenditure on primary care will rise from £6.1 billion this year to £8 billion by 2006.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he admit to the House that negotiations on the GP contract have been a complete and utter shambles? Last year, 66 per cent. of GPs threatened to resign if a new contract was not negotiated successfully, and the Minister was able to ensure that the BMA would ballot members only by inserting a minimum practice guarantee. How long will that guarantee be in place, and who will decide when it is no longer necessary?
    Mr. Hutton: No, the negotiations have not been a shambles. The contract was negotiated by two parties, the BMA and the NHS Confederation. The result has been a good deal for GPs and for NHS patients. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in urging GPs to endorse the contract, because of the significant benefits that it will bring. We have made it clear that there will be no time limit on the minimum practice guarantee. It is not part of the new arrangements that any practice should lose out financially. Quite the opposite: there are significant financial benefits for GPs, and reciprocal benefits for patients. The hon. Lady should exhibit her usual good grace and welcome what is an important development for primary care, in her constituency and in the NHS as a whole.
    Mr. Lansley: The Minister will know that the ballot result is expected on 20 June, and that the Standing Committee considering the Health and Social Care Bill will conclude proceedings on 19 June. If he intends to use the Bill as a vehicle for primary legislation to
    18
    implement the contract, will he extend the time available in Committee, so that the provisions can be scrutinised by a Committee of this House, rather than only in another place?
    Mr. Hutton: I wish that it was in my gift to extend the time available for consideration in Committee, but it is not. The Bill has to be reported by 19 June. With the best will in the world, there are some things that I cannot do, and unfortunately turning back time is one of them. I wish that I could do so. Given that the House has decided that the Bill must come out of Committee on 19 June, and that the ballot result will not be in until 23 June, in fact, our only opportunity to debate the measures and table amendments will come when the Bill returns on Report. That is what we intend to do.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend accept that some GPs in Burnley believe that they need better premises to take full advantage of the new contract and to offer the full range of primary care treatment, as the Government intend? Does he accept that there is a shortage of funds, and that some GPs are being told that they will have to wait five or six years before they can offer that range of treatment? Will he perhaps meet me to discuss the possibility that additional money might be made available to get the contract accepted and to meet the Government's treatment requirements?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will certainly look into the situation in Burnley that he described. However, I echo the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister of State: because of the additional investment that we are making available to the NHS, the primary care estate—the building blocks in primary care—will receive an additional £1 billion of investment over the next few years. That will help to transform many GP surgeries up and down the country. I agree with my hon. Friend—if that is what his GPs are saying—that if we want to provide the best possible quality primary care services, we must provide the best possible primary care buildings, and that is precisely what the Government are doing.
    Chris Grayling: The Minister will be aware that he has already been accused by GPs of meddling in the negotiations over the proposed contracts and that his intervention at the time of the emergency conference in May was reported to have swung a crucial vote against the negotiating teams, so now that the ballot is actually going ahead, will he confirm whether he is planning to intervene again to impose the contract unilaterally if the vote goes against?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman has waited 55 minutes to ask what is probably the most puerile question that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench. I made no such interventions. He should not believe everything that he reads in the press, for heaven's sake.

    Hospital Service Providers
    Mr. Jim Cousins: What steps he is taking to speed up financial flows in the NHS to hospital service providers. [116534]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): As my hon. Friend is aware, local primary care trusts now control 75 per cent. of the total NHS budget. In deciding where to spend that resource, it is important that PCTs do so in partnership with local hospitals and strategic health authorities. To that end, local negotiations over this year's budgets in most parts of the country are now complete.
    Mr. Cousins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but he will of course understand that specialist hospitals, such as those in the north-east in Newcastle and Sunderland and on Teesside, may have dealings with up to 20 primary care organisations, some of which are quite slow in paying, with resulting problems; and that every improvement in those specialist services may have to be signed up to by up to 20 of those primary care organisations, with all sorts of slowing down of innovation and improvement. What can he say to hospitals in that position, which want to move on and to be sure that the money for service improvements is there?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is well aware, not least from his own close working relationship with the health service in Newcastle, that specialist hospital trusts, such as the Freeman and the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle, provide a range of services, which are, as he rightly says, not just district general hospital services, but more specialist tertiary services as well. Inevitably, therefore, those hospitals are in negotiation with a number of primary care trusts. In such situations, what normally happens is that one local PCT has the responsibility of becoming the lead commissioner and acts on behalf of a number of local PCTs. If that is not happening in my hon. Friend's area, I shall gladly look into the matter. He might also like to be aware that the NHS bank will shortly be conducting a review of how money flows around the system, precisely to ensure, first, that it gets to the front line, and secondly, that it does so in a timely way that does not jeopardise the provision of front-line patient services.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the keys to speeding up financial flows is the balance between management and front-line staff? Can he confirm his Department's figures showing that the number of qualified nurses in the NHS is 266,170? Is it true that, for the first time, that number has been overtaken by the 269,080 managers and support staff'?
    Mr. Milburn: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to count as managers and bureaucrats people in professions such as painters, decorators, gardeners and cleaners. With the best will in the world, not even he could believe that those people are bureaucrats.

    Health Care Assistants
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the regulation of health care assistants. [116535]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): The Government are committed to consult on proposals to regulate support workers, and that consultation will be taking place in the near future. The consultation will identify those categories of staff whose clinical practice needs to be of a high standard in order to ensure patient safety. The proposals cover a range of options, including full statutory regulation of those staff, and the Government will decide on the way forward in the light of responses to the consultation.
    Mr. Carmichael: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I view the lack of urgency with which the Government are approaching the question as quite disappointing. Does he not accept that the increased use of such assistants without proper regulation exposes patients to risk and assistants to exploitation?
    Mr. Lammy: Regulation of health care workers in Scotland is a matter for the devolved Parliament, but generally, we will be making proposals. It is right that we think carefully about them when other issues, such as "Agenda for Change", are continuing in the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What assessment he has made of the impact of treating patients from Wales on English waiting lists. [116537]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The provision of NHS services to Welsh patients by English NHS trusts is a matter for local NHS commissioners. The maximum waiting time for English patients will be six months for in-patient treatment and three months for an out-patient appointment by 2005. The setting of targets for Welsh patients is, of course, a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
    Mr. Griffiths: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply? However, I was hoping that he might have been able to tell me whether there was any capacity on the English side of the border for even more Welsh patients to be treated, given that the incidence of illness in Wales is much higher than it is in England.
    Mr. Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is obviously important that the NHS provides an integrated service across the border between Wales and England. If there is spare capacity in NHS hospitals in England, it is right and proper that NHS patients who live in Wales should have access to it when that can be agreed. In fact, that is precisely what is happening. The number of Welsh patients treated in English trusts is increasing substantially and is up from 26,000 in 2000–01 to 37,000 last year.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will have noticed in the recess that a number of well publicised and highly damaging allegations have been made relating to weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence information available about them. The serious suggestion is that the House has been deliberately misled. These accusations, which could not be raised in the House until today because of the recess, strike at the heart of the integrity of both the Government and our intelligence services. So damaging are they that presumably the Government would wish to take the earliest opportunity to come to the House to deal with them. I understand that the Prime Minister returned to this country at 11 o'clock this morning. Have you, M r. Speaker, received any request from him to come to the House urgently today, as he should, to clear the air on these matters?
Mr. Speaker: I understand from the Prime Minister that he will make a statement tomorrow in which the right hon. Gentleman can question him on these matters. Prime Minister's Question Time will also take place tomorrow, so the Prime Minister will come to the House tomorrow.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm, as you have said to the House before, that were the Prime Minister to ask to make a statement at, say, 7 o'clock this evening, you would automatically grant it, following precedent? Certainly the official Opposition would be more than happy to accommodate the Prime Minister were he to make that request. However, you said that he would make a statement tomorrow, so can you clarify whether it will cover the very serious questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), or would the Prime Minister's statement not more likely be about the G8 summit in which case it is possible that questions about Iraq and related matters might just be out of order?
Mr. SpeakerI think that Opposition Front Bench Members are ingenious enough to be able to ask questions about Iraq, even on a statement about the G8 summit, and not be found out of order by myself.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the business on which we are about to embark is protected business, so I would not allow it to be interrupted. Therefore, we are talking about tomorrow.
Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you therefore confirm that, in the event of the Prime Minister making a statement tomorrow on the Evian summit, you will allow questions on any aspect of the Iraq conflict to follow, so that there can be full scrutiny of the Prime Minister's position on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can push his luck tomorrow.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often told us that statements should be made first to the House of Commons, not outside the House of the Commons. I do not suppose that you have had time to see that the BBC News website says, "No 10 rejects Iraq weapons inquiry". It continues:
"Downing Street has rejected growing calls for an inquiry into its pre-war claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."
I do not know who this "Downing Street" is, but the person who answers for Downing Street in this House is the Prime Minister. Should we not hear from the Prime Minister rather than from spokesmen for Downing Street—the Alastair Campbells? We should hear from the Prime Minister in the House of Commons first rather than reading about things on web pages.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct: there are lots of people in Downing Street, but we are getting the Prime Minister from Downing Street tomorrow.
Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow is a Liberal Democrat Opposition day and although no one would be more delighted than I for them to be put to the end of the agenda, is it not important that Opposition days should be protected and not interrupted or intervened on by Government statements? Surely if Government statements can be made during Government business time, that is when they should be made. Today is a classic example of that.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for his anxiety about our interests, but it might serve the advantage of the House for me to say that the Liberal Democrats hope to give the House the opportunity to debate issues relating to Iraq during the Opposition day tomorrow.
Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 26 February, at column 272 of Hansard, I specifically asked the Foreign Secretary whether regime change was the objective of the Government's policy, which he denied. Could he perhaps be asked to come instead and answer that charge now, if the Prime Minister is too busy?
Mr. Speaker: The answer to that is no.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the mini-recess, the Health and Safety Executive produced its important and, indeed, damning report on the Potters Bar train crash. The train was on its way to my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). The report needs to be discussed. I shall not be able to raise it during tomorrow's statement on the G8, so why has the Secretary of State for Transport not been asked to make a statement to the House today on that vital report?>
Mr. Speaker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. He is entitled to pursue that matter with the Secretary of State for Transport, and I expect that he will do that.

Fire Services Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
3.37 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move,
That the Order of 8th May 2003 (Fire Services Bill (Programme)) shall be varied as follows
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and Third Reading

1. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Order shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

The measure will amend the order of 8 May so that the House will have ample time to consider the provisions of this short Bill. The previous order did not specify the duration of proceedings in Committee, on consideration—if any—and on Third Reading, except to allow that proceedings in Committee and on consideration would be brought to an end one hour before the moment of interruption.
The Government are conscious that many hon. Members of all parties have an interest in the Bill. We therefore propose that the order of 8 May be varied so that the House may be guaranteed sufficient time to consider the Bill. The proposed variation therefore provides that proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration be brought to an end five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. At least one hour further will be allowed for proceedings on Third Reading.
3.38 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am, frankly, a little mystified. The Minister's statement, when taken at face value, is very interesting but, by my calculations, we have gained precisely an extra nine minutes of debating time out of which we must take the time to debate the motion. As the Minister knows, we are not generally supportive of programme motions—we voted against motion No. 1—and I shall reiterate a couple of points.
We have said from the outset that we will support emergency legislation if it effectively removes the burden that the fire dispute is placing on our troops, ensures public safety and ensures that our emergency services are ready and able to respond to the increased threat of terrorism.
We have said that we will support not only a Bill that achieves that, but the unusual parliamentary arrangements for its consideration if the Government accept amendments that allow it to fulfil those purposes. If, however, the Bill is not an effective emergency measure of short duration to deal with the present crisis by the time that it completes its passage through this place, it cannot be justified because it is a draconian measure that gives the Secretary of State powers to impose settlements in a way that would not usually be acceptable. In addition, it goes against the grain of everything that the Government have said about devolving power and decision-making responsibility to
24
local fire authorities in their attempt to reform the fire service. The Bill will recentralise on a massive scale and give the Secretary of State huge power to impose a settlement.
If the Bill itself is not justified then neither is the special parliamentary passage that is being made available for it. I hope the Minister accepts that there is a problem with taking all the remaining stages of a Bill at one sitting of the House. It is normal practice to consider the details of a Bill that need to be addressed during the Committee stage and for Opposition Members, and I suspect in this case some Labour Members, to consult outside bodies and to review what the Committee decided before it is considered further. That will clearly not be possible today because we will move straight from the Committee stage to Report or Third Reading, which places us in some difficulties.
In our opinion the special procedures to deal with the Bill are justified only if it is an emergency measure of short duration which addresses the immediate and present problem, but in those circumstances it is surely not justified to curtail the debate further by placing a time limit on it. Surely it is necessary to allow the House as much time as it needs. I will urge my hon. Friends to vote against the programme motion.
Mr. John Bercow: Has my hon. Friend noticed as I have, that no fewer than 14 of the amendments tabled for consideration in Committee have been tabled by Labour Back-Bench Members, notably the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? Does my hon. Friend agree that in responding to his points, it would be helpful for the Minister to say whether he has had any prior consultation with the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington?
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. It might be very interesting to know whether such prior consultation has taken place. I suspect from the comments that the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister made on Second Reading and from what I recently read in the press about the relationship between Government Front-Bench spokesmen and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), that it is unlikely that cosy fireside chats have taken place. No doubt the Minister will alert us if something is going on that we should know about.
I would be grateful if the Minister were to explain what he meant in his opening remarks. Perhaps I am missing something, but it is not obvious to me that we have gained any significant debating time.
3.44 pm
Matthew Green: Our problem with the programme motion is that it allows the Government to rush the Bill through at an unnecessarily fast pace. If the Fire Brigades Union conference accepts the settlement in about a week's time, as it may do, the Bill is unnecessary. The timing of that conference means that there is certainly more time to consider the Bill's measures than the six and a half hours allocated for the remaining stages.
The Government have indicated that if the FBU accepts the settlement on offer, they probably will not pursue the Bill further at that stage. There is therefore

25
time to consider the Bill, since the Government are clearly not trying to get it on to the statute book in time for the conference.
The Liberal Democrats will join the Conservatives in opposing the programme motion. The Bill is being pushed through at a tremendously fast rate and it is almost certain that there will not be sufficient time to consider all the groups of amendments. There are serious issues to be debated this afternoon—issues that are the subject of considerable disagreement across the House—but I am strongly of the opinion that they will not be reached.
3.45 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) in their opposition to the programme motion. I have several reasons, which I shall advance briefly.
First, I am bound to say that I am against programme motions per se. There is very little justification for them, and I do not believe that there is justification in the present case. One of the malign consequences of a programme motion is that it discourages participation by right hon. and hon. Members in discussion of the Bill, because they know that there will be limited time in which to speak. Frequently, they simply do not turn up, far less do they table amendments and new clauses. That is of particular importance when a Bill is taken on the Floor of the House. This is the only occasion on which the Bill will be subject to detailed scrutiny, yet because of the programme motion many right hon. and hon. Members who might otherwise have participated or made proposals for change have been discouraged from doing so.
My next point follows on from the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. We have, of course, the theoretical option of having a Report stage. Amendments have been tabled, some of which are Government amendments. We can hope that the non-Government amendments will be carried—that is possible—but we can be sure that the Government amendments will be carried because the Whips are here to ensure that they are. Consequently, the House has the option, in theory, of having a Report stage.
I agree that some of the Government amendments are pretty trivial. Some of the non-Government amendments—mine, for example—are not, and if they were carried right hon. and hon. Members would want to have proper time to reflect on them and to take representations from outside the House before proceeding to Report. However, we are to proceed forthwith to Report and then Third Reading, concluding at 10 o'clock or thereabouts. That means that the House will not consider in detail any amendments made in Committee, or if it does it will be uninformed consideration because we have not had time to take representations from outside.
26
I have a further point. I tabled three new clauses, the object of which was to prevent industrial action by fire brigade members. They were not selected. Now, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would not dream of complaining about that—after all, you would be the first to tell me that Mr. Speaker never gives reasons for not selecting amendments and that it would be impertinent of me to raise the point. All of that, I willingly concede. However, some might suppose that the reason my new clauses were not selected is that they lay outside the long title of the Bill—that is possible. On reflection, it might have been possible to construct the new clauses so as to bring them within the long title; they would then have been capable of being tabled on Report. However, because I learned only today, at 1 o'clock or thereabouts, that I had had the misfortune not to have had my new clauses selected, and because we are to proceed forthwith to Report, I am unable, barred, precluded, disqualified from tabling significant amendments for proper discussion by the House.
It is surely right that Members of Parliament have the opportunity on Report to consider whether or not FBU members should have a right to go on strike. However, the effect of the motion is to prevent me having an opportunity to table new clauses in a proper form. That is a lamentable betrayal of democracy and yet another example of the ill effects of the motion.
3.50 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: A guillotine is, of course, a denial of the rights of Members to represent their constituencies and to express their views. It is an abrogation of freedom of speech. At the heart of all this is a Government intent to exercise total control over the business of the House, as they have been doing since they first came into office. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, and with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Their points are true and just.
I ask the House to reflect on the fact that in this Session 23 Bills have been subject to the guillotine, or, as we call it now, a programming motion or whatever. All but three have been opposed by Opposition Members and by Labour Members on Divisions. In addition to the 23 Bills that were subject to the guillotine, 10 motions, including the one before us, were applied. Twenty-three Bills, in the short time since November, equals half the number of Bills that were guillotined by Baroness Thatcher during her time as Prime Minister.
Labour Members well know that Baroness Thatcher's guillotining of Bills, of which I was a vigorous opponent, was considered to be a major authoritarian and almost autocratic instrument of her control over the House. Yet, within six months of the start of the Session the Government have already guillotined half the number of Bills that were guillotined during 11 years. It is intolerable. That is the truth of it. One day, Labour Back Benchers will wake up and understand that there is almost no purpose in their being here if they can be denied the right to speak on matters of great importance.

27
The fire service is undoubtedly one of those matters. It has given rise to what the Deputy Prime Minister insists is emergency legislation. Those are the pieces of legislation that require caution and proper examination. Yet we have the twenty-third Bill of the Session experiencing its second guillotine motion. I ask the House to consider whether that does us justice in the face of the genuine anxieties and beliefs of our constituents. The motion is intolerable and it should be opposed.
3.53 pm
Mr. Raynsford: We have heard a huge amount of largely synthetic indignation, which comes all the more curiously when it is realised that we moved the second motion as a precautionary measure, knowing that 3 June was the first day back to the House after the short recess, and that there were the possibilities of private notice questions, statements and other business, including, as we heard, several interventions in the form of points of order, that could well have taken up rather more of the time of the House. As a sensible and entirely reasonable move, which we discussed with other parties through the usual channels, we suggested that there should be arrangements to ensure that the House had a full six and a half hours to discuss six groups of amendments to a two-clause Bill.
I say to Opposition Members that, put in that context, much of the rhetoric that we have heard appears to be little more than that.
Mr. Shepherd: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Raynsford: I will give way in a moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong feelings on these matters. Before he intervenes, I put it to him that there is a world of difference between the application of a guillotine motion to a large and complex Bill, with the result that it will not receive detailed consideration, and a programme motion that is designed to ensure orderly consideration of a very short Bill that can be considered properly and fully within the time available, and that is what we are considering this afternoon.
Mr. Shepherd: It is not good enough to be quite so dismissive by speaking of a two-clause Bill. The Minister will remember that Maastricht was the subject of a two or three-clause Bill, and that that had huge ramifications. The present Bill also has ramifications. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, it gives the state enormous powers.
Mr. Raynsford: I am only surprised that the hon. Gentleman should want to rake up in his party's psyche the uncomfortable memory of the Maastricht treaty. Many of us feel genuine sympathy for the wider issue of the need for proper time for consideration. Many of us felt unhappy about the old arrangements, under which Bills were considered at enormous length for several weeks, and then inevitably a guillotine had to be applied, or they would not have completed their passage.
28
The purpose of timetabling is to ensure that there is a proper, orderly process in which all parts of the Bill can be considered. That is what we are doing. This is a two-clause Bill. There are six groups of amendments. There is more than adequate time to consider them, and if we were not spending so much time on the programme motion, we would be able to give more time to the details of the Bill.
I offer my sympathy to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on his failure to prepare his three new clauses in a form that allowed them to be considered. I am sorry that he feels that he has been precluded, debarred and prevented from tabling new clauses. I think it is simply the way in which he drafted the new clauses that is to blame.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) knows only too well that the Bill is a short-term measure. It is not designed to be in place for long-term strategic purposes. It is necessary because of the circumstances relating to the fire dispute, which have been discussed at considerable length in previous debates in the House, many on statements from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. We have always made it clear that we would introduce the measure if necessary, to ensure that a line can be drawn under the dispute. That is why the Bill has been prepared. There has been close consultation with Opposition parties all the way through the process. The purpose of taking the Bill through in one sitting today has been discussed fully and does not justify the criticism levelled by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hammond: I am interested to hear the Minister's assertion that the Bill is to be a short-term measure. He knows that the first group of amendments is led by an amendment tabled by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that that is the case, but I am afraid I have missed the Government amendment delivering a similar outcome, if that is the Minister's intention.
Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not paying attention in the Second Reading debate when I made it clear in my winding-up speech that we would consider carefully the option for making this a time-limited Bill. We always made it clear that our intention was to introduce the measure to deal with the unhappy short-term situation existing in relation to the fire dispute. That was the reason for introducing the measure and the reason for timetabling it. I hope that hon. Members will accept that there is good reason.
Mr. Bercow: I am afraid that that sort of rhetorical blather does not meet the needs of the case. If it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to table the measure only for use in the short term, and in light of the existence of the precedent of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 introduced by his Government, can he explain the absence from the Bill of a sunset clause?
Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about rhetorical blather, has not had sufficient time to read the Order Paper and to realise that in the next group of amendments we will consider that very issue. I suggest that we would do the House a

29
service if we now brought an end to proceedings on the programme motion and proceeded to the substantive matters. I urge the House to support the motion.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 184.

Division No. 213]

[3:59 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Alexander, Douglas

Davidson, Ian

Allen, Graham

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Denham, rh John

Atherton, Ms Candy

Dhanda, Parmjit

Atkins, Charlotte

Dismore, Andrew

Bailey, Adrian

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Baird, Vera

Dobson, rh Frank

Battle, John

Donohoe, Brian H.

Bayley, Hugh

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Beard, Nigel

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Begg, Miss Anne

Edwards, Huw

Bell, Stuart

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Benn, Hilary

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Bennett, Andrew

Farrelly, Paul

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Berry, Roger

Fisher, Mark

Best, Harold

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Belts, Clive

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Blackman, Liz

Flint, Caroline

Boateng, rh Paul

Follett, Barbara

Borrow, David

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Bradshaw, Ben

Foulkes, rh George

Brennan, Kevin

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Gardiner, Barry

Browne, Desmond

Gerrard, Neil

Bryant, Chris

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Buck, Ms Karen

Gilroy, Linda

Burden, Richard

Goggins, Paul

Burgon, Colin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Burnham, Andy

Grogan, John

Cairns, David

Hain, rh Peter

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Caplin, Ivor

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Casale, Roger

Hanson, David

Caton, Martin

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Challen, Colin

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Healey, John

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Hendrick, Mark

Hepburn, Stephen

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hesford, Stephen

Coaker, Vernon

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Coleman, Iain

Hinchliffe, David

Colman, Tony

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Connarty, Michael

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cooper, Yvette

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Corston, Jean

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Cousins, Jim

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

Dalyell, Tam

Irranca-Davies, Huw

30

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate

Olner, Bill

O'Neill, Martin

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Organ, Diana

Jamieson, David

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Jenkins, Brian

Owen, Albert

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Picking, Anne

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Plaskitt, James

Jowell, rh Tessa

Pollard, Kerry

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Kemp, Fraser

Pound, Stephen

Khabra, Piara S.

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E

Kilfoyle, Peter

King, Andy (Rugby)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow

Prosser, Gwyn

Purchase, Ken

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Purnell, James

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Quin, rh Joyce

Lammy, David

Quinn, Lawrie

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Rammell, Bill

Lazarowicz, Mark

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Lepper, David

Raynsford, rh Nick

Leslie, Christopher

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland

Linton, Martin

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Love, Andrew

Rooney, Terry

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

Ruane, Chris

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Ruddock, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester

McCabe, Stephen

McCartney, rh Ian

Savidge, Malcolm

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sawford, Phil

MacDonald, Calum

Sedgemore, Brian

MacDougall, John

Shaw, Jonathan

McFall, John

Sheerman, Barry

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sheridan, Jim

McIsaac, Shona

Shipley, Ms Debra

McKechin, Ann

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McNulty, Tony

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Mactaggart, Fiona

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McWilliam, John

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Soley, Clive

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Southworth, Helen

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Spellar, rh John

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston

Squire, Rachel

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Martlew, Eric

Steinberg, Gerry

Meacher, rh Michael

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Merron, Gillian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Michael, rh Alun

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Milburn, rh Alan

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Miliband, David

Stringer, Graham

Miller, Andrew

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Mole, Chris

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Moran, Margaret

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Morgan, Julie

Timms, Stephen

Morley, Elliot

Tipping, Paddy

Morris, rh Estelle

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Mountford, Kali

Trickett, Jon

Mudie, George

Truswell, Paul

Mullin, Chris

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Munn, Ms Meg

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

31

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C

Walley, Ms Joan

Ward, Claire

Woodward, Shaun

Watts, David

Woolas, Phil

White, Brian

Worthington, Tony

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Wicks, Malcolm

Wright, David (Telford)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wills, Michael

Joan Ryan and

Winnick, David

Mr. Jim Murphy

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Cotter, Brian

Allan, Richard

Curry, rh David

Amess, David

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Ancram, rh Michael

Arbuthnot, rh James

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bacon, Richard

Djanogly, Jonathan

Baker, Norman

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Baldry, Tony

Doughty, Sue

Barker, Gregory

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Evans, Nigel

Barrett, John

Ewing, Annabelle

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Fallen, Michael

Beith, rh A. J.

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Bellingham, Henry

Bercow, John

Flight, Howard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Forth, rh Eric

Blunt, Crispin

Foster, Don (Bath)

Boswell, Tim

Fox, Dr. Liam

Brady, Graham

Francois, Mark

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Brazier, Julian

Garnier, Edward

Breed, Colin

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gidley, Sandra

Burnett, John

Goodman. Paul

Burns, Simon

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Burnside, David

Grayling, Chris

Burt, Alistair

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Butterfill, John

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Grieve, Dominic

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Gummer, rh John

Cameron, David

Hague, rh William

Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

Hammond, Philip

Carmichael, Alistair

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Cash, William

Chidgey, David

Hawkins, Nick

Chope, Christopher

Heath, David

Clappison, James

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hendry, Charles

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hermon, Lady

Collins, Tim

Hogg, rh Douglas

Conway, Derek

Holmes, Paul

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Horam, John (Orpington)

32

Howard, rh Michael

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Ruffley, David

Jack, rh Michael

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Jenkin, Bernard

Salmond, Alex

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Sanders, Adrian

Keetch, Paul

Sayeed, Jonathan

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

Selous, Andrew

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Shepherd, Richard

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Simmonds, Mark

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Lamb, Norman

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

Lansley, Andrew

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Letwin, rh Oliver

Soames, Nicholas

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

spicer, sir Michael

Lidington, David

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Spring, Richard

Loughton, Tim

Stanley, rh Sir John

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Steen, Anthony

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Streeter, Gary

Maclean, rh David

Stunell, Andrew

McLoughlin, Patrick

Swayne, Desmond

Maples, John

Syms, Robert

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Mercer Patrick

Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Tredinnick, David

Trimble rh David

Moore, Michael

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Moss, Malcolm

Tyler, paul (N Cornwall)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Tyrie, Andrew

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

viggers, Peter

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Waterson, Nigel

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Watkinson, Angela

Page, Richard

Webb Steve (Northavon)

Paice, James

Whittingdale, John

Pickles, Eric

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Portillo, rh Michael

Wiggin, Bill

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Wilshire, David

Pugh, Dr. John

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Randall, John

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Redwood, rh John

Rendel, David

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Robathan, Andrew

Young, rh Sir George

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Tellers for the Noes:

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Mr. Mark Hoban

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Fire Services Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

  Fire Services Bill
    Clause 1

      POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 1, line 2, after 'instrument', insert
      'within eighteen months of the commencement of this Act'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 31, in page 1, line 2, leave out from 'instrument' to 'fix' in line 4.
      No. 34, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—
      '(1B) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument give specific or general directions to fire authorities about the use or disposal of property or facilities.'.
      No. 17, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
      '() No order shall be made under this section more than two years after the commencement of this Act, except for the purpose of revoking provision contained in a previous order.'.
      No. 22, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, leave out from `(1)(a)' to end of line 21 and insert
      'may only be made if a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament but such a draft shall not be laid for approval unless not less than 14 days previously each House of Parliament shall have debated a draft of the statutory instrument.'.
      No. 23, in page 2, line 20, leave out from `(1)(a)' to end of line 21 and insert
      'may only be made if a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      No. 28, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
      '(1A) This Act can only come into force on a date when the following conditions have been met:

      (i) The Secretary of State has published a report to the House of Commons, stating his view that the Fire Services Act 2003 is compatible with Article 6 of the European Social Charter.

      (ii) The Secretary of State has published a report to the House of Commons, stating his view that an order under the Fire Services Act 2003 would not violate Article 8 of the International Labour Organisation Convention Number 151.'.

      No. 29, in page 2, line 25, at end insert—
      (1 B) This Act shall cease to have effect fifteen months after the date on which it comes into effect.'.
      No. 2, in page 3, line 9, at end insert—
      '(4A) The powers conferred by this Act shall cease to have effect eighteen months after the date on which it comes into effect.'.
      No. 16, in clause 2, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
      '(4A) This Act shall come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State shall by order appoint.
      34
      (4B) An order under subsection (4A) above shall be subject to affirmative Resolution by the House of Commons.'.
      Mr. Hammond: This broad group of amendments deals, first, with the duration of the powers to be granted to the Secretary of State, and the Committee is spoilt for choice. Amendment No. 29, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, proposes that the powers should last for 15 months, whereas amendment No. 17, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and is, I understand, supported by the Government, proposes two years. We find ourselves, perhaps untypically, between those two extremes, as we suggest 18 months in amendments Nos. 35 and 2.
      There is broad agreement that the Bill must be seen as a short-term, defined-life measure to deal with a particular situation in which the country finds itself at this moment. We made it clear on Second Reading that we view the short term and the long term quite differently. We can accept measures to deal with the immediate short-term problems that have arisen in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, but certain matters will have to be dealt with differently over the longer term.
      Let us consider the immediate situation that the country faces. The fire service dispute has dragged on for a year; lives are being put at risk and a burden is being placed on the military when our forces are already substantially overstretched, with other potential tasks hurtling at them seemingly from every corner and continent of the world at every moment. So, there are two issues there, but it is also clear that the fire dispute is having a negative impact on the Government's plans to prepare the country properly to defend itself against possible terrorist attacks at home. Nobody in the House can tolerate that.
      In relation to anti-terrorist preparations, the Deputy Prime Minister said on Second Reading:
      "If the FBU will not co-operate, the Government will take action to provide that protection against terrorist attack by whatever means necessary."—[Official Report, 8 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 858.]
      That implies that if the Fire Brigade Union did not begin to co-operate in the deployment of decontamination units, the Government would take other steps. Will the Minister let the Committee know whether any progress has been made on the important issue of the training and deployment of those decontamination units?
      We see the Bill, If it has a role, as a time-limited, effective measure—it will be effective, however, only if other amendments, which we and others have tabled, are accepted—to end the dispute, lift the threat of strikes and create a breathing space in which to consider in a less pressurised atmosphere the future organisation of our fire services.
      The Bill is not about fairness or any other abstract concept; it is about public safety, which should be the No. 1 consideration of any Government.
      Indeed, the imposition of a settlement by the Secretary of State, unilaterally, is a draconian measure that can be justified only in extreme circumstances. We are prepared to acknowledge that the present circumstances are extreme and could justify extreme measures, but if that is the case the measures must be presented effectively, and deliver the objectives that have been set out.

      35
      On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister referred repeatedly to an arbitrated settlement. This is, of course, no such thing. The Bill proposes giving the Secretary of State power to impose a settlement that he has devised; he is in no sense an independent or impartial arbitrator. The Bill represents a huge step back from the decentralisation of the fire service that is embraced by the Government's modernisation agenda.
      We are in a strange position. A few weeks ago we were asked to vote on the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, as a result of which the Secretary of State would no longer be involved in, for example, sanctioning the closure of individual fire stations. Now, we are effectively asked to reinstate a power under the 1947 Act that was abolished in 1959—to return the Secretary of State's right to impose a settlement relating to pay and to terms and conditions of employment.
      These measures can, however, be justified because of the public safety issues that have arisen—because of the terrorist threat in the short term, and because of the impact on the military, which, given its current overstretch, cannot provide adequate cover during an ongoing dispute in the fire service. The Deputy Prime Minister himself told us that in the event of a future dispute military cover would be reduced from the 19,000 troops that were available during the strikes before Christmas to only 9,000, with 250 fire appliances—or "goddesses", as the Deputy Prime Minister likes to call them—and some 300 further specialist vehicles. Just 250 pumps would be available to cover the entire United Kingdom.
      On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the powers that he seeks will enable him to secure a pay and modernisation deal. I reaffirm the Conservatives' strong support for the Bain agenda, linking higher pay to improved productivity; but that agenda will be delivered effectively only if the Bill is amended. It is clear that whether it succeeds or fails, it seeks to settle the current dispute by means that would normally be judged unacceptable because there is no element of independent arbitration. For that reason if for no other, this must be seen as an emergency measure—and an essential feature of an emergency measure is its limited duration. It must, in fact, be limited to the duration of the emergency.
      One of the challenges that face us is the task of estimating the likely duration of the present emergency. That task has a number of facets, perhaps the most prominent being the need to deploy large numbers of British troops for peacekeeping duties in Iraq. There is also the possibility that as the war on terrorism unfolds, British troops will be called on for missions elsewhere in the world.
      The duration of the Bill should be limited so that more complex—and perhaps, in the longer term, more acceptable—solutions can be adopted, with the benefit of mature consideration: far more consideration than we are able to devote to all the Bill's remaining stages in a single afternoon. We believe that 18 months is probably an adequate initial period for the existence of the proposed powers, although the Government could of course seek to extend it at some future time.
      36
      Perhaps the Government intend to support amendment No. 17 because it specifies a different period—two years—or because they find the face of its mover slightly more amenable. If they can make a case for a two-year period, we would certainly accept it and withdraw amendment No. 35. Desperate efforts have been made behind the scenes, involving a roll of sticking plaster and a pair of scissors, and I am sure that it is purely coincidence that it is the chairman of the Labour party trade union liaison committee who happens to have tabled amendment No. 17.
      We want the White Paper that the Government have promised to map out a long-term solution to these problems. I doubt whether anybody in this place regards the measures and powers in the Bill as a satisfactory long-term solution to the big issues facing the fire service. We expect the White Paper to map out options in terms of mechanisms for a fair pay determination system in the fire service, and to address the question of the use of strikes as a bargaining tool in an emergency service that is of such vital importance to the safety and security of our communities.
      The latest version of the draft agreement—the employer's offer—has become a bit more than an offer; it has been discussed at such length by the two sides that it is in fact the draft of an agreement. The previous draft contained a reference to the White Paper, but it has been expunged from the current draft, which appears to internalise the whole process of developing a mechanism for pay determination and dispute resolution within national joint council procedures. Perhaps the Minister can explain to the Committee the significance of that. We are all waiting with bated breath for the White Paper, but it seems that its significance is being eroded by the minute. I would be greatly reassured if the Minister could confirm that it will address the issues of pay determination, dispute resolution and the possibility of a no-strike environment.
      Perhaps the Minister could also tell us when we are likely to see the White Paper. On Second Reading—on 8 May—the Deputy Prime Minister said that we would see it shortly, but the Minister said a few hours later, at the end of the debate, that it would be published in the very near future. I rather felt on that day that we were edging towards it by the hour, but here we are, on 3 June, and still no sight of it. I should be interested to know whether the Minister expects that we will see it before or after 12 June. That might be a fact of some significance, given that the FBU recall conference is meeting on that day.
      It is on the basis that a White Paper and a subsequent new fire service Act are coming that we are willing to support this Bill—provided that it is amended to ensure that it is workable and effective. On that basis, consensus has emerged—on both sides of the House, I am delighted to say—in favour of a sunset clause. It would be good if the Minister could confirm that, notwithstanding the changes to the draft agreement, the Government are still going down the route whereby the White Paper will set out the long-term mechanisms for resolution of these issues. The reintroduction of a draconian power, relinquished in 1959, cannot be allowed to be anything other than a temporary measure. This Bill has to be a step on a clear route map to a longterm solution that is both fair to firefighters and secures the safety of the public at all times.

      37
      Amendments Nos. 31 and 34—our amendments, Mr. Lord—are essentially drafting changes to accommodate the imposition of a time limit through the mechanism in amendment No. 35, and need not detain the Committee.
      Amendments Nos. 22 and 23, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), propose that orders under subsection (1)(a) shall be made by affirmative resolution of both Houses following a debate. Amendment No. 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), in, perhaps, a curious alignment with my right hon. and learned Friend, is designed to achieve a similar objective. In view of the draconian nature of the power being exercised and the undoubted level of interest of the Committee in the detail of the order that the Deputy Prime Minister will lay, the requirement for an affirmative rather than a negative procedure—and, indeed, for a debate on the Floor of the House—is not unreasonable. I look forward to hearing my right hon. and learned Friend's speech putting the case for that proposition and also to the Minister's response.
      4.30 pm
      Amendment No. 28 looks like another example of Liberal Democrat enthusiasm for curbing the sovereignty of this Parliament at every opportunity and making it subject to external constraints. The Liberal Democrats are apparently concerned that the Bill's powers may not be compatible with the European social charter or the International Labour Organisation convention. I am not clear about whether that is so, but I point out to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and his colleagues that this is, by consensus, a short-term emergency measure—
      David Davis: What colleagues?
      Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend asks "What colleagues?" with some reason. I am sorry to see the hon. Member for Ludlow in such splendid isolation, but I am sure that, when the time comes, he will deliver mightily on behalf of his party.
      I know not whether these powers contravene the European social charter or the International Labour Organisation convention; quite honestly, when the issue is one of public safety, I care not either. I take the view that the public safety of this country's citizens is the main issue of concern in Committee today and I suspect that the hon. Member for Ludlow may learn to his cost that that, rather than compliance with some obscure treaty, will be the issue of principal concern to the good people of Ludlow.
      We want to ensure that we move as soon as possible from an emergency powers regime to a longer-term, more equitable and more sustainable arrangement that delivers the same objectives. I am usually all in favour of constraining the Secretary of State's powers, but I recognise that the Bill does not provide for normal circumstances and that substantial powers are being bestowed on the Secretary of State for a specific reason, so the constraints advocated by the Liberal Democrats are not helpful and will hinder the delivery of the objectives that the Bill is designed to achieve.
      38
      I hope that in replying to the hon. Member for Ludlow on amendment No. 28, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions will do better than he did in response to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who raised a similar point on Second Reading. On that occasion, the Minister said:
      "On the European social charter, the Bill does not affect the right to strike, nor does it seek to prevent collective bargaining. On the International Labour Organisation convention, article 8 says that a settlement shall be reached through negotiations between the parties. That is our objective—to achieve precisely that negotiation."—[Official Report, 8 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 921.]
      That may be his objective, but it is not the Bill's purpose, which is to impose a settlement. I do not support the attempt of the hon. Member for Ludlow to impose further constraints, but the Minister will have to do better than he did on Second Reading in addressing the substantive issue.
      Mr. John Bercow: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he is saying that it would have been more candid of the Government to admit that they might be in breach of article 8, but to say, in the light of the pre-eminent consideration of public safety, "What of it?"
      Mr. Hammond: That would certainly be my inclination, but no doubt the Minister will try to have his cake and eat it by saying that the Government are not in breach, but that if they were he would put public safety first. I have spent enough time opposing the Minister on various occasions to be able to predict, to some extent, what he is about to say.
      I owe you an apology, Sir Michael, for addressing you by your former title earlier. I have had to make a similar apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) on several occasions.
      I am glad that consensus has emerged on the need for a sunset provision for the powers bestowed by the Bill. I shall listen to the Minister's remarks, but I am optimistic that the first of the three conditions for our support for the Bill, which were set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) on Second Reading, will be fulfilled this afternoon. The Government have accepted the need for a sunset clause, in one form or another, and we will be magnanimous about whether it comes into force in 18 months or two years. The important fact is that the Bill is seen as a temporary, short-term response to an immediate problem.
      Mr. Tony Lloyd: I was intrigued by the debate on the programme motion, when my right hon. Friend the Minister was challenged on the concept of a sunset clause. I was about to stand up and tell him, "Minister, I am your sunset", but being the sunset for the Labour Government is a task rather bigger than I wish to take on, no matter how much the Opposition might like to see that.
      I normally listen with enormous respect to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), as one of the more reasonable faces on the Opposition Front Bench, and he is normally clear and concise. He mentioned the emergence of a consensus today, but I must tell him that I shall ensure that a copy of his speech is sent to the general session of every trade

      39
      union as soon as I can lay my hands on it. One of the very real differences between the modern Conservative party and almost everybody else could be seen in the words that he used and those that he nearly said.
      Mr. Hammond: Nearly said?
      Mr. Lloyd: I shall attempt to shade in the gaps in a moment. Historically, Conservative Governments have tried to honour and protect our international treaty obligations. They were seen as the very centre of what one nation commits to fellow nations, and signing up to such treaties was not seen as a restraint on the rights of Parliament. Indeed, such matters are gifted by Parliament to the Executive to perform on our behalf. The idea that abrogation of our obligation under the International Labour Organisation treaty should be dismissed as irrelevant, or as something that we can trample all over, is outrageous. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on that.
      The ILO exists to protect employees all over the planet and, in fair societies, it protects good employers against rapacious employers. As Winston Churchill put it many years ago, we need to ensure that the worst employers do not drive down standards for the better ones. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on whether the Conservative party wishes to stake its name on ripping up international treaties on labour law or anything else. The signals that he has given will be read widely as showing that the Conservative party is still in retreat from the rest of the world and, especially, from the rest of Britain.
      The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the Bill introduces draconian powers. I have enormous misgivings about it, as do many Labour Members. It will remove the ability of fire service personnel to take part in proper negotiations, and that will not help to resolve the dispute, in either the long term or the short term. If the Bill becomes law, it may not even contribute to the process of dispute resolution, but instead be massively counter-productive.
      A modernised fire service must be able to deal with conventional emergencies and with the greater difficulties arising out of, for example, terrorism. It is in everybody's interest that fire service personnel can negotiate properly in connection with the changes that take place. In the end, it is not possible to impose an operating structure on any service—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is making something of a Second Reading speech. I remind him that he must speak to the amendments before the House, and especially to the one in his name.
      Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry, Sir Michael. I was trying to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, and I thought it necessary to set out the context for the amendment tabled in my name.
      The Bill has a role in the narrow sense that the most important development in the fire services dispute will take place, not on the Floor of the House this evening,
      40
      but during next week's recalled Fire Brigades Union conference. I profoundly hope that the union will accept the recommendation by its general secretary and executive, and that we can move away from the period of dispute.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions will repeat today what he and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister have said before—that the Bill will become unnecessary and redundant if the dispute is resolved. Such a statement would have great importance, as it would amount to the sunset clause that everyone wants. It would not set an expiration date in 15 or 18 months, or two years, but apply in a matter of days.
      Mr. Bercow: I accept the general principle that this country should honour its international obligations, unless there is an extraordinarily compelling reason not to do so. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if either the social charter or the ILO convention had the perverse effect of denying this House's right to pass a Bill such as this for a short period to attend to a specific problem, it would be equally perverse for this House to acquiesce in such an arrangement?
      Mr. Lloyd: I am sure, Sir Michael, that you want this exchange to be as rapid as possible. Most international treaties to which this country is a signatory contain emergency provisions that detail the circumstances under which it is possible and necessary for the Government to abrogate certain rights. These are difficult matters, and require enormous caution. All hon. Members expect such powers to be used with restraint, even in the most extreme circumstances. It is important to put on record the fact that restraint is exactly what was displayed by the FBU and its members while the conflict in Iraq was going on. At that time, industrial action was—de facto, if not de jure— suspended. That is very important, as rational people do not seek to exploit national emergencies. I hope that Opposition Members will join me in paying tribute to the FBU for the restraint that it showed in that period. The spirit of the FBU's response to the conflict was consistent with what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asks me to endorse.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has drawn the Committee's attention to the fact that the FBU recall conference takes place next week, and he is trying to elicit from the Minister for Local Government and the Regions a commitment that the Bill will, in effect, be scrapped if the conference accepts a settlement. Is it not a curious use of scarce parliamentary time to take up a whole day to push the measure through when it is clear that in 10 days' time we may find that it is otiose? In those circumstances, does not the Bill look more like a negotiating tactic than a genuine piece of legislation?
      Mr. Lloyd: That question is probably not best addressed to me, given that I have already expressed reservations about the Bill. Perhaps the official Opposition will join me and others in hoping that there will be a proper settlement that is honourable for the FBU and the people who work in our fire services and, of course, for the Government.

      41
      My reason for going along with the Government is that I recognise the steps that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government have taken during recent weeks to try to bring an end to the issue. That view has also been placed on record by Andy Gilchrist, the general secretary of the FBU. In the end, the whole House should see the issue not as some polemical political game—I regret that there were shades of that in the hon. Gentleman's speech—because it is far too serious for us to be playing party politics and seeking political advantage. This is genuinely a moment for the nation to reflect on the role of Government, and to call on the employers and employees in the fire service to operate in that spirit, as the FBU is now doing.
      Mr. Ian Davidson: On my hon. Friend's point that the legislation is unnecessary and redundant, has he seen an article in Progress—which, as he knows, is the magazine for true believers—in which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whom I remember well when she was a Bolshevik, indicates that the Labour Government risk being thrown from power because they are losing the trust of ordinary people? Is the measure not an example of the Government contributing to that loss of trust by introducing unnecessary and redundant legislation that is widely seen as anti-trade union?
      Mr. Lloyd: I confess that I have heard of the magazine progress, although it has not yet got past my letterbox, or at least not long enough for me to read it.
      Mr. Davidson: Like The Watchtower.
      Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend will be aware of the old adage about political literature: it has to be good enough to be read between the letterbox and the bin. Progress, alas, has not, for whatever reason, made it to that state. Perhaps, as at Passover, certain doors are marked as not to be called at and, for Jehovah's Witnesses and the purveyors of Progress, my door is marked with secret symbols that I do not yet understand. If so, I am only too grateful to those who marked my door.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister indicated that he was aware of my hope that the Government would make clear the value of the Bill if there is a proper end to the dispute when the recall conference takes place next week. If we have to revert to using the measure, we shall be in extremely troubled waters. It would pay all of us to use today's debate as an opportunity not to muddy the waters but to lower the political temperature. My right hon. Friend tried to do that during his Second Reading speech and I know that he will do so again today.
      I hope that he will resist the voices of those who want to raise the temperature. The Bill is not of itself draconian, but it will be seriously unhelpful and set a difficult precedent for Labour Members at least to stomach. That is why we need a sunset clause.
      I place on record my great concern at the remarks of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, which should be weighed carefully by all hon. Members. He sought from my right hon. Friend the Minister comments about the role of a ban on strikes in the emergency services. I hope that the official Opposition will now begin to flesh out their views, because we know
      42
      where they are going. They would seek a ban on industrial action by those working in the fire service. That would be totally unacceptable not just to Labour Members but to many people throughout the country.
      Mr. Hammondrose—
      Mr. Lloyd: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, may I invite him to make clear how the Opposition would circumscribe those powers? Which trade unions and groups of employees do the Opposition consider part of the emergency services? To whom would a ban on industrial action apply? What sort of penalties would the Opposition impose on those who sought to take industrial action, limited or otherwise? How would those penalties operate? For example, would those in the fire services or elsewhere who took industrial action be jailed? It would be helpful to get answers to those questions on the record.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman correctly identifies—it did not take much detective work— that we propose that, if the Bill is going to work, it must have a power for the Secretary of State to impose a no-strike provision. However, our target is specifically and exclusively the fire service in which there is a current dispute and a real threat to public safety. I will not fast forward to the fourth group of amendments, but I suspect that we will have this debate in some detail when we come to them.
      I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am sure that he has read the Second Reading debate carefully and noted that the Minister for Local Government and the Regions specifically did not rule out the possibility of a no-strike arrangement as part of the longer-term solution to the fire service settlement. He said that the White Paper would make the Government's thoughts clear. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to press the Minister on that.
      Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I shall come to his final point first. He should examine carefully the words of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who was straightforward on Second Reading. I think that he ruled out the idea of a prohibition on industrial action. It is up to Conservative Members to press my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, but I take the view that such a prohibition would be unachievable. There are many practical difficulties attached to bans on industrial action.
      It is difficult to take seriously the idea that the Opposition would seek to ban strikes in only one part of the emergency services and that they would not use such a ban as a precedent for the rest. There is no logic to their position. It is ridiculous to suggest a ban for the fire service but not for other emergency services. That shows the difference between the Opposition's position and that of the Government and Labour Members.
      The sunset clause is designed for a difficult Bill that I do not want on the statute book. I hope that next week will see the end of the talk about the Bill. However, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is suggesting that the Conservative party will campaign for legislation that would impose, come what may, a ban

      43
      on industrial action by the FBU and those in the fire service. The Opposition are not seeking a sunset clause but a way to halt this Bill so that they could introduce something massively more draconian. That is the message that will go out today. There is a world of difference between the Government, who have their own view, and the Opposition who would seek to implement such legislation on a virtually permanent basis.
      Angela Watkinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows from the national news yesterday about the large fire at Waitrose in Finchley that required the attendance of 100 firefighters and 25 pumps. Does he agree that, had the fire service been on strike, there would have been considerable difficulty in amassing 25 green goddesses to deal with the emergency? For that reason, while the Army is recovering after the war in Iraq, it is important that the fire service is not allowed to go on strike.
      Mr. Lloyd: That was a churlish remark because the FBU and the serving personnel who put out the fire in Finchley yesterday did not take industrial action during the Iraq crisis. Rather than again trying to increase difficulties, the hon. Lady should reflect on the fact that the best thing would be for the recall conference to bring the dispute to an end next week. Conservative Members do not want that to happen because they want to increase political difficulties. They want political advantage at the expense of the public because they hope, in their narrow way, that the Government are on the defensive. That approach cannot be in the nation's interest.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman speaks from the Back Benches but I hope that the Minister recognises that the Opposition have tried to co-operate with the Government in dealing with the crisis. I have made it clear on many occasions—and I do so again—that Conservative Members fervently hope that the outcome of the 12 June recall conference is a vote for the employers' offer that is on the table. That would be the best outcome for everyone, and it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that Conservative Members do not want that to happen.
      Mr. Lloyd: That is helpful because it means that I do not have to tell people up and down the land that the Conservative party wants to continue industrial difficulties or that it is in the habit of provoking such things and seeking political advantage from them. Of course, I shall still have to tell people that the official position of the Conservative party is to try to ban people in the emergency services from taking industrial action—it is well worth ensuring that that message goes out.
      I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion, entertaining though the debate has been for me. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will make a further thing clear: the Bill must reach a conclusion in a finite time, even if it is successful. We can argue about different time periods but, frankly, I do not think that the periods on offer today are helpful or necessary because we will be in a very different situation after 15 months, 18 months or
      44
      two years. I hope that we will find an answer to the problem in 10 days, not two years. Nevertheless, it is important for the Government to send a clear signal that they will dismantle the legislation. In that light, I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts the necessity of introducing a sunset clause.
      Matthew Green: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) would have been speaking at this point but he is absent because he has had to attend the funeral of a close family member.
      The major amendments in the group would add sunset clauses to the Bill. There are three time periods on offer: our 15-month period, the Conservatives' 18-month period and the two-year period suggested by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). The Government seem to be minded to accept one of the amendments and I suspect that they will err toward their friendly face on the Back Benches, although that will be more for party political reasons than because of specific differences among the seven-month range on offer. However, it would be welcome if they accept one amendment because it is better to have a sunset clause than not to have one at all. We will be grateful if they accept the purpose of such a clause.
      We would have welcomed its inclusion at the outset. Much of the debate on Second Reading was on that very issue and we could have moved on to more substantive matters had that become clearer earlier.
      5 pm
      It is obvious that a sunset clause is necessary. Ministers were reluctant to introduce the Bill. We do not blame them for that, and perhaps it should not even have reached this stage. The best sunset that it could have is for the FBU to accept the settlement on 12 June. I hope that the Government will say that they do not intend to proceed further with the Bill if that happens.
      I especially hope that the FBU accepts the settlement because one group in particular has been penalised by the dispute. The retained firemen—
      Mr. Hammond: I did not mean to interrupt the hon. Gentleman mid-sentence. The Minister might decide to enlighten the House on the Government's position if the vote goes their way on 12 June, but simply getting the conference to agree to the settlement on offer is not the same as getting the settlement, with all its ramifications, implemented. I caution the Committee on taking the view that all problems will be solved in all areas if the conference agrees the offer on the table.
      Matthew Green: There is broad agreement that the preferable solution is a negotiated settlement. The Bill is a draconian last resort and we do not want it pursued if it is clear that a negotiated settlement is proceeding. It is not in the interests of that negotiated settlement to rush the Bill through. The hon. Gentleman is in great danger of sending out the wrong signal to the firemen. We want them to take a rational and sensible decision on the offer on the table.
      The hon. Gentleman touched on the absence of the White Paper. The amendments relate to several aspects of the Bill and we would have welcomed publication of

      45
      the White Paper. The imminence of the White Paper is apparently pressing every time it is spoken about, but we still have not seen it. I wonder whether its publication is being delayed until after the 12th. It would at least be open and accountable government if the Minister were to let us know that it will miraculously appear on the 13th after the FBU conference.
      Amendments Nos. 22 and 23—
      Mr. David Drew: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he was about to mention retained firefighters before the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) intervened. One has to accept that there is usually some rancour between the two unions, but it is my understanding that retained firefighters are strongly behind the FBU. Many of its concerns have received a degree of support from retained firefighters.
      Matthew Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to that point. I was about to say that retained firefighters are some of the people who have suffered most from the dispute. They have not received pay award increases because they have been held back during the dispute. I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has talked to retained firemen, but in my constituency, where all the firemen are retained, they have a bit of sympathy with some measures that the FBU has pursued, but they do not have sympathy overall with the way in which its leadership has handled the dispute. Not much has been said about the unfortunate position in which the Retained Firefighters Union finds itself. It cannot negotiate with employers and the FBU negotiates on its behalf. That is an odd situation because retained firefighters might not have the same concerns.
      I hope that the White Paper will herald a shift away from that approach.
      We have a great deal of sympathy for amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which would ensure that if the procedures were needed, an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament and a debate on the Floor of this House would be required. Given what hon. Members on both sides of the House have described as the draconian nature of the Bill, that is a minimum requirement.
      The Conservative Front-Bench spokesman chose to rubbish amendment No. 28. The Conservatives appear to have spent more time discussing that amendment than any of the ones that they tabled, so they are clearly glad that the Liberal Democrats tabled it. Perhaps they got excited because the amendment contains the word "European"—it was probably a red rag to a bull.
      The purpose of amendment No. 28 is to draw attention to the fact that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has alerted to the Government to two potential conflicts arising from the Bill, the first with article 6 of the European social charter 1961. I acknowledge that, at the end of Second Reading, the Minister touched on the potential conflict with the International Labour Organisation convention, and to some extent he dealt with the European social charter, but I do not think that he has fully answered the concerns that have been raised.
      46
      Under article 31(1) of the European social charter, restrictions or limitations are permitted if they are
      "prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others or for the protection of public interest, national security, public health, or morals."
      On the face of it, it appears that the Bill does not conflict with article 6. However, because the Bill would not restrict the power to make orders to circumstances in which there is a public emergency or collective bargaining has failed to produce a satisfactory result it is possible that an order will be made that contravenes article 6. Perhaps it is not the Government's intention to use the Bill to make such an order, but a more detailed explanation from the Minister of why he does not share the Joint Committee's concerns would be welcome.
      The amendment also deals with article 8 of the ILO labour relations (public services) convention No. 151 1978, to which the UK has signed up. Exemptions from the guarantees provided in the convention cover high-level policy-making or managerial personnel, employees whose duties are of a highly confidential nature, and the armed forces and the police. There is no exemption for members of the fire services—they are not mentioned. The Government may argue that the article does not prevent them from imposing a solution if collective bargaining has failed to produce agreement, but the Bill will not restrict the use of the power to make orders in circumstances in which collective bargaining has been attempted but has failed to produce a satisfactory result within a reasonable time, so it is possible that an order will be made in circumstances that give rise to a violation of article 8 of the ILO convention.
      The Minister might say that those circumstances will not arise, but clearly the Joint Committee did not raise those concerns lightly. Until today, no substantive comment has been made on the Floor of the House about the two concerns.
      We were right to table the amendment, with a view to ensuring that the Government at least address the concerns that have been raised. We await the Government's reaction. Overall, the sunset clause is the most critical. We do not want the Bill to contain an open-ended power that can be used by the Government or future Administrations in unnecessary circumstances. We hope that there is agreement across the Floor of the House and that the Government have seen the light. Perhaps I should say that they see the light ending. We look forward to their acceptance of the sunset clause.
      John McDonnell: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) that it is important that we say nothing today that will jeopardise the opportunity of a negotiated settlement next week, despicable though the Bill is as an attack on trade union rights, but I will put that to one side.
      My amendment does not provide for a sunset clause, although I support amendments that contain such clauses. Indeed, I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central.

      47
      Amendment No. 16 provides a trigger clause. I remember my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister saying in the House that he was the only Secretary of State to introduce a Bill that he did not want to see implemented. He said that in the hope that the negotiations would lead to a settlement before there was a need to introduce legislation, to finalise it and eventually to gain Royal Assent. I drafted an amendment in that spirit.
      Before the Act is implemented, my amendment would require the Secretary of State to return to the House with an order that the House would have to determine by affirmative resolution. Obviously, negotiations would continue. The Secretary of State would have the opportunity to return to the House with a report on the progress of those negotiations, on the basis of whether they were satisfactory for the employer and employee and for the Government overall, and therefore representatives of the community overall. My amendment is in the spirit of the Deputy Prime Minister's approach to this legislation. Indeed, my right hon. Friend was applauded for his conciliatory approach during the debate that took place in May.
      Mr. Hammond: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's premise that it would be good to determine the order by affirmative resolution. I can assure him that whatever he does, when the order is made by negative resolution, he can be certain that the official Opposition will pray against it, whatever it says, good or bad, to ensure that there is a proper debate.
      John McDonnell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. We should ensure that we should have a debate whenever we can.
      The purpose of my amendment is to enable my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to report back to the House. We can then determine whether the Bill is necessary and whether it should be enacted and implemented. It would provide an opportunity for the Government to get off the hook, because the Bill has ramifications that go wider than the fire service. Indeed, it has ramifications for overall trade union rights. It could set a precedent—not, I hope, for this Government—for other Governments who may wish to introduce legislation to impose settlements in other disputes. As soon as we go down that slope, we start to undermine some basic human rights that the Labour party has campaigned for since its inception. Other parties that are represented in the House have also signed up to them in terms of national legislation and European-wide legislation.
      I will not press my amendment to a Division, but the purpose behind it is to try to help the Government to get off the hook, given the intemperate legislation that they have introduced, and to do so before that legislation is implemented. We hope that there is a settlement and that the proposed legislation will not be necessary. However, if the Government wish to proceed, I shall certainly support the sunset clause that has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has just said, at least in part, because I can sympathise with his amendment No. 16.
      I support the sunset clause. I hope the Government will accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), which I understand is their intention. I am slightly surprised that such a provision was not written into the Bill, but on the principle of welcoming a sinner that repenteth, I suppose we should not be too churlish and grumble now, though I am very surprised that we are having a Committee stage on the Floor of the House rather than having the Prime Minister making a statement, as was requested in points of order, but that is a wider matter that I shall not address now.
      My amendment No. 23 is the standard affirmative procedure resolution. Amendment No. 22 is not, and I shall explain in a moment why I tabled it. We need first to understand the extensive nature of the powers set out in clause 1. There are three substantive powers in that clause on which we need to focus. First, it gives the Secretary of State a unilateral power to vary contracts of employment. In other words, the Secretary of State can by unilateral action change contracts of employment already in place. That is a wide power.
      Secondly, under clause 1(1)(b) the Secretary of State can direct the disposal of property of which he is not the owner. Again, that is a pretty wide power. Lastly, though perhaps not surprisingly given that it emanates from the Government, clause 1(2)(c) includes the power to impose charges on third parties. Those are extensive powers—the power unilaterally to vary a contract of employment, the power to direct the disposal of property and the power to impose financial burdens, all at the fiat of the Secretary of State. We need to ask ourselves what fetters and constraints are imposed on the Secretary of State. Precious few, is the answer.
      I recognise, of course, that the negative procedure is envisaged by the Bill, and I shall say a word about that in a moment. I acknowledge that the Bill contains provisions for consultation—consultation with lots of people, rather unspecified, but not with the House. The House is cut out of the process, save by the negative procedure, notwithstanding the fact that we are dealing with the variation of contracts, the disposal of property and the imposition of financial burdens. The one set of people who do not have a decisive say is us, the representatives of the people—not surprising, as I say, coming from this Government.
      Those are the problems that my amendments are designed to address. Amendment No. 23 is the standard affirmative resolution procedure—that is to say, the statutory instruments cannot become law unless they are approved in both Houses of Parliament. That, I should have thought, was the very minimum that the House would wish to require of the Government. However, it does not address the real problem.
      Affirmative resolutions are just affirmative resolutions of statutory instruments, and statutory instruments are not amendable. They can be rejected in their entirety or approved in their entirety. What the House does not have the power to do is to amend a

      49
      statutory instrument, by adjusting its terms, deleting part of it or inserting something else in it. It is an extraordinarily imperfect method of controlling what is effectively legislation.
      That is the reason for my amendment No. 22. Very occasionally—I regret to say, very occasionally—Governments lay before Parliament a draft of the statutory instrument before Parliament is asked to vote on it, so that there can be a debate, sometimes 14 and sometimes 21 days before the substantive discussion. That gives hon. Members an opportunity to make a point about the statutory instrument and, hopefully, affect the outcome.
      That is a pretty miserable way of controlling government itself, but it is the only mechanism that parliamentary procedure currently allows. We should give ourselves the power to amend statutory instruments just as we amend Bills, but we have not done so and we must use the procedures that are available to us. Amendment No. 22 would use one of the few methods that is open to us.
      Using the amendment, I would wish to argue the case for imposing on members of the fire brigade unions a prohibition on the right to strike. I certainly think that that is a proper issue to discuss, as it was in respect of the police service. After all, the police regulations and the Police Act 1996—incidentally, their terms are replicated in new clauses 1 and 2, which were not selected for discussion—prohibit such action in respect of the police. I see no possible justification for members of the fire brigade to go on strike at any time. I think that it is very reprehensible indeed that, in pursuit of an industrial action, they should put at risk the life and property of their fellow citizens. I think that that is quite wrong.
      Matthew Green: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that argument as extending to other bodies, such as the ambulance service?
      Mr. Hogg: I would not say no as a matter of principle, as I would regard each class on its merits. We are now talking about the fire brigade, to which I shall confine my remarks, but that does not mean that I would not make the same comment about other services in appropriate circumstances. I would treat each on its own merits.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman think again about what he said about putting lives at risk? During the strike, adequate cover was provided and, to be fair, when FBU members were called upon, they broke the strike to avoid that outcome.
      Mr. Hogg: I am perfectly prepared to accept that members of the fire brigade broke their strike and came out to help on a number of occasions, but one cannot seriously say as a matter of general principle that members of the fire brigade do not put at risk the lives of their fellow citizens or their property if they go on strike. That is the inevitable consequence of strike action and I happen to think that it is profoundly wrong. I think that this House should have a proper opportunity to debate that. Speaking for myself, I would like such prohibitions to be incorporated in statute law.
      Mr. Hammond: My right hon. and learned Friend might want to remind the hon. Member for
      50
      Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) of the fact that, on Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister himself said:
      "If the FBU calls for further strikes, lives will be endangered and property put at risk. "—[Official Report, 8 May 2003: Vol. 404, c. 859.]
      Mr. Hogg: One does not have to be very bright to spot that, as it is the inevitable consequence of members of the emergency services going on strike. While individual members might break strike action on occasion, the inevitable and probably intended consequence is to put pressure on the Government. Those on strike put pressure on the Government by putting at risk the lives and property of their fellow citizens. I happen to think that that is profoundly wrong.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the right to strike, which I think is a hard won right that we should preserve in this country. Nevertheless, does not his logic, which I shall accept for a moment, drive him to conclude that, if no right to strike is allowable in the fire service, no right to impose a settlement should be allowed on the part of a Government? If there is no right to strike, the fire service should have an independent decision-making process for agreeing proper wages and conditions for firemen and women.
      Mr. Hogg: I start from the first proposition—that there should not be a right to strike. Let me say that when I was Prisons Minister, I argued the same in respect of prison officers, as I thought it entirely wrong for them to take industrial action. I also happened to be Police Minister some way back, and I am extremely glad that the Police Act 1996 and police regulations prevent police officers from going on strike. The same is true of the armed services—and quite right too.
      The question whether the Secretary of State should have a power unilaterally to impose a prohibition on the right to strike is another matter.
      The important point is that the House, not the Secretary of State, should decide the matter. Amendment No. 23 would at least provide for the affirmative resolution procedure to allow the House to give its support.
      I have gone a little wide of what I wanted to say—I am grateful for your indulgence, Sir Michael—in arguing vigorously the case against strike action by fire brigade members, which I feel very strongly about. In any event, these powers are important because they constitute both a unilateral variation of contracts of employment and a right to impose financial burdens and to dispose of property. That should be done only with the proper authority of this Committee. The measure would be imperfect even if the House accepted amendment No. 22, but it is the least that we could properly do, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will consider that.
      Ms Joan Walley: First, I record as a declaration of interest my membership of a trade union and say that we should fiercely defend the right to strike, which is so important for trade unions.
      I want briefly to speak in support of amendment No. 16 and the amendments tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr.

      51
      Lloyd). The overall point is that we are spending an enormous amount of time debating these issues when we should be talking about the future modernisation of the fire service and the part that the pathfinder report can play in that. In that context, many hon. Members, including me, will listen carefully to every word that the Minister says in response to this group of amendments so as to judge whether the Bill may be unnecessary, given that a negotiated settlement may follow the conference that is taking place in Glasgow next Thursday. Firefighters, too, will listen carefully to his comments, especially in relation to the sunset clause and the affirmative resolution, to determine whether the Government intend to allow a negotiated settlement to be reached. Whatever happens, without such a settlement we will not have the necessary goodwill from everybody to take the agenda forward.
      I respect the generosity that my right hon. Friend the Minister extended towards Staffordshire MPs when he met us shortly before the recess. We told him how important it was that a negotiated settlement should be reached, irrespective of the Bill, and that, having met FBU members and the chief fire officer, we want to ensure that not only the FBU but the employers are able to advance the modernisation agenda. His response will be carefully scrutinised, and I await it with great interest.
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Raynsford): The amendments predominantly deal with the issue of whether the Bill should be time limited, which was raised by several hon. Members on Second Reading. At the time, I said that that could be considered in Committee, and so it has proved. As we have made clear on several occasions, the Bill is part of our strategy for dealing with the exceptional set of circumstances presented by the current fire dispute. It is not a vehicle for dealing with our longer-term vision for the fire service, which will be set out in the White Paper that we expect to publish shortly.
      I hope that hon. Members will understand that there are always timetable issues involved in the publication of important documents, but it is our intention to publish the White Paper in the very near future.
      5.30 pm
      As the Committee will know, we are committed to modernising the fire service, and the forthcoming White Paper will describe our proposed reforms in detail. I hope that it will be helpful to the Committee if I take a little time to describe how the Bill and the White Paper will complement each other. Before I do so, however, I want to make it quite clear to my hon. Friends that there is no wider application to any other industrial relations situation implicit in the Bill; it relates specifically to the current position in the fire service. That has been clearly stated by the Deputy Prime Minister and me on many occasions, and I want to make it absolutely clear to the Committee tonight.
      The powers that the Bill would confer would enable us to draw a line under the present dispute. The Bill should therefore be a temporary measure, designed solely to address the current dispute and its immediate aftermath. For the longer term, the White Paper will set
      52
      out comprehensive proposals for a new framework for the fire service that I believe will give it a new sense of purpose and prevent the kind of stalemate that has characterised this industrial dispute. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked me whether the Bill would address some of the difficult issues that have been thrown up by the negotiations, and I can give him the assurance that he is seeking: we shall certainly set out proposals for a longer-term framework which should ensure a better future without the kind of unproductive stalemate that we have encountered in the course of the last few months.
      I should also say to the hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no significance, so far as I am concerned, in the textual changes in the later stages of the employers' offer. The employers assure us that those changes are entirely compatible with their objective of ensuring the modernisation of the fire service while giving reassurance to worried members of the Fire Brigades Union that some of the wilder fears that have been expressed about some of the consequences are completely unfounded. Those assurances were used as a basis for changes to the document, to give reassurance. That is an entirely sensible and proper thing for the employers to have done, but it in no way changes the fundamental principle that the pay offer of 16 per cent. must be linked to modernisation, and that modernisation must achieve the necessary savings to ensure that the offer is affordable.
      Mr. Hammond: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about the deletion of the reference to the White Paper, but does he not see at least a message, if not a specific significance, in the removal from paragraph 1.1 of the following words?
      "This is a package agreement, which integrates changes to modernise the fire service with associated pay rises, which depend upon the implementation of the entire package."
      Those words have been expunged. Is there no significance to that?
      Mr. Raynsford: We have made it quite clear to the employers on many occasions that the interim funding of £30 million that we have pledged to make it possible for them to meet the costs of this settlement—given that it will take some time for the benefits of modernisation to flow through and to meet the costs implicit in the offer—is the maximum that is on offer, and that we shall not meet any additional amount. The employers are quite clear about that, and hence about the fact that the offer has to ensure that savings can be made over that time scale to enable them to keep within their budgets. They have made it clear to us that they are satisfied that the latest offer achieves that objective, and of course it is in their interest to do so because, financially, they will have no other means of meeting the costs of the settlement.
      The White Paper will articulate the Government's vision for the fire service. It will set out the reforms that we have in mind to ensure that the service is well managed and efficient, serving the needs of the community and able to respond to the challenges of the 21st century. We intend to set out the legal, institutional and managerial changes required to deliver that vision. One of the keys to this is to set clear targets for fire and

      53
      safety outcomes, to support local analysis of how these can best be achieved, and to insist on best value in the way in which services are delivered.
      In the context of this long-term approach, we are prepared to accept the principle that the Bill should be time-limited. However, we believe that the time limits of 15 months, as set out in amendment No. 29 tabled by the Liberal Democrats, or 18 months, as proposed in amendments Nos. 2 and 35 tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, are too short. I will explain why.
      Even when a settlement has been achieved, whether by agreement or by imposition, the new direction that modernisation requires will not be achieved overnight. It therefore makes sense to retain the powers that the Bill will confer until we can be reasonably clear about the fact that the improvements that we want to see are well on the way to being achieved.
      Valerie Davey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but I want to make a little more progress. It is important for the time scale to be fully understood.
      A time limit of 18 months would last to around the end of 2004, assuming that the Bill receives Royal Assent this summer. That sounds a long time away and it might just allow sufficient time for any Bill introduced in the next Session—one designed to implement the White Paper policies—to come into effect, although that could not be guaranteed if the parliamentary passage of such a Bill were prolonged. With a 15-month time limit, there would be a serious risk of those powers lapsing before any Bill setting out our long-term strategic framework even received Royal Assent, let alone came into effect.
      We should also bear in mind the fact that the fire service pay settlement date is November each year. The deal now on the table would change that by bringing the date forward to July, but if it were not accepted—of course, the powers in the Bill are designed for a situation in which there is no negotiated settlement—we would face the possibility of having to make an award not only for November 2002 and November 2003, but perhaps for November 2004. If we were in that situation, it would not help to be working against an 18-month time limit that ran out in December or January, and certainly not a 15-month time limit that ran out in September or October.
      In any event, experience has taught us that we need a back-stop. Fire service reform and the legislation that that entails are Government priorities. The Bill should be a stop-gap that enables us to deal with the immediate future, but does not tackle all the long-term challenges. At the moment, there are grounds for optimism about the outcome of negotiations between the employers and the FBU. We may not even need to use these powers at all. As we have always made clear, that is our hope.
      I respond to my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) by saying that the Deputy Prime Minister and I have clearly indicated on many occasions that our objective is that there should be a negotiated settlement and that if that is achieved we will
      54
      not need to use the powers in the Bill. That is a clear commitment. This is a stop-gap. We hope that it will not he necessary to use these powers.
      Mr. Hammond: I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the distinction between not using the powers and abandoning the Bill, because it seems to me to he important. It is perfectly possible that on 12 June the offer will be accepted, but that we will find further down the line in some areas, although perhaps not all, that there are difficulties with implementing the changes in working conditions that are integral to the offer.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point that is obviously in our mind. There have been worries over the past few months that agreements appeared to he on the verge of being reached, but were not achieved. There may well be areas that are less enthusiastic about reaching an agreement than others. I sincerely hope that an agreement is reached, that next week's recall conference votes decisively in favour of what is a good offer from the employers, and that there will be wholehearted commitment to implementing the agreement. Of course, it would be foolish of us to assume that that will be the case.
      As I have made clear, we believe that there is a need for provision to cope with the circumstances between now and the implementation of the Bill that will give effect to our White Paper proposals, which is why I have said that the 18-month and 15-month periods are probably too short. So I confirm our belief that this Bill should proceed to the statute book, but we do not intend to invoke its powers if there is a settlement and it is implemented in the way that we all hope it will be.
      Matthew Green: Do not the Minister's remarks disagree with the Deputy Prime Minister's earlier statements? The Deputy Prime Minister said that, if there were a settlement, the Government would not need to proceed with the Bill.
      Mr. Raynsford: No. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear on many occasions his earnest hope that he will not need to use these powers, which is different from saying that he does not want the Bill to be enacted. We believe that the Bill is necessary.
      Valerie Davey: Earlier, my right hon. Friend made it very clear that the Bill was intended to deal with the current dispute and its immediate aftermath. I understood him then to say that he needed it as a backstop for implementation of the White Paper. That surely flies in the face of the trust that we need in order to secure a settlement by agreement. I am sorry to return to this issue, but is the Bill intended to deal with the immediate dispute—which was my impression—or to enable the White Paper to be implemented?
      Mr. Raynsford: Let me try to explain. This is an important issue, and the two elements are closely related.
      The offer from the employers involves a settlement over two and a half years, during which modernisation will fund much of the cost of the firefighters' increased pay, which will be given in three stages. The two must go

      55
      hand in hand. Without implementation, the employers would clearly find it impossible to meet the commitment to increased pay. That is why the period after agreement is closely, and rightly, associated with our current position.
      As I have made plain to the Committee, in parallel with that we intend to publish in the near future a White Paper providing a modern framework for the fire service. We recognise that the current arrangements, which date back to 1947, are out of date in many respects and need to be reformed. The White Paper will set out our vision for the future of the fire service. We intend to seek legislation at the earliest opportunity after that, but, as my hon. Friend knows, it cannot happen quickly.
      John McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am trying to answer the important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). I will give way in a moment.
      The implementation of the subsequent Bill is likely to take at least until the end of the 18-month period specified in the amendment. If it were delayed, there would be a hiatus between the lapsing of this Bill and the implementation of the new one. We do not think that that would be healthy or sensible. We think that the new framework for the fire service should be introduced as early as possible, but that the lapsing of this Bill should not precede that.
      John McDonnell: I am trying to be constructive. Can my right hon. Friend explain why the combination of a sunset and a trigger clause does not satisfy his requirements and those of the Deputy Prime Minister? A sunset clause recognises that the Bill will lapse in due course. A trigger clause gives the Government an opportunity to say, "We will not implement this legislation unless we have a difficulty. Then we will come back to the House, explain the difficulty, and if necessary proceed to implementation."
      Mr. Raynsford: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall deal with that when I deal with his amendment, which seeks to introduce such a trigger clause. He stressed that the amendment had been tabled in a constructive spirit, and I hope to respond in the same spirit.
      As I have said, we know from experience that recommendations to conference from the FBU executive are not always accepted. We would rightly be open to criticism from Members, and indeed from the wider public, if in 15 or 18 months we found ourselves facing further disruption and frustration, but without the powers in the Bill. A two-year time limit would, we believe, provide more certainty. I am pleased to say that we will therefore accept amendment No. 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central.
      In addition to providing a sunset clause to a realistic time scale, his amendment has the added benefit of permitting the Secretary of State to revoke orders made under the Bill after its order-making power has ceased to have effect, should that be necessary.
      56
      5.45 pm
      Opposition Members have suggested that only the power to fix or to modify conditions of service should be time limited, so that the Secretary of State can continue to give directions to fire authorities about the use of property or facilities after 18 months have elapsed following Royal Assent. That is not appropriate either, for the reasons that I gave earlier. The White Paper and consequent substantive legislation will address the Secretary of State's relationship with the fire authorities in the round.
      Mr. Hammond: I may have missed something, but although amendment No. 35 may have that effect, amendment No. 2 clearly states:
      "The powers conferred by this Act shall cease to have effect eighteen months after the date on which it comes into effect."
      Mr. Raynsford: I understand that point. The hon. Gentleman has two amendments in his name and they would have different effects. Amendment No. 35 would have the effect that I just described, so I hope that he will accept that our proposal is the sensible way forward.
      Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 deal with the parliamentary procedure for making orders under the Bill and are, as we heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), alternatives. Both require orders made under clause 1(1)(a), on conditions of service, to be approved by a resolution of both Houses. However, amendment No. 22 would require that an order also be debated in draft by each House not even than 14 days before it was laid. I heard the justification advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—that that would allow amendment of a statutory instrument that would otherwise not be possible. However, such orders would be made only in circumstances where there was a serious short-term need for action because of—as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge rightly pointed out—a potential risk to the public.
      The powers contained in clause 1(1)(b) in particular, relating to the deployment of equipment and appliances in the interest of public safety, would need to be used very quickly indeed. That is why, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand, we have not made provision for parliamentary approval of those powers. If there were a process whereby the powers could be used to ensure that aerial appliances or other firefighting equipment that otherwise might not be made available could be made available in a hurry, he would find it difficult to justify a procedure involving two—
      Mr. Hoggrose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment; I am trying to explain my reason for not accepting his amendment. The public would find it odd that not just this House but the other House was expected to debate, on two separate occasions, whether it was appropriate for the Secretary of State to use those powers to ensure the deployment of fire appliances to protect public safety and save people's

      57
      lives. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that that rather elaborate procedure simply would not be appropriate in such circumstances.
      Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has focused on the power to order the deployment of facilities of various kinds. Of course, the argument that he advances does not apply to the power to
      "fix or modify the conditions of service",
      particularly remuneration. No such urgency exists there; perhaps he would care to confine his remarks to the power to deploy the facilities.
      Mr. Raynsford: With the greatest of pleasure, because, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, in terms of the power to fix conditions of service there is a separate requirement—an obligation on the Secretary of State to undertake consultation. So there will be a full opportunity for the views of those most closely involved—including those working in the fire service, the employers and the public—to express their views before any decision is taken. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman regards that as appropriate.
      We are openly seeking these powers on a temporary basis, so the procedures laid down will have only a limited life. As I have said, we will set out in the forthcoming White Paper our longer-term strategy.
      If amendment No. 16 were accepted, the Bill would be commenced by order, which would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. As currently drafted, the legislation would commence on enactment and the order-making powers would be immediately available to the Secretary of State. Subject to the Bill's other provisions—such as those on consultation, to which I have just referred—the Secretary of State would be able to make a pay award or give directions to fire authorities straight away. I believe that that is desirable, for the reasons that I have outlined.
      It would mean that firefighters could receive their pay award relatively quickly. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) rightly pointed out that many retained firefighters have not received a pay increase since November 2001 and, quite reasonably, feel aggrieved about it. Many have not been involved in the dispute, and with the prospect of continued protracted delay much can be said in favour of taking action to ensure that firefighters receive a pay increase relatively quickly.
      Secondly, in the event of further strikes, the Secretary of State might need to give urgent directions to a fire authority to ensure that property and facilities are available to those providing emergency cover in order properly to protect the public. The amendment would inevitably cause delay, frustrating the wishes of many firefighters to receive a pay award and placing the public at unnecessary risk.
      Amendment No. 28 deals with human rights, about which hon. Members are understandably concerned.
      John McDonnell: I am incredulous about the process that the Minister suggests would encompass delay. He makes two specific points, the first of which is about the pay award. If agreement is reached next week, will the Secretary of State determine the pay award under the
      58
      Bill, or will previous negotiation procedures apply? If the new legislation applies, we would have to wait for it to pass through the House of Lords before we could proceed with the pay award. I thought that current negotiations related to current negotiating practices and that an award could be agreed on that basis.
      Secondly, if disputes arise in future, are we suggesting that the Secretary of State would not have time to discuss the matter, produce a report and decide whether the legislation should be implemented? Disputes can arise without necessarily incurring delay. The Government are not suggesting real practical problems and the trigger mechanism would assist rather than obstruct the resolution of future disputes.
      Mr. Raynsford: It has always been clear that our objective is to secure a negotiated settlement. If such a settlement is secured, it will proceed and the powers in the Bill will neither be needed nor used. If a negotiated settlement is reached, there is no question of the Bill causing delay. If it is not, many firefighters have waited a long time for a pay settlement and might welcome a settlement being imposed quickly in preference to further prolonged negotiation and discussion, which the amendment would require.
      Secondly, if the dispute were to continue without agreement being reached, strike action could take place at seven days' notice. My hon. Friend will know the relevant industrial relations legislation that applies. In those circumstances and in the light of evidence that the Deputy Prime Minister provided to the House a month ago about the limited ability of military personnel to cope with such an emergency, having powers in place to ensure that facilities are available to protect the public—the public have paid for them—is surely an overriding requirement. It would be perverse to prevent the Secretary of State from using such powers urgently to protect the public interest.
      John McDonnell: The amendment is not designed to prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers, but to enable him to report back to the House so that the House can decide whether to activate them. Are we saying that the House could not clear the decks to deal with an order presented to it? A statement would be made to the House in any case. I simply do not understand what the practical problems are; they seem to be invented. The purpose of the amendment is to get the Secretary of State off the hook and abide by the spirit of the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to the House that he did not want the legislation enacted.
      Mr. Raynsford: I have to tell my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister's concern is different: he wants to ensure that he has the power to act expeditiously if necessary to protect the public. I am sure that my hon. Friend can envisage agreement not being reached next week—though I hope it will be—and the dispute rumbling on for another couple of months with the threat of strike action during the summer recess. In those circumstances, no mechanism would be available other than the recall of Parliament to allow the Secretary of State to use his powers, which is clearly an unsatisfactory position.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister may have made a slip of the tongue in that exchange. He said that if a settlement

      59
      were reached, the powers would not be used. I am sure that he would want to clarify that, because he said earlier that the powers would not be used if a settlement were both reached and implemented. Surely he would want to retain the ability to use the powers.
      Mr. Raynsford: I made that clear earlier and it is our wish to see a settlement reached and implemented. In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, I highlighted the fact that the settlement depended on pay and modernisation going hand in hand. That has applied for two and half years. The two have to be linked and implementation has to proceed to be fully honoured.
      Human rights are, as I said, a matter of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House, so it might be helpful if I explain the Government's thinking in some detail.
      My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear from the outset that he believed that the Bill was compatible with the European convention on human rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights carried out an initial examination of the Bill and its report recorded its provisional view that it is compatible with the convention. The Joint Committee did, however, raise concerns about the compatibility of the Bill with two conventions, neither of which is incorporated into UK law. The first is the European social charter, article 6 of which is designed to ensure the effectiveness of the right to collective bargaining. The Bill does nothing to interfere with the right of the fire service to engage in collective bargaining, and nothing to make it less effective. In fact, we all wish that it had been more effective than it has been over the last 12 months.
      Mr. Hogg: The Bill may not have that effect, but the regulations introduced under it may have. Clause 1(1)(a) makes it absolutely clear that regulations can determine pay and conditions, contrary to the outcome of negotiations.
      Mr. Raynsford: As I was about to say, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand, many of us wish that the collective bargaining procedures had been more effective. The dispute began more than a year ago when the claim was lodged. Sadly, despite frequent efforts to find ways of bringing the two sides together, securing a negotiated solution has so far proved unsuccessful. I hope, as does the whole House, that next week the Fire Brigades Union recall conference will agree to the latest offer of the employers—a good and generous offer and a good basis for ensuring a good future for the fire service and a sound settlement for firefighters. We hope that there will be no need to use the powers in the Bill. However, in the event of no agreement being reached, it cannot be right to allow the position to continue. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge repeatedly emphasised, the public could be put at risk. In those circumstances, it is right to ensure that effective action can be taken to safeguard the public.
      60
      I would draw attention to the fact that rights under the charter are not absolute. Article 31 permits some restrictions or limitations, if they are
      "prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others or for the protection of public interest, national security, public health, or morals".
      We believe that it is now necessary to draw a line under the dispute if the parties fail to bring it to an end through the normal processes of bargaining. Naturally, it is for the Committee to determine whether it agrees: that is the nature of democracy. We are satisfied that both the Bill and the order-making powers, if we are forced to use them, are compatible with the charter.
      Mr. Llwyd: The Minister said that, even if a settlement were reached, the Bill and its powers of direction would remain necessary in order to bring it into effect. He now says that he hopes that the Bill will not be used at all. I may be stupid, but will the Minister clarify which is the correct version? It is an important point.
      Mr. Raynsford: At the risk of going over the ground again, I hope that I have made it clear that we believe that the Bill is necessary to oversee the period during which the implementation of the settlement takes place. On the employers' offer, the settlement will cover a two and a half year period. The Bill is necessary to ensure implementation because pay and modernisation are inextricably linked as part of the settlement. That is why the powers are necessary, but we have repeatedly said that it is not our intention to invoke them or use them, assuming that agreement is reached and implemented.
      Mr. Drew: When we talk about the employer, we need to be clear that we do not mean central Government or an employer, but a number of employers. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that if a fire authority failed to settle with its employees, for whatever reason, the Government would not seek to impose a deal retrospectively on that authority? Otherwise, this process looks like the Government telling each fire authority what it should do with every one of its conditions of employment, and that is not desirable.
      6 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: No one would regard a settlement as satisfactory if it applied only to some areas of the country and not to others. People expect a properly functioning fire service in every part of the country, and it is our objective to achieve a national settlement. All the parties, including the employers—the local authority and other fire authority employers—the union and the Government, want an agreement that applies nationally. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that circumstances could arise—I have outlined them in response to earlier questions—in a continuing dispute, in which certain authorities were more helpful in making equipment available to others to protect the public interest. In such cases, it might be necessary to use the powers selectively to protect the public. That is why the powers in the Bill may be applied generally or to particular authorities.
      Mr. Drew: The implication of that is that we will have a national settlement for not only pay, but all

      61
      conditions. If that is the case, we should be honest and open about it, and we should tell local authorities that their room for manoeuvre will be considerably constrained, regardless of the passage of the Bill. That appears to be the direction in which the Government are going, and it may be the right direction, but we should put it on record.
      Mr. Raynsford: My understanding is that all parties, including the local authority employers and the FBU, want a national agreement. They do not want regional bargaining or negotiation with individual fire authorities. It is in everybody's interest that we reach an agreed national settlement.
      John McDonnell: If we are to assist in the resolution of the dispute next week, it is important to achieve clarity in our debate. The union and the employers want a national settlement that applies to all parties, but the Burchill proposals allow for local resolution of individual issues, especially conditions and operational matters. That is the key message. Our concern is that the legislation offers a vista of detailed interference at local level if the agreement is not implemented. We need to assure the union and the employers that that is not the process that the Government envisage.
      Mr. Raynsford: I agree that everyone involved agrees that we seek a national settlement, not a fragmentation. The proposals that Professor Burchill made a couple of weeks ago are not on the table and do not form part of the current offer made by the employers and recommended by the FBU executive. Of course there will be a role for individual fire authorities in the future in assessing the appropriate way to respond to the needs of their areas. Indeed, they are preparing integrated risk management plans to ensure that they are well organised to meet those needs. However, as far as pay bargaining is concerned, the objective of all sides has been a national settlement. That remains the case, and the Government do not wish to do anything to prevent that from happening. We want to see a national settlement.
      Matthew Green: The Minister said that the Bill was compatible with article 6 of the European social charter because it would address a risk to public safety. However, the Bill makes no mention of public safety and it will confer a power that has nothing to do with a risk to public safety. That is not what the Minister intends, but will he make it clear that he will use the powers only in the case of a direct risk to public safety? If so, we will have no concerns about article 6.
      Mr. Raynsford: The theme that has been repeated time and again in the debate is the inevitable risk to the public of a continued or repeated incidence of industrial action in the fire service. If firefighters withdraw their labour, the public are put at risk, especially if the military resources, which have responded magnificently in the past, are seriously stretched and we cannot deploy comparable numbers. In that situation, the public would be at risk and the provisions of article 31 make it clear that any use of the powers would not be incompatible with the charter.
      Matthew Green: The Bill does not say that the powers will be used only in the event of strike action. The
      62
      powers could be used at any time, so I am giving the Minister the opportunity to say that he would use the powers only in cases of a threatened strike or actual strike action.
      Mr. Raynsford: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had heard me say that repeatedly. If he has not, I repeat that it is not our intention to use the powers in the Bill if a negotiated settlement is properly implemented. If not, and there is an industrial dispute, there will be a clear risk to the public and, therefore, the permissive powers in article 31 would bite and there would be no conflict with the charter.
      The second concern that the Joint Committee raised with me was about article 8 of the Labour Relations (Public Services) convention, known as ILO convention 151. The article requires that settlement of disputes about conditions of employment of public employees should
      "be sought … through negotiation … or through independent and impartial machinery".
      No one could argue that a settlement has not been sought through negotiation. We have done all that we can to encourage and facilitate that. The question is how long the fire service can go on seeking a settlement without finding one. Article 8 describes what should happen but does not define what to do when negotiation fails. That is what we are now seeking to address. I can therefore confirm—as I said on Second Reading—that in our view the provisions in the Bill are compatible with article 6 of the charter and article 8 of ILO convention 151. Requiring the publication of reports to that effect looks like just another obstacle put in place by Opposition Members. As we can give them the assurances that they seek now, there is no merit in delaying commencement of the Act.
      The powers in the Bill have a specific purpose: to draw a line under the present dispute so that the two sides can start afresh. We are heartened by the progress that they have made, and we are sure that the whole House hopes for a positive outcome, but we must be prepared for all eventualities. In the event of a negotiated settlement not being reached, accepting any of these amendments would delay a resolution to the dispute. I have made it clear that the Government are happy to accept amendment No. 17, but I request that all other amendments be withdrawn.
      Mr. Hammond: This has been a very interesting debate, if somewhat lengthy. The Minister's remarks about the time scale for the introduction of new legislation following the publication of the White Paper were entirely plausible, and I accept what he said. I suspect that some Labour Members may not have realised that the Government's intention was that the Bill should act as a bridge to a piece of permanent legislation covering the same areas. However, I certainly anticipated that that would be the Government's intention, so I am happy to accept the two-year sunset provision that the Minister deems adequate.
      It is amusing to think what the Minister's speech would have looked like if I had proposed a two-year sunset clause in amendment No. 35. and if the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) had proposed a period of 18 months in his amendment. No

      63
      doubt the Minister would have found time in the legislative timetable for the House to deem an 18-month period to be adequate. However, I am very happy with the outcome. The Government have cleared the first of the three hurdles set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). I very much hope that we can continue to make progress in the same spirit, so that consideration of the Bill can be concluded with consensus on all sides.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 1, line 4, at end insert—
      (1A) (a) Before making an order under section 1(1) the Secretary of State shall conduct a postal ballot of all Fire Brigade members for the purpose of ascertaining their views in relation to any order to be made under section 1(1) or any related matters which appears to the Secretary of State to be relevant.
      (b) The Secretary of State may direct any fire authority to supply him with such information as he may require to enable him to conduct a ballot under subsection 1(1A)(a).
      (c) It shall be the duty of a fire authority to comply with a direction given under subsection 1(1A)(b).'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 33, in page 1, leave out lines 5 and 6.
      No. 25, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Secretary of State may only make a order under section (1) above if an existing offer on pay and conditions made by relevant representatives of local fire authorities to the relevant representatives of fire brigade members has been voted upon in a secret postal ballot, in which all fire brigade members were sent a ballot paper, within the preceding three months.'.
      No. 26, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—
      '(1B) The conditions in section (1A) do not have to be met if the Secretary of State makes an order under (1)(a) to require fire brigade members to take part in a secret postal ballot organised by an appropriate independent body on an existing offer on pay and conditions made to them by relevant representatives of fire authorities.'.
      No. 27, in page 1, line 16, at end insert—
      '(2A) For the purposes of (1)(a) above, the Secretary of State can only fix or modify the conditions of service of fire brigade members if:

      (i) the new or modified conditions of service follow the recommendations of an independent arbitration process;

      (ii) the recommendations of such an independent arbitration process have been rejected either by relevant representatives of fire brigade member or by relevant representatives of fire authorities.'.

      No. 9, in page 1, line 20, after `body', insert 'for agreement'.
      No. 10, in page 1, line 25, at end insert—

      (d) secure the agreement of the negotiating body to the proposals for an order.

      (e) lay a report before Parliament on the views of the negotiating body on the proposal for an order'.

      No. 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out 'some or all' and insert 'the majority of.
      Mr. Hammond: We now come to the second condition proposed by the Opposition. Amendment No. 32 would
      64
      introduce an obligation to conduct a postal ballot, but it would leave the Secretary of State with wide discretion as to the ballot's subject matter, whether it were the proposed order under clause 1(1) or any matter that appears to the Secretary of State to be relevant. Clearly, the intention is to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to put to FBU members in a postal ballot an offer that has been made and debated. If the amendment were to apply today, for example, the ballot would cover the employers' draft offer that is to be considered by the recalled FBU conference on 12 June. However, the amendment is drawn widely enough to allow the Secretary of State to put the content of his own proposed order to all employees in a ballot, regardless of whether the union chose to do so.
      It would be simpler, and preferable, if the principal unions involved were to organise proper postal ballots of all their members. However, amendment No. 32 would give the Secretary of State the power to deal with the situation where the unions do not organise such ballots.
      I thought very carefully about the wording of the amendment, and about whether the Secretary of State might need powers to require a third party such as a trade union, for example, to deliver information to him and thus enable him to hold such a ballot. I concluded that the fire authorities, being public statutory bodies, have control of all the information that he could need to conduct a ballot. The amendment is therefore drafted to require fire authorities to deliver information to him and places an obligation on them to comply with such a requirement. In that way, the Secretary of State can get the data that he needs to conduct a postal ballot without involving the unions. It thus avoids the need for penalties for non-compliance, and all the hullabaloo that would follow.
      6.15 pm
      In practice, of course, I would expect the Secretary of State to contract an external organisation to conduct a ballot. He might even agree that a trade union should conduct the ballot, or he might look to a third-party body such as the Electoral Reform Society.
      Amendment No. 33 is a drafting amendment that relates to matters dealt with in the previous group of amendments. I do not intend to say anything about it.
      I tabled amendment No. 32 because I am not convinced that the approach taken by Liberal Democrat Members with amendments Nos. 25 and 26 would work. Amendment No. 25 would not give the Secretary of State the power to make the order that amendment No. 26 refers to. I accept entirely that the intention behind that amendment is similar to that which underlies amendment No. 32, but amendment No. 32 is not a probing amendment. I hope that the Government will be able to accept it, so it was necessary to put it in a technically satisfactory form. Even so, I am very much on the same page as the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and his colleagues.
      I understand that the Government also support the idea of a ballot of all fire brigade members to test any offer that might be on the table before a settlement is imposed. Certainly, the remarks made by the Minister in his winding-up speech on Second Reading suggest that he is sympathetic to the idea. Hon. Members of all

      65
      parties in this House, and people outside the House, would look askance if we did not seek to ensure that all relevant employees were given a proper chance to express their views on any negotiated settlement before we concluded that such a settlement was impossible and proceeded to allow the Secretary of State to impose his own settlement.
      Two agreements have been approved by the employers, the Government and the union's executive. One agreement was rejected, through the conference, by the union membership, and the other is to be tested on 12 June. I think that there is a broad feeling in the House that the pithead ballot method of mandating delegates to the conferences may be a problem. As I understand it, members at individual fire stations mandate a delegate, usually to a county meeting, by an open show of hands. At the county meeting, the position of the brigade representative will again be mandated by an open show of hands.
      The Government are seeking to change things, but I suspect that most people would acknowledge that the fire service, although not unique, is at the extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to macho workplace environments. There will certainly be what might be described as peer pressure in the environment in which the ballots take place, and others might even describe it as intimidation. However, there is at least a hope that a postal ballot of all fire brigade members would allow more sober judgments to be made.
      Of course, I repeat that we all hope that sober judgment will prevail on 12 June. However, if it does not, I should not want to move to having a settlement imposed by the Secretary of State without taking the offer on the table now around the loop one more time. We should take it directly to fire brigade members through a postal ballot organised by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State.
      Perhaps it would be useful to recap the present state of the dispute, as that is essentially the background to the postal ballot proposal. Pay claims of 40 per cent. for firefighters and 50 per cent. for control room staff remain on the table, without any commitment to reform of working practices. The employers tabled a final offer that was rejected in April after having been recommended to the work force by the FBU executive. The Government rejected the intervention by Professor Burchill on the ground that it would add costs of £100 million to the proposed settlement by watering down the link between modernisation and increased pay. Following that, the employers tabled a revised final offer. The FBU executive has again recommended to fire service personnel that the offer be accepted, and it has been approved by the Minister, on behalf of the Government. It will be voted on at a delegate conference on 12 June.
      Meanwhile the Government remain committed to the position that any settlement above inflation must be paid for through productivity: the modernisation agenda. The Government have stated repeatedly, and the Minister said again today, that they will not finance any of the proposed settlement. They will advance £30 million, to be repaid in future years, to deal with the cash-flow effects of funding a pay settlement immediately and then claw back savings through modernisation over time. The whole of the above-inflation element must be met by savings made through productivity gains.
      66
      In practical terms, if the revised final offer is agreed on 12 June, the measure is likely to be used only if the agreement were reneged on by members of fire brigades in one or more areas of the country. From previous experience, we know that militancy among firefighters varies enormously. Most hon. Members in the Chamber could reel off the names of three or four brigades where the implementation of an agreement could be difficult, although we would expect that, in many other brigades, an agreement reached on 12 June would be implemented smoothly.
      I do not want to talk down the chances of the conference, but we are considering a measure for use if 12 June does not go according to the Minister's plan. If the offer is rejected then, it is likely that it would, and should, be the one tested in any ballot prescribed by amendment No. 32. It is thus worth probing the Minister on some of the unanswered questions about the offer.
      On Second Reading, the Minister made much of the cost of the Burchill proposals, due to the weakening of the link between pay and the reform of working conditions. However, the revised offer omits the key words from the beginning of the first paragraph that I have already quoted: it is
      "a package agreement."
      It
      "depends on implementation of the entire package."
      Those words made it clear that pay and modernisation are linked, but they have gone from the latest draft.
      The previous version specified redeployment obligations. The section dealing with the duty system stated that there is:
      "an obligation for employees to be based and deployed anywhere and on any duties appropriate to their competence, within the reasonable requirements of the fire authority."
      Those words, too, are missing from the revised text, which has the new words
      "Pre-arranged overtime will not be used to make up any planned shortfall in the overall staffing levels set out in the fire authority's risk management plan."
      In that case, how is the fire authority to cover a staff shortfall to reach the level required by the integrated risk management plan?
      The reference to the joint secretaries and the independent chair of the national joint council being available to assist in the event of any disputes on implementation of the agreement has also been removed from the latest text. There is thus no clear procedure for dealing with implementation disputes.
      I know that the Minister scrutinised the text in detail before it was agreed by the employers and the FBU executive, but all those points seem to weaken the link between working practice reform and increased pay. They weaken the commitment to reform of working practices and, thus, on the Minister's logic as applied to the Burchill proposals, they reduce the likelihood of our being able swiftly and smoothly to implement the working practice reforms and harvest the savings.
      Given the Minister's comments about Burchill and his costing of the proposals at £100 million, can he quantify his Department's assessment of the extra cost of the revised final offer as opposed to the former final offer? In other words, what substance does he accord those significant changes of wording that I cited?

      67
      Will the Minister answer a question that I put to the Deputy Prime Minister on Second Reading? After the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the proposals were not an attack on firefighters' second jobs, I asked whether he could give an assurance that no individual firefighter would be forced to move to a different shift pattern. From my discussions with ordinary firefighters—not union activists—that seems to be the key issue; people do not want their daily life to be disrupted by fiat, but to have a say in the matter.
      I asked the Deputy Prime Minister if he could give such a commitment and he replied:
      "This is an important point, and I shall come exactly to it if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my speech."
      Needless to say, the Deputy Prime Minister never came "exactly to it" and I should be most grateful if the Minister could throw any light on the question.
      On a related point, will the Minister address another of my concerns about the Deputy Prime Minister's statement on Second Reading, as it is relevant to the current package of proposals? The Deputy Prime Minister said:
      "Between now and 2005–06, the fire service will lose 1,500 firefighters through compulsory retirement at age 55."—[Official Report, 8 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 863–65.]
      Wearing another of my hats, I am conscious of the article 13 directive and of the preparations being made by the Minister's colleagues to bring into UK law the requirement to remove discrimination on various grounds, including age. Is the Government's policy that the new arrangements in the fire service will preserve compulsory retirement from all posts at the age of 55? Is their assessment that such a policy will not fall foul of their proposals for the implementation of article 13 in respect of age discrimination? If compulsory retirement at age 55 is to go, the Deputy Prime Minister's assumption about natural wastage will be wrong.
      All those important issues relate to the offer on the table, which will, I hope, be accepted on 12 June. In that case, we need to understand the implications of the offer, so if the Minister can answer my questions, I hope that that will help to clarify matters. If the amendment is accepted, as I hope that it will be—
      Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.
      Mr. Hammond: I am disappointed to see the Minister shaking his head. I hope that he has an extremely good reason for not accepting such a sensible amendment. If it were accepted, I should expect the current offer to be voted on in the sad event that agreement could not be reached on 12 June.
      I shall touch briefly on the Liberal Democrat amendment, No. 27. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) intervened on me to agree that the Deputy Prime Minister's powers under the Bill appeared to ignore the integrated risk management programmes. The right hon. Gentleman's powers are not constrained so that they can be used in a way that is supportive of the integrated risk management programmes adopted by individual fire authorities. However, amendment No. 27 also fails to address that point.
      68
      If the integrated risk management programme requires that conditions of service change, what is the relevance of arbitration? Clearly, delivery of the integrated risk management programme will require a change in those conditions of service. Arbitration can be used to settle pay—the compensation required to work under different conditions. That is a perfectly legitimate consideration, but to subject changes to other conditions to arbitration could undermine the integrated risk management programme, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Ludlow really wants to do that. Perhaps he is considering pay only. I look forward to him clarifying that point.
      6.30 pm
      Finally, I turn briefly to amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 15, which were tabled by the awkward squad on the Government Back Benches. Their effect would be disastrous and give the FBU a veto over any order that the Deputy Prime Minister might make under the powers granted to him by the Bill. If those who tabled the amendments are successful, we can be assured that our consideration today would be entirely wasted. The Bill would have no purpose whatever. The amendments would effectively allow the FBU to usurp Parliament's role, and that probably neatly encapsulates the bizarre and often offensive view that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) takes of the world. These are wrecking amendments and not worthy of consideration in the House. If those Members want to wreck the Bill, the correct course of action for them is to vote against Third Reading, not to table such amendments. We certainly will not support them.
      Matthew Green: This group of amendments is particularly important because it addresses the issue of postal ballots. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has suggested, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives come to the issue from broadly the same direction. He said that our amendments would not work, but I suspect that the wording of the Conservatives' amendments probably would not work either. The difficulty is that amendment No. 32 does not say that the ballot would decide whether FBU members have accepted the conditions. It says only that it would "ascertain their views". Therefore, it appears to be more a consultation than a ballot, and there is concern about the way in which it would be carried out.
      If the Minister cannot accept Conservative amendment No. 32 and our amendments Nos. 25 and 26, I hope that he will say that the Government can find a way of inserting similar provisions into the Bill. Because of the rush and the guillotine motion, the opportunity for the Government to do that on Report will be limited. However, the Bill has to go to another place and I hope that the Government will consider tabling an amendment there.
      Two issues of concern arise from what happened when the FBU executive accepted a settlement and it was rejected by a conference. The first was outlined by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. There is the potential for peer pressure to be exerted at a fire station when a show of hands mandates the person going to the conference.

      69
      The second concern is that a mandatory system can lead to the same problems that were faced in the last American presidential elections when fewer people voted for the current American President than voted for the Democrat candidate. That happened because people voted in areas for a mandated delegated to take a bloc vote forward. Under a mandatory system, even if secret ballots were held in fire stations, a majority of FBU members might want to accept a deal but the minority might be able to ensure that there were enough mandated votes to defeat them.
      Mr. Hammond: I have just examined the figures, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman needs to go as far as the United States. If he looks at his general election result, he will find that more people voted against him than for him.
      Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that, but it is probably the case for many hon. Members. However, there is a slight difference. We are the representatives not the mandated delegates of our constituencies. My point about the American election was that, although the people from the individual states are technically representatives, they are to all intents and purposes mandated.
      The key point is that a secret postal ballot of all members would ascertain the view of the majority of FBU members. I have spoken to FBU members in Shropshire, and I am certain that a majority of them would have accepted the previous settlement. Indeed, many of us suspect that that is true across the country. A postal ballot would ensure that, instead of the Government imposition of a settlement, all the FBU's members would have an opportunity to decide whether to accept it. That must be preferable to the Secretary of State imposing a settlement.
      Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 may be technically defective but I suspect that Conservative amendment No. 32 is, too. We do not have the Minister's access to the skills of the parliamentary draftsmen, but I hope that he will accept that we have a strong point and that he will be willing to table amendments at a later stage to satisfy our demands. If he does, many of our overall concerns about the Bill will be removed.
      On amendment No. 27, I take on board what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said. It was our thinking that the provisions in the amendment should apply primarily to pay. Although the amendment may not be technically perfect, its intention is to ensure that the Secretary of State could modify the conditions of service only following the recommendations of an independent arbitration process. Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman attempted to elicit from the Minister, if a settlement from the Government is unfortunately needed, we hope that it would probably be the one on the table from the employers. It has gone through a process of arbitration, and the intention of the amendment is to ensure that that would happen in future.
      I accept that the amendment may not be perfect—I do not pretend that it is—but I hope that the Minister will accept the need for any pay settlement to be tested. I am sure that that is his intention, but the problem is that the Bill will effectively give him the powers to impose
      70
      whatever settlement he chooses. If the FBU reject the settlement, the Minister could in a mean-spirited mood suddenly say—I am sure that he and the Deputy Prime Minister would not do this— that the award will be 1 per cent. a year for the next three years. I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention, but the Bill would give him that power.
      Mr. Hammond: I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention However, he will leap to his feet to correct me if I am wrong when I say that I have the distinct impression that the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that, should the settlement currently on the table be rejected, it is likely that an imposed settlement would be less generous.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman may be right that that impression has been given. It is perhaps an attempt to force the union to accept the offer and we shall wait with interest to hear what the Minister says.
      The Bill gives Ministers open-ended powers to impose a settlement as they choose. Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 25 to 27 suggest the use of ballots, arbitration or both as an attempt to ensure that Ministers could not abuse the process. I am sure that the Minister would not abuse the powers but they could be abused to achieve retribution for a long and drawn out dispute. I am sure that he will be only too keen to tell us that that is not the Government's intention. If that is the case, we would feel a great deal happier if the Bill included a provision indicating that the Government would propose a settlement that had been through arbitration or put to a ballot. They are two further ways in which our concerns about the Bill could be mollified.
      It has already been said that amendments Nos. 9. 10 and 15 are essentially wrecking amendments. They would take decision-making power away from everyone else and put that straight into the hands of the Fire Brigades Union. We have been in that position for at least a year and that is why the Government are doing what they are doing, although we would do things differently. The amendments would take us back to square one, meaning that we would have wasted all our time and effort on the Bill, so we shall not support them.
      However imperfect the various amendments in the group are, I hope that the Minister will say in the spirit of understanding that the Government will table amendments that will satisfy some of our worries. If he does that, the remaining significant concerns that we have about the Bill will be largely satisfied.
      John McDonnell: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 15, which are tabled in my name. However, I set the amendments to one side because the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to my offensive view of the world. I do not think that I have ever had a conversation with the hon. Gentleman—I offer him the opportunity to have that conservation now. If he was alluding to recent reports in The Sun, Daily Mail, or The Daily Telegraph, may I suggest that he reads my article in today's edition of The Guardian before he has a conversation with me, rather than making such allegations?
      Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 were not designed to be wrecking amendments. If the Bill had become permanent legislation without the sunset clause that we

      71
      have just agreed, it would have been the permanent negotiating machinery for the fire service in the future. The amendments would have introduced the requirement for a negotiated settlement before any order was brought forward—it is as simple as that. The amendments are no longer relevant because I hope that the implementation of the sunset clause will allow us to return to the normal negotiating process. Amendment No. 10 would have ensured that a report would be laid before Parliament on the views of the negotiating body on any proposal for an order. I thought that that would enhance the democratic process.
      I do not understand why amendment No. 15 is offensive. It would ensure only that the organisation that represented the workers in the industry would be the organisation representing the majority of the workers.
      Mr. Hammond: My reading of the amendment is that it refers to the employers' representatives, not the workers' representatives.
      John McDonnell: If that is the case, it is due to inaccurate drafting. The drafting was undertaken with the advice of the drafting Clerk. The word "majority" is meant to refer to the employees' overall representation—the majority union. There may well be a printing error. The words "some or all" in clause 2 will allow employees to be represented by a minority organisation. The amendment would ensure that the employees, at least, would be represented by the majority membership organisation. I cannot understand why that is offensive or undemocratic in any way.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate that was enlivened by an interchange between the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). The hon. Member for Ludlow referred to people who were elected by a minority of votes cast and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge acutely and cruelly reminded him that he had been elected by a minority—the majority of people had voted against him. I did a little research and I can tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that he is in the same position, because the majority of electors in his constituency voted against him. I am saying that from a fairly solid position because I know that he cannot say the same about me.
      Mr. Hammond: As the Minister has done his research so well, will he share with the Committee the size of the majorities that voted against the hon. Member for Ludlow and me?
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall not go into enormous detail because I fear that I will be out of order, but I concede that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge secured 47 per cent. of the electorate in his constituency, which was a higher percentage than that secured by the hon. Member for Ludlow but a lesser percentage than the 60 per cent. secured by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford).
      72
      It has been made clear that the amendments address two separate issues: the role of secret ballots and the steps that it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to take before using the powers that the Bill will confer on him. I shall address the issues in turn.
      We believe that secret ballots are a fundamental part of good industrial relations. Only industrial action that has the support of a ballot is protected under trade union legislation. It is well known that the Fire Brigades Union held a secret ballot before it embarked on the dispute in which a large majority of its members voted in favour of action. However, the union did not hold a ballot on whether to accept a particular offer, but on whether to take strike action. I do not hold that against the union because it was in line with section 229 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which requires that a ballot should contain a question about strike action or industrial action short of a strike.
      The FBU has not balloted its members about any of the latest offers made by the employers. We should bear it in mind that the employers' offer at the time the ballot was held was only 4 per cent. over one year. The employers more recently offered 16 per cent. over two and a half years. We have repeatedly made clear our view that the FBU should put the employers' latest offer to a secret ballot of its members so that ordinary firefighters have the opportunity to make up their minds in private. The kind of collective meetings that are held to gauge opinion do not guarantee the fundamental principle of democracy that people should be able to express their view in a secret ballot. However, we have no plans to legislate to require the FBU to hold a secret ballot. Such an approach would mean treating the FBU differently from every other trade union, and there is no logical reason for doing that.
      Mr. Hammond: Will the Minister acknowledge that amendment No. 32 does not propose doing such a thing? It proposes giving the Secretary of State the discretionary power to order a secret ballot of all fire brigade members, not members of one or another union.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am well aware of that and I shall come on to the problems highlighted by that approach and the problems implicit in the ballot proposals made by the hon. Member for Ludlow.
      Let me address the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge first. Amendment No. 25 would mean that the Secretary of State could make an order only if a secret ballot of all fire brigade members on an employers' offer had been held in the previous three months. One problem with that is that there is no mechanism for a secret ballot of all fire brigade members. The FBU could ballot all its members, but not those who are members of other unions or of none.
      Mr. Hammond: Amendment No. 25 is a Liberal Democrat amendment. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) will have to answer for its defects. I shall answer for the defects of amendment No. 32 in due course.
      Mr. Raynsford: I apologise unreservedly. I have confused the order of the amendments because amendment No. 25 comes before amendment No. 32.

      73
      The problem with the Liberal Democrat proposal is that there is no mechanism by which a ballot of all members could be held. Other unions are involved and they could ballot their members, but they are not party to the negotiating body. Whether that is right or not is a different matter, but that is the situation and strictly speaking no offer can be made to them by the employers. It is not easy to understand how they could be asked to express a view when they are not party to an offer.
      Matthew Green: Those unions may not be party to the negotiations, but they will receive the benefits or otherwise of the settlement that is either negotiated or not, and it is right that they should be balloted as well. The amendment might not provide for how that ballot should be carried out, but it is not impossible for the Secretary of State to get the names and addresses of those people who work in the fire brigade.
      Mr. Raynsford: There may be a perfectly good justification, as an academic exercise, to test the views of all the people who work in the fire service, including those who are members of other unions such as the GMB, Unison, the National Association of Fire Officers and the Retained Firefighters Union, but that is not relevant to the negotiating procedure. We have said throughout the debate that we hope for a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations that have been going on for more than a year to resolve the dispute. The amendment would not help to resolve the dispute through the agreed negotiating procedure. Perhaps the procedure is not satisfactory and contains inequities that the hon. Gentleman might want to change, but we have to deal with the existing machinery.
      Mr. Hammond: I suspect that the Minister will apply the same criticism to my amendment. I recognise that what he is saying is true, but as far as I am concerned the purpose of the ballot is twofold: to test opinion and to make that opinion widely known before the Secretary of State intervenes with his leaden-booted power to impose a settlement, and to create an environment in which the Secretary of State's own proposed solution can be given legitimacy. If the vast majority of members of fire brigades accept a settlement, the Secretary of State would have a good basis on which to impose it. The militants might rail against that, but the great majority of people in the country would see it as fair and reasonable.
      Mr. Raynsford: I shall come in a moment to the procedures that we will adopt. They will ensure that the Secretary of State seeks evidence of opinion before imposing a solution. There will be no question of a "leaden-booted" solution without consultation and an attempt to gain a full understanding of the views of those involved in the fire service.
      Angela Watkinson: Will the Minister acknowledge that the problem with the existing negotiating method is that firefighters are being asked to agree to a pay settlement that is linked to changes in their conditions of service? As those will arise from the risk review, they are as yet unknown. The firefighters do not know what they
      74
      are being asked to agree to, which is why we need a separate arrangement for them to be consulted in this instance.
      Mr. Raynsford: I agree that there are uncertainties. That is one reason why individual firefighters may have been nervous about accepting the generous 16 per cent. offer on the table. Compared with what most other public sector workers are being offered, that is a good deal. However, I accept that uncertainty exists. In my judgment, it has been a major cause of alarm for many firefighters. That is why the employers' latest offer makes a number of changes to the text. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned those. They have been proposed to deal with the anxieties and concerns felt by many firefighters.
      The introduction of the new arrangements following integrated risk management plans is likely to give rise to changes, but it is our understanding that the majority of firefighters will continue to operate the same shift system. The numbers who might be asked to move to a different shift system will be relatively small. That should be containable on a voluntary basis. In any case, different shift systems will be attractive to firefighters who do not find the present shift system wholly conducive to family life, for example. There are alternatives. It will be up to individual fire authorities to explore those, but it is our understanding that that is compatible with a consensual way forward that does not impose unreasonable changes or prevent firefighters from operating a similar shift system.
      Angela Watkinson: One of the major concerns is that the watches of firefighters who work closely together and know one another well will be broken up. They know their colleagues' strengths and weaknesses and how they will react in life-endangering situations. Similarly, leading firefighters who are managing a fire know the strengths and weaknesses of the members of the watches to whom they are giving instructions. There is a concern that operational efficiency could be jeopardised by people working together at random. If they are not used to working together, they will not be as efficient or effective as the established watches.
      Mr. Raynsford: I hear what the hon. Lady says and I know that some firefighters are concerned about that, but many fire stations already have mixed crewing whereby a full-time crew and a retained crew operate from the same station. The flexibility that allows those arrangements will often ensure a more effective response in a cost-effective way. It will be for each fire authority, under the integrated risk management plan process, to explore how it can best meet the needs of its area to provide the most effective service. That is what we are about. We are interested in safety and in ensuring the most effective response to the risks of fire. We want to achieve that in a more cost-effective way than often applies at the moment, because constant crewing can result in inefficiencies.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked whether the changes to the text on overtime would make it impossible for employers to make the savings that had been envisaged. That is a classic example of one of the changes that was designed to allay anxieties. It was thought that firefighters might assume that fire

      75
      authorities or chief fire officers would reduce the numbers of employed firefighters and force up hours through overtime to compensate. That is not the intention. The objective is to allow extra flexibility. For example, if gaps are caused by sickness or other absences, that could be covered by overtime, but it should not justify reducing establishments arbitrarily to put them below the level that would be regarded as appropriate to provide proper fire cover.
      Flexibility is very much the objective. That must be understood widely. It is in all our interests that we have the most effective fire service possible. No one wants the fire service damaged by change. Modernisation is not about reducing the quality of service or putting the public at risk. On the contrary: it is about ensuring a more effective response that accepts the need to do more on prevention while ensuring the continuation of a highly effective responsive service when fires occur.
      7 pm
      One of the things that causes me the greatest alarm and concern is evidence of the growing number of fires that could have been prevented. There is a serious upward trend in incidents of arson, and more effective action is necessary to tackle that. There is still an extremely high number of false alarms: crews are dispatched for no good purpose because of malfunctioning alarms and other such incidents. Again, more effective action must be taken to ensure that people can concentrate on the important job of preventing fires and tackling them where they occur. That is what modernisation is about.
      Those are decisions that must be taken in the light of local circumstances, and that is what integrated risk management plans are about. The employers' aim is to ensure that that is better understood by firefighters, who have, in part by misinformation that has been put about, been led to believe that the proposals are a serious threat to their future, to their patterns of work and to the safety of the public.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister says that overtime would not be used routinely. I am confused, because the Deputy Prime Minister has previously said in the House that it is absurd that firefighters can have second jobs as cab drivers, gardeners or decorators, but that they cannot when off duty deploy their skills as firefighters in retained duty. I thought that the Deputy Prime Minister was advocating encouraging firefighters to deploy as much time as they want to for the benefit of the fire service. Now, the offer appears to impose a limit on the amount of overtime.
      Mr. Raynsford: That is not the case. There is something curious about the FBU having regarded it as appropriate for firefighters, if they wish, to work in their spare time as taxi drivers, decorators or whatever, but not to work as firefighters, either doing overtime at their own fire station, or acting as retained firefighters in another area, perhaps the one in which they live. The option under discussion will allow greater flexibility and ensure a more effective and more cost-effective service, but it is not designed artificially to depress the number
      76
      of firefighters employed regularly. It may well be that it will result in savings and in reductions to the establishment being possible, because the establishment may artificially be higher than it needs to be because of the current ban on overtime; but there is a difference between that and deliberately depressing numbers through excessive use of overtime.
      Mr. Hammond: But how can the firefighters who want to give up their second job outside and to deploy themselves for the benefit of the fire service do so, given that the draft text states, at paragraph 3.8, that employees will be free to undertake pre-arranged overtime at premium rates of pay for no more than 24 hours per month?
      Mr. Raynsford: Clearly, it is not sensible for firefighters to work a full-time job as well as a long period of overtime—more than 24 hours a month. Safety is an issue. The proposal is about allowing greater flexibility than comes from making overtime impossible while rightly respecting the concerns of firefighters, their union and chief fire officers that firefighters should not be put in a position where they are exhausted by working excessive overtime. These are practical, sensible, common-sense arrangements that are designed to ensure a better fire service, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
      Amendment No. 26 provides an alternative to amendment No. 25, perhaps because the hon. Member for Ludlow realised that amendment No. 25 was not a practical proposition. Under amendment No. 26, the Secretary of State may make an order requiring a secret postal ballot of all fire brigade members about an existing offer, organised independently. Similarly, amendment No. 32 suggests that the Secretary of State should conduct a postal ballot on his own proposals to make an order, rather than on an offer by the employers.
      The difficulty that I have with the amendments is that what is proposed would take time without getting anywhere. Under the normal process of negotiation, employers and unions discuss; they reach an agreement that the negotiators think acceptable, which is put to their members for endorsement. They may, in some cases, use a secret ballot as part of that process. The powers in the Bill are not designed to deal with those circumstances. They are designed to deal with the different and exceptional situation in which the normal process has broken down, not to enable the whole thing to be rerun by the Government.
      Anyway, it is not clear what we would do with the results of a ballot. If it were a ballot about an offer made by the employers and the offer had been rejected, we would not necessarily impose it. An offer linking pay rises to changes in working practices, like the one on the table now, is designed to work with the agreement of both sides. I am sure that hon. Members accept that what can be achieved by agreement between two parties acting in good faith is often different from what can be achieved by imposition. If no agreement is reached by the negotiating body, it does not follow that we would or could simply impose the same deal as the employers put forward. If we have to use the powers, we must be able to act decisively on the basis of our own judgment.
      That does not mean that we would act unreasonably. The Bill as it stands requires the Secretary of State to consult the negotiating body—that is, the employers

      77
      and the FBU—before he makes an order. He must give them at least 21 days to comment on his proposals, then consider any comments they make. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said on Second Reading that he would also consult the statutory advisers, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. That body, which is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), includes a number of organisations and trade unions that are not on the negotiating body. That is a way of engaging some of the other groups that would not otherwise be involved in the current negotiating procedures. We have made it clear that we would not use the powers arbitrarily. They are there to enable us to act decisively, but after consultation with those affected. That must be the right approach.
      Amendment No. 27 appears to be designed as a hurdle to be jumped before an order setting or modifying conditions of service can be made—another hurdle that does nothing to help to create an effective fire service.
      Matthew Green: The Minister describes the amendment as a hurdle, but all our amendments are attempts to ensure that if the Secretary of State imposes a settlement, he does so with at least some indication that a fair number of fire brigade members will support it. The Secretary of State can impose a settlement, but that does not mean that fire brigade members will turn up for work. That is why the amendments are important.
      Mr. Raynsford: We discussed that issue at some length on Second Reading. We have made it clear that the route followed in the Bill is designed to cope with the current situation. We are acting reluctantly—these are not powers that we want to use, but we have to have them in case a settlement is not reached through the normal negotiating procedures. We hope that one will be reached, but the Bill will be there as a stop-gap. If a settlement is not reached, we have to be able to act decisively. The hurdles erected by the amendments would make that impossible.
      Under amendment No. 27, an order would have to follow the recommendations of an independent arbitration process. The implication of that is that the Secretary of State could not impose changes proposed by the employers—or by a union—unless they had been recommended by an independent arbitrator, let alone changes that he thinks are appropriate. That goes against the whole thrust of the Bill, which is that if the two parties to the negotiation cannot agree, the Secretary of State with responsibility for the provision of an effective fire service and for public funding of that service should step in and make a settlement.
      That requires some hard decisions, and those decisions cannot and should not simply be handed over to a third party. The issues that have caused the most difficulty in the current dispute include how the fire service should move from prescribed national fire cover standards to local risk-based approaches to fire cover, and what the implications are for staff—the very points made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). Those are serious issues requiring serious answers, but they are not necessarily issues capable of arbitration.
      78
      In the end, one cannot arbitrate about policy questions, such as the right basis for fire cover. One can arbitrate about some of the implications, especially for pay, but it is hard to see how even the best independent arbitrator would be better placed to make informed judgments about issues such as the appropriate level of fire cover, and how new shift systems might be introduced in a way that achieves both a more effective and safer service and cost savings, than a professional who is expert in the field. It is difficult to envisage how that could happen.
      I understand the purpose behind the amendment, but it is not realistic. We do not believe that it would work. The Government must have policy responsibility rather than handing these matters over to somebody else. Even if an arbitrator were involved, there is another hurdle in the amendment. The recommendations have to be rejected by one side or the other before the Secretary of State can make an order. The history of the current dispute shows that things can drag on for long periods without a clear outcome. After all, the FBU executive first felt able to recommend to its members an offer from the employers on 18 March. However, that did not lead to a clear outcome. We must be able to deal with a situation in which there has not been outright rejection. Yet the amendment would make it impossible for us to act if there had not been outright rejection by one party. That is a clear obstacle and such a procedure would not work. If it is wished to have an effective power to deal with the dispute, and if the dispute is not resolved otherwise, the amendment should be withdrawn.
      I am equally unable to accept amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 15, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Amendment No. 9 would mean that the Secretary of State could only fix or modify firefighters' conditions of service with the agreement of the negotiating body.
      Our strategy is bringing forward the Bill is to draw a line under the dispute by making a fair and reasonable award. We are doing this in a situation where the negotiating body—the national joint council—has so far failed to reach agreement for nearly a year. Against that background, it is hardly likely that both sides of the NJC would be able to agree on the terms of any settlement proposed by Ministers.
      As we have made repeatedly clear, we have no wish to use the powers that the Bill would confer. There is still time for the two sides to reach agreement, and we very much hope that they will. We welcome the progress that has been made over the recent period. That has been made in the knowledge that if there is no agreement the Government will have the powers to impose a settlement. It is not for me to say how much the two sides may have been influenced by the knowledge that we are bringing forward the Bill, but it is clearly one factor. Accepting my hon. Friend's amendments on this point would therefore be counterproductive.
      Amendment No. 10 would also require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report of the views of the negotiating body on his proposals to make an order. That seems to me unnecessary. It would clearly be open to the negotiating body to make public its views, but that should be a matter for that body. The Secretary of State, at all events, will have to justify his decision to the House if the order is subject to challenge. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made it clear

      79
      that in the event of any order being made to impose pay and conditions, he would ensure that it was challenged. There would be a full opportunity for the House to question the Secretary of State on this issue if the matter were ever to come to that stage.
      Amendment No. 15 would mean that the negotiating body would need to be constituted so that it represented the "majority" of fire authorities, rather than "some or all", as the Bill is drafted.
      John McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: I understand that my hon. Friend has said that that was not his intention. There has been a drafting error. I understand that he was seeking a framework that would refer to a majority of employees in the service. I hope that he will accept that the arrangement that we are putting in place will ensure that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the negotiating body is constituted in accordance with appropriate arrangements for the negotiation of conditions of service of fire brigade members. That is provided by the provisions in clause 2(2)(b). I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that that effectively gives him the object that he is seeking. I ask him and other hon. Members to withdraw their amendments, which in our view are not necessary.
      Mr. Hammond: I am disappointed with what the Minister has had to say. On Second Reading, in respect of secret ballots, the Minister said:
      "I make it clear to the House that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have said, on several occasions, that that could be a sensible way forward."—[Official Report, 8 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 920.]
      In good faith we have proposed a set of amendments that would ensure that the grass roots, the fire brigades' members, were properly consulted and their opinion tested before the draconian powers that the Secretary of State is taking were implemented and acted upon.
      I think that the Minister has been slightly disingenuous in his response. He said that he would show why amendment No. 32 was technically defective and he has not. He has said that the amendment did not create the possibility of putting an existing offer on the table to a ballot. It does, by allowing the Secretary of State to consult fire brigades' members on any other matter that he considers relevant. I do not think that the Minister has made a case against the secret ballot test. We have made it clear that that is one of our conditions for being able to support this draconian emergency legislation, and I am disappointed that the Minister has not risen to that challenge. I will therefore be urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for amendment No. 32.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 291.

      Division No. 214]

      [7:15 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bacon, Richard

      Allan, Richard

      Baker, Norman

      Amess, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Barker, Gregory

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      80

      Barrett. John

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Keetch, Paul

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Bellingham, Henry

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Bercow, John

      Lamb, Norman

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Lansley, Andrew

      Blunt, Crispin

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Boswell, Tim

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Brady, Graham

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Lidington, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Breed, Colin

      Loughton, Tim

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Burnett, John

      Maclean, rh David

      Burns, Simon

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Burnside, David

      Maples, John

      Burstow, Paul

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Butterfill, John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Cameron, David

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Moore. Michael

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Norman, Archie

      Chidgey, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Chope, Christopher

      Öpik, Lembit

      Clappison, James

      Osborne, George (Tattoo)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Page, Richard

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Paice, James

      Collins, Tim

      Pickles, Eric

      Conway, Derek

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Curry, rh David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Redwood, rh John

      Rendel, David

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Robathan, Andrew

      Dodds, Nigel

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Fallon, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Flight, Howard

      Ruffley, David

      Forth, rh Eric

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Salmond, Alex

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Sanders, Adrian

      Francois, Mark

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Selous, Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Goodman, Paul

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

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

      Grayling, Chris

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gummer, rh John

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Hague, rh William

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Hammond, Philip

      Steen, Anthony

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hawkins, Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Heath, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Henclry, Charles

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Hermon, Lady

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Tredinnick, David

      Holmes, Paul

      Trimble, rh David

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Jack, rh Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Watkinson, Angela

      81

      Whittingdale, John

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Wiggin, Bill

      Wishart, Pete

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wilshire, David

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Mr. Mark Hoban

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Cruddas, Jon

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cummings, John

      Allen, Graham

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Davidson, Ian

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Austin, John

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bailey, Adrian

      Denham, rh John

      Baird, Vera

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Banks, Tony

      Dismore, Andrew

      Barnes, Harry

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Battle, John

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Beard, Nigel

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Benn, Hilary

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Edwards, Huw

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Berry, Roger

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Best, Harold

      Farrelly, Paul

      Belts, Clive

      Fisher, Mark

      Blackman, Liz

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Blunkett, rh David

      Flint, Caroline

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Follett, Barbara

      Borrow, David

      Foster, rh Derek

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Foster Michael (Worcester)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Brennan, Kevin

      Foulkes rh George

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Browne, Desmond

      Gapes Mike (Ilford S)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burden, Richard

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall)

      Burnham, Andy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gilroy, Linda

      Cairns, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Camphell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Casale, Roger

      Caton, Martin

      Grogan, John

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Challen, Colin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hendrick, Mark

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cohen, Harry

      Heppell, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Hesford, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Heyes, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Corston, Jean

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E

      Cranston, Ross

      Crausby, David

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      82

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mudie, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Hutton, rh John

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Olner, Bill

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Organ, Diana

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Owen, Albert

      Jamieson, David

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jenkins, Brian

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E

      Kemp, Fraser

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Prescott, rh John

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Purchase, Ken

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Purnell, James

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lammy, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lepper, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Leslie, Christopher

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

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooney, Terry

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester

      MacDonald, Calum

      McDonnell, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      MacDougall, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McFall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKechin, Ann

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Southworth, Helen

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Spellar, rh John

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Squire, Rachel

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Martlew, Eric

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Merron, Gillian

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Michael, rh Alun

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Miliband, David

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Mole, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Moran, Margaret

      Timms, Stephen

      Morgan, Julie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morley, Elliot

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Mountford, Kali

      Trickett, Jon

      83

      Truswell, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Ward, Claire

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth

      Watts David

      White, Brian

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Wills, Michael

      Derek Twigg

      Question accordingly negatived.
      7.30 pm
      John McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'or disposal'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 4, in line 6, leave out 'property or'.
      No. 5, in line 9, leave out 'or disposal'.
      No. 6, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'property or'.
      No. 11, in line 5, leave out 'as he thinks fit' and insert
      'including the Members of Parliament and local authorities for the area served by the facilities'.
      No. 12, in line 5, at end insert
      'and lay before Parliament a report on these consultations'.
      No. 7, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'property or'.
      No. 8, in page 3, leave out line 3.
      John McDonnell: I shall be fairly brief in speaking to the amendments. I tabled them because there is some anxiety that the Secretary of State is taking significant powers of detail. In particular, the provision on disposal of property is a remarkable power of detail if it is to involve the wholesale closure and sale of individual fire stations. The amendments give the Government the opportunity to reassure the general public that the power will not be used extensively for the closure of fire stations.
      In addition, I have tabled amendments that would reinforce the rights of individual Members of Parliament and local authorities to be consulted on any local changes in practice involving the dispersal of facilities in an area. I accept that section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 has been amended in previous legislation, but it would be helpful for the Government to reassure Members and others that, where the powers are to be exercised, there will be consultation with Members of Parliament and local authorities. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State can consult whomsoever he thinks fit, but I think that we need to tighten the legislation to ensure that Members of Parliament have a role in their area.
      In addition, I suggest that when the consultations have taken place, a report should be laid before Parliament. I am not proposing that there should be reports on all individual consultations about minor changes of practice, but I believe that at least some form of conglomerate report should be made regularly, so that we can have an overview of the changes of practice
      84
      that are taking place in our name as a result of the legislation. Such a report could be made annually or when the Secretary of State sees fit, but it would give the House an opportunity to assess the implications of the Bill and how effective the changes are locally in practice, especially with regard to the introduction of risk management.
      The amendments on property are probing amendments that seek to tease out the Government's intentions with regard to the specific interventions that they envisage on the disposal and dispersal of property. It would be helpful if the Minister enlightened and reassured us that the provision is not about the wholesale selling off of fire stations, that Members of Parliament and local authorities will have a distinctly direct consultative role in respect of any changes and that Parliament will have an overview.
      Mr. Hammond: I have a few questions for the Minister about the powers to direct property and assets, and I want to try to get some clarity about precisely what the Government have in mind.
      Primarily, I want to clarify whether the purpose of the powers in clause 1(2) is to implement integrated risk management plans. If so, would it not have been better to include a specific reference on the face of the Bill? Such plans will be prepared after proper consultation. The Minister has already issued a circular setting out the consultation that he expects. If the powers set out in subsection (2) explicitly related to the implementation of adopted integrated risk management plans, it would be relatively easy to justify them, although the need for them would not be so clear. Perhaps the Minister has it in mind that some fire authorities may not have the bottle to implement their own integrated risk management plans and to make the necessary changes, and that they may need the Secretary of State to come along and stiffen their resolve by using his powers to impose the changes that their fully consulted on and properly adopted plans envisage.
      That is one possible scenario, but it is equally credible to suggest that the powers will be intended primarily to direct the use of assets. In that regard, I take it that the word "disposal" has two possible meanings—the transferral of land ownership or simply making something available in the short term. For example, the provision could be used by the Secretary of State to prevent firefighters from having access to fire service buildings during a strike. It could be used to direct that appliances be made available to military firefighters or—perhaps this is not beyond the realms of possibility—private contractors undertaking a firefighting role in the absence of the regular firefighters.
      It is very important that we understand precisely how the Minister envisages that the powers will be used. If he envisages that they will be used in different ways, the Committee must be clear about that. The three options, as I see them, are as follows. The powers may be used to implement approved integrated risk management plans. They may be used to implement change where a fire authority—let us take Avon at random—fails to propose a proper integrated risk management plan that the Secretary of State can endorse. Finally, they could be wholly related to contingency planning in the event of a strike.

      85
      If the Minister is going to tell us that the powers are to be used for the implementation of integrated risk management plans that have been subject to the proper procedure, the concerns addressed by amendments Nos. 10 and 11 will be dealt with, as the plans will have involved proper consultation. However, if he can at least envisage using the powers because of the failure to produce a plan, it will be perfectly logical to suggest that there should be a consultation process that parallels the consultation that would have taken place if a plan had been prepared and proposed.
      My concern remains that the Government will face a major task and a genuine problem in convincing the public that changes that appear to be cuts, as they reduce the number of appliances, fire stations or firefighters, are risk-driven rather than cost-driven. Given the statements that have already been made and repeated today that any pay settlement has to be funded out of savings made through modernisation, I suggest to the Minister that it is very important that any rationalisation of assets imposed by ministerial order must be seen to have been subjected to the proper and rigorous process that is proposed with regard to the preparation of the integrated risk management plan. I have described at least one scenario involving long-term permanent change that could not happen without the introduction of a consultative procedure somewhat akin to those proposed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). The imposition of such changes without the consultation process envisaged in the circular would only increase the risk of public scepticism.
      I should he grateful if the Minister would address specifically each of the three possible uses of the powers in relation to property and assets and explain whether those are uses that he intends and, in each case, how he intends to use them.
      Part of the confusion in my mind arises from something that the Deputy Prime Minister said on Second Reading, namely:
      "As for whether the use of the facilities themselves will be necessary."—
      this is, believe it or not, a direct quote—
      "I hope that if a difficult stage is reached during arbitration and fear is generated, fire stations will be available. On occasion even some fire authorities have made it clear that in such circumstances they would not be available. I had the rather quaint idea that the fire stations belonged to the public, although in one or two cases I have felt doubtful about whether that is so.
      That was a flippant remark, but I think that hon. Members will know what I mean."—[Official Report, 8 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 861.]
      I have to confess that I have not the faintest idea what he meant. If the Minister can clarify the Government's position, as outlined in that statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, he will be doing the House a favour, and he is a better man than I am.
      Mr. Drew: I rise to make a narrow point, on which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to allay my fears, concerning the possible disposal of assets. That always raises alarm in rural areas. Under the previous Conservative Government, we regularly had to run campaigns—we were a campaigning party—against proposed closures of rural retained stations. I am unclear as to how that would play in relation to the Bill.
      86
      I am even more mystified in that I was persuaded to support the changes to section 19 to the Local Government Bill on the basis that the Government were introducing sensible changes to the labyrinthine mechanism by which any changes in the disposal of assets—changing the location of stations and so on—should, instead of being left in the hands of the Secretary of State or his nominee, be decided locally. As a great believer in decentralisation, I thought that that was a good move. Such decisions should be made locally and the people who make them should be accountable locally. That was the right way to go about it. Yet the Bill seems to say something different and almost contradictory—that if and when a problem arose as regards the way in which pay and conditions were introduced nationally, the Secretary of State or his nominee could decide that it would be sensible, whether in terms of finances or the notion of integrated risk management, to close or move a particular station. We all know the type of reaction that that would cause locally. People in Painswick in my constituency have already run too many campaigns to save stations, and they certainly do not want to have to do so under a Labour Government.
      Will the Minister confirm where these powers might be introduced, whether the Bill contradicts the Local Government Bill, and whether we will find that the White Paper clarifies the position? We need to know that local people will have a say in how a fire authority's management are able to exercise their powers, so that there is no confusion and we do not end up in a real mess over who is able to take the decision and where the blame lies.
      7.45 pm
      Matthew Green: I do not feel able to support the amendments, but they give us the opportunity to ask the Minister a series of questions.
      My reading of the Bill was that the point of use and disposal is that in the event of industrial action the Secretary of State could make facilities available to the military or others. That should not be embarked on lightly, even in a dispute, but presumably we are reaching the stage where the Minister thinks that it may he necessary to have that power, or at least to have it in reserve. However, the word "disposal" has more than one meaning, so will he clarify exactly what it means in this context? The explanatory notes do not help to make that any clearer. They say:
      "Examples of purposes for which this power might be useful are to provide joint control rooms".
      Would that be during a dispute or permanently? We are not given an answer to that. In Shropshire, all of us, including the FBU, want a joint control room—only the Government are standing in our way.
      The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) suggested that the Bill may give the Secretary of State the power suddenly to announce that he is closing half the rural retained fire stations in Ludlow. I hope that the Bill does not give the Secretary of State such a power, which I would resist at all costs. I do not believe that that is what the Minister is trying to achieve, and I hope that he will

      87
      reassure us that the Bill is about the events and circumstances of an ongoing dispute and securing public safety during only the time of that dispute.
      Mr. Llwyd: In any legal sense, the word "disposal" has to mean "to get rid of". The Bill refers to "use or disposal", not "use and disposal". That leads me to believe that it means the transfer of property, which, in this context, may mean the sell-off of rural stations, as the hon. Member for Stroud suggested. The clause must be read in conjunction with the repeal of section 19, which makes it all the more urgent and important. I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others.
      It is only right that there should be an understanding that rural stations are extremely important to communities. I shall give a brief example of that concern. About four months ago, I met the north Wales fire chief. I live in a very rural constituency where we rely heavily on the good men and women of the retained brigades, who do an excellent job. During our meeting, which took place during the dispute and was to do with pay settlements and a whole gamut of issues, I asked him about the future of rural fire stations. He said, "They're all right; they're quite secure." However, a few minutes later we talked about the following scenario. A small village has a retained brigade running the local fire station. Some 12 or 14 miles down the road, there is a full-time station. The chief fire officer told me that his concern was that several of the people who worked in the small retained station were not employed in their day jobs within five miles of the station. What I find amusing is that that station has been run in that way for the past 50 years without any incident whatsoever, giving an excellent service and being held in high regard.
      That concern, however, reflects the way in which fire officers—particularly the more ambitious ones—are now thinking. It is, I am afraid, in line with the Government's thinking that we are going to see lots of the smaller stations close, and I believe honestly and sincerely that the Bill is here to ensure that that will be effected with the minimum of difficulty.
      With regard to what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was saying earlier, closing a fire station is almost as bad for a community as closing a village school. People feel that it is their facility; it is run by and for local people, and the people who run it do a thankless job. I would like to see an increase in recruitment in the retained sector to secure the future. I am quite worried about this, having spoken to senior fire officers. It might well be that the senior fire officers in north Wales are thinking along these lines because they believe that there will be a shortfall in the funding for the pay settlement, and that when that funding is applied to the retained sector, the wage bill will, by definition, shoot up. They would therefore end up having to get rid of considerable numbers in the retained sector.
      Mr. Hammond: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in response to an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden
      88
      (David Davis), the Deputy Prime Minister gave an absolute assurance that no retained firefighters would lose their jobs as a result of any settlement?
      Mr. Llwyd: But if the money is not there to pay the retained firefighters, what is the obvious conclusion? The Government will not say that it was their fault; it will be the fault of the fire authority, of course, for not using the money wisely. The fire authority would then be forced to make cuts in due course. I hope that I am wrong, and if the Minister gets up in a few minutes' time to tell me that that is the case, I shall be pleased to hear it. That would cheer me up no end, along with my constituents and several other people in north Wales. I say that, having made those few sincerely held remarks.
      The amendments are very useful, and we have had a useful debate on them. Reference was made earlier to the Deputy Prime Minister saying that fire stations were public property. Yes, they are public property, and they are very close to the hearts of people in rural communities. They provide a vital service, and the retained sector is extremely important in rural areas such as north Wales. I would like to see amendment No. 11 embellished by a reference to the need for consultation with Members of the National Assembly for Wales as well.
      John McDonnell: I was simply trying not to pre-empt amendment No. 30, which we shall come to later.
      Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is obviously a great thinker, and I stand corrected and slightly embarrassed by what he has just said.
      This has been a useful debate. I hope that the Minister will explain why the word "disposal" appears after the word "use". I hope that he will also explain the distinction between the word "disposal" in clause 2(a) and the reference in clause 2(b) to the use by a fire authority of another fire authority's property or facilities. This tends to confirm what I am saying about the word "disposal". Will he tell the House in no uncertain terms that it is not meant to denote a disposal of an interest in land, because that is what I and many other hon. Members are concerned about?
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Sadly for Opposition Members and, indeed, for my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the Government cannot accept these amendments. Some remove the Secretary of State's power to give directions to fire authorities about the use of property. Others would mean that directions could be made about the use of facilities but not about disposal. I will come some of the points raised on those issues in a moment. Two of the amendments would mean that the Secretary of State would be required to consult Members of Parliament and local authorities before making an order, and to lay before Parliament a report on those consultations.
      Strike action undoubtedly poses a threat to public safety, so in the event of further strikes occurring, the Government need sufficient room for manoeuvre to direct fire authorities on how they should use their property and assets in a co-ordinated and concerted

      89
      fashion, to the safest effect and to support any emergency fire cover provided by the armed forces. The Government also need the powers in the event that the modernisation of the fire service is obstructed, especially in the absence of any negotiated agreement, so that assets and property can be utilised in a sensible manner. There has been much misunderstanding—perhaps scaremongering in some quarters—and uninformed speculation about the use to which the powers may be put. Our preference is not to have to use them at all, either in response to a strike or as part of the modernisation process. Partnership is clearly the better way forward, but, given the history of the last 12 months in particular, we must safeguard and reserve the right to act.
      Furthermore, any directions that the Secretary of State makes will be made to protect and enhance public safety. We do not have an agenda to do anything that would be contrary to that objective—far from it. Anything that we do will be driven by our motivation to protect citizens and enhance public safety. The provisions are certainly not part of some wider wild asset-stripping fire station closure plan being held secretly in a drawer somewhere in the Department, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the hon. Members for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) speculated. That is definitely not envisaged at all.
      Mr. Llwyd: Will the Minister define the word "disposal"?
      Mr. Leslie: That point was raised by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), as well as by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, particularly in respect of whether the word referred to the selling of assets, or whether it simply meant the transfer of a piece of equipment from one fire authority to another in certain circumstances. We have a deliberately wide definition of the term because in these circumstances we need a piece of legislation that can cope with a wide variety of eventualities. I would not, therefore, wish to be too prescriptive or to rule out one particular component or another.
      Mr. Hammond: The Minister must be honest about this. "Disposal" in this context includes the transfer by sale of land, and it has to. He, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions have all said that the pay settlement on offer will have to be paid for by savings through modernisation. That means reducing the number of fire appliances, fire stations and firefighters. What else could yield the savings to pay for an above-inflation pay settlement?
      Mr. Leslie: There are all sorts of ways, highlighted in the Bain inquiry, of making savings in the fire service that involve neither selling off or reducing the facilities available for the protection of public safety nor creating redundancies. There are ways of making savings through good prudent management, as in any organisation. I believe that that is at the heart of the offer made by the employers and of the agreement that they seek to achieve in ensuring a rational distribution of resources based on risk. Where there are particular
      90
      problems, they will be tackled, rather than having a onesize-fits-all approach to the allocation of assets and personnel.
      Mr. Llwyd: I am sorry to keep pressing the Minister on this, and I do not want to be awkward. Clause 1(2)(b) makes provision for
      "the use by a fire authority of property or facilities belonging to another fire authority".
      That is all well and good, and understood. Clause 1(2)(c) refers to payments being made accordingly. Those eventualities are covered in those two subsections. I return, however, to clause 1(2)(a) and ask the Minister whether he would please define in simple terms what is meant by the term "disposal", if it is different from the definition that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) just gave.
      8 pm
      Mr. Leslie: I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example. Some fire authorities, particularly the more enlightened, have recognised that they can create efficiency by perhaps sharing a control room facility, whereby two authorities come together to establish a joint control room. While two existed previously, an office may have been disposed of to allow the creation of a single joint control room, which may be more capable and have better technology to deal with calls more rapidly. That will have involved, at some level, the disposal of an asset, but not necessarily to the disadvantage of residents in either fire authority area.
      To answer the hon. Gentleman's point directly, of course "disposal" can mean either the sale of an asset or the transfer of an asset from one fire authority to another, but it does not necessarily mean in any way degrading the protection of public safety.
      Mr. Llwyd: I am not alleging that for one moment, but the Minister has just confirmed the awful scenario to which I referred: the village station closing down and the town station looking after its own interest. The best example that the Government have given so far has confirmed my worst fears.
      Mr. Leslie: I am loth to use the phrase, Read my lips", but I repeat that we would use directions only to protect or enhance public safety. We do not intend to use directions for asset stripping, some sort of privatisation or a mass fire station closure programme. We want to ensure that the proper modernisation of the fire service—protecting public safety even more than it is already protected—can continue and can be implemented.
      I hear what the hon. Gentleman said about rural fire stations and retained firefighters—it was a perfectly legitimate point for him or any Member with concerns about their constituency to raise. In many ways, the modernisation of the fire service involves enhancing protection, perhaps more for residential areas, because increasingly we are recognising the fact that the priority of saving lives has to come first.
      People in many residential areas perhaps feel that they are too distant from fixed appliances or provision and that they could have an enhanced facility. Those discussions need to go on in fire authorities as they

      91
      consider their risk management plans and implement them to improve public safety by focusing resources and reducing those risks that are perhaps too high at present.
      The Bill's explanatory notes set out the circumstances in which the powers may be used—for example
      "to provide joint control rooms, to direct that equipment be placed at the service of third parties, or to direct that that equipment be distributed on a risk assessment basis."
      We are all encouraged by the fact that there has not been a strike since early February, but we must be prepared for all eventualities.
      Should a strike occur, it is vital that those providing emergency cover have an automatic right of access to fire authority assets, including, for example, fire stations, appliances and aerial platforms should they be needed. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge raised that point when he referred to the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister. Those are assets that the public have paid for so that lives and property can be protected. They may be needed strategically in the event of a strike.
      Matthew Green: Some authorities are considerably further down the modernisation route than others. Indeed, when a member of the Bain inquiry came to Shropshire, he said that the county has the most modernised fire brigade. That means that less saving is available to the authority to pay for the wage settlements through modernisation. The Government said that they would take that into account when they divide up the additional money, but since they are recovering that money at a later stage—it is, in effect, a tide-over loan—my concern is that these rules may be used to fund the pay settlement in Shropshire, which is already modernised, through the sale of assets.
      Mr. Leslie: All fire authorities have scope to improve and modernise. The hon. Gentleman says that his fire authority has modernised in a number of areas, but perhaps it could still engage in joint control room activity and so forth. There are a number of ways for all authorities to contribute.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge specifically asked whether the orders could be used to implement integrated risk management plans. Given that integrated risk management is part of the agreement on offer from the employers and which the FBU executive is recommending to its members, it is true that should that agreement not come to fruition and not be implemented, it would be possible to use orders to make such improvements and to implement a risk management approach.
      The hon. Gentleman's specific point was about whether there would be consultation on the use of such orders. Indeed, the provisions on facilities and property allow for consultation on their use—appropriate consultation with those directly affected and those representing people who would be affected. In many ways, that is the right approach to take.
      Mr. Hammond: I drew the distinction between the use of those powers to implement an already agreed and approved integrated risk management plan in respect of
      92
      which the consultation exercise would have been undertaken, and the use of powers to enforce modernisation—where for one reason or another, a satisfactory integrated risk management plan may not have been adopted. In that case, can the Minister confirm that the consultation procedure under subsection (4) mirrors that required by the circular on integrated risk management plans? In other words, will the situation be the same as that when an IRMP is developed properly?
      Mr. Leslie: The Bill will allow the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation exercise as he thinks fit because different circumstances can require different consultations. Should there be short notice of strike action, it would be inappropriate to engage in a protracted paper-based consultation. In the circumstances envisaged by the hon. Gentleman—an IRMP approach needs to be pursued locally, but there is obstruction for one reason or another—the Secretary of State would have greater scope to engage in more in-depth consultation. In the normal course of events, I envisage a consultation such as that which is normally undertaken when an IRMP is drawn up to be considered by the Secretary of State.
      Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 would require a certain form of consultation and a report to Parliament. In some circumstances, they could mean that the Secretary of State would be unable to take prompt or immediate action to secure access to the required fire authority assets to give those providing the emergency cover the tools that they would need in the event of a strike. The amendments are unnecessary because the Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult representatives of those likely to be affected by his proposals. There is ample provision to ensure that there will be appropriate consultation before an order is made. As I have said on property and facilities, there must be consultation with those directly affected and those who represent such people. Orders on conditions of service have to go before the negotiating body for at least 21 days for its comment, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said earlier.
      We must follow the principle that the consultation is appropriate, reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances. Let us not forget that the Secretary of State is required to act reasonably at all times. That responsibility is firmly accepted, but we must be prepared for and anticipate circumstances in which we may need to act swiftly if there is, in particular, an imminent threat to public safety.
      I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that, as I have said, it is highly probable that in the normal course of events the Secretary of State would wish to consult local Members of Parliament and local authorities—and, indeed, the local community. I do not think that members of that community should be excluded from a prescriptive list. Including specific lists of consultees may risk the omission of others with a genuine interest.
      The Committee should resist the proposal for a report of consultations in Parliament to be laid before the making of an order. That could constitute an administrative obstacle that might inhibit swift action to protect public safety. If swift access to fire authority assets is needed owing to a risk to public safety, the

      93
      preparation of a parliamentary report on a consultation exercise will not be a desirable prerequisite. However, I hear what my hon. Friend says about the need for a wider examination of accountability processes for the fire services in general. I noted his suggestion of a conglomerated report, perhaps on an annual basis.
      These powers are necessary. We need to hold them in reserve, although, as I have said, I hope that they will not be required. We must make contingency arrangements to protect and enhance public safety.
      John McDonnell: When I tabled my amendments, I did not expect such widespread support for them. I am almost tempted to press them to a vote.
      The responses so far have been reassuring, to an extent. We have been reassured, for instance, that the disposal power is not linked to any mass programme of sales—that it will be used in extremis, when there is no agreement at local level following adequate consultation. In normal circumstances, devolved powers will remain at local level. We have also been reassured about the overall consultation, and about the examination of an overall report to Parliament.
      The Government have moved to some extent, but I think that a message should be sent to Ministers about concerns that have been expressed by Members on both sides about the potential impact on communities if this develops into a large-scale disposal programme. The powers in the Bill are not suited to that. The discussion that we have had so far about the development of risk management has involved enhanced resources, and increased provision rather than cuts.
      On the basis of the assurances that we have been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—
      '(1A) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) includes the power to make provision about conditions of service relating to—

      (a) membership of trades unions by fire brigade members; and

      (b) disciplinary offences by fire brigades members.'.

      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 28, leave out
      'hours of duty or leave'.
      Mr. Hammond: Amendment No. 1 deals with the third issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) on Second Reading. It is designed to give the Deputy Prime Minister the power, but not the obligation, to enforce his orders by introducing, through the disciplinary code, a strike ban, and if necessary to regulate membership of trade unions by fire brigade members. This may seem a slightly tortuous way of presenting the proposal, but the options were limited by the scope and architecture of the Bill, and I can assure the Committee, having taken advice, that this was the only way in which to test the Government.
      94
      I was about to say that I was delighted to see that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) had returned, but he has now left again. I am sure he will return. He asked whether we proposed the creation of criminal offences. He will note from the phrasing of the amendment that it specifically does not create such an offence; nor does it raise the spectre of sequestration of assets, as some suggested during earlier discussions. It does allow the creation of a disciplinary offence, similar to those created by the Police Acts—failure to obey a lawful order being a disciplinary offence in a police force. If this Secretary of State chose or needed to use the power, this would provide a mechanism for the imposition of a ban on industrial action when that was necessary.
      8.15 pm
      I understand that the Home Secretary has proposed that prison officers should recover their legal right to strike, but should then enter into a negotiated no-strike agreement. The amendment would allow a similar type of strike ban in relation to fire brigades, but it would not be negotiated. Nothing in the Bill would be negotiated; it would all be imposed by the Secretary of State. The Deputy Prime Minister might call it an arbitrated strike ban, imposed by himself.
      On Second Reading and subsequently, Members on both sides of the House have recognised the strength of the case that the Bills fatal weakness as a means of imposing a settlement and ensuring that it works is its lack of teeth. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who unfortunately cannot be with us today, acknowledged that as a defect in his proposals on Second Reading. More surprisingly, perhaps, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)—who is present—raised the question on Second Reading.
      The hon. Gentleman put to the Deputy Prime Minister a scenario in which he had imposed a settlement and some or all fire brigade members simply refused to accept it, and went on strike. He asked what the Deputy Prime Minister would do at that point. The Deputy Prime Minister, I am afraid, replied
      "That is the difficult question that we have to answer in this matter, and I give the best of my judgment … at the end of the day this is a free country where people make free decisions on whether they want to give their labour—that is why I am against the anti-strike legislation. But we all must make judgments, which is why I am giving the House my best judgment of how we can find agreement. The dispute affects this country's public safety, in respect of which all of us in the House have responsibilities."—[Official Report, 8 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 857.]
      In other words, he did not have a clue, and he did not answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
      I am going to guess that the hon. Member for Islington, North will not support my proposal for the Secretary of State to introduce a no-strike provision. None the less, he has identified the fatal flaw in the Bill, although he will no doubt approach the solution from a rather different angle.
      Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that aspect. If he opposes the Bill for the same reasons as me, and if his solution is a no-strike law relating to firefighters, what will he do—or what will a putative Tory Government

      95
      do—when the firefighters strike? Will he recruit them all to the Army, as President Reagan did when the air traffic controllers went on strike'? Or will he send soldiers to the firefighters' homes to drag them out, place them in fire tenders, and say "Go and put out fires"? Or will he do nothing, apart from negotiating— which is really the only way in which to solve industrial problems?
      Mr. Hammond: The amendment would give the Deputy Prime Minister power to make regulations relating to disciplinary offences. It cannot be very specific, but we envisage the Secretary of State's being able, in appropriate circumstances, to make failure to obey a lawful order a disciplinary offence, just as it is in our police forces. That, in practice, would give the Secretary of State a weapon—albeit, perhaps, imperfect—in addition to those that the Bill would give him in its present incarnation, namely none at all.
      I accept that this may not be a perfect solution, but we have deliberately eschewed criminal sanctions against firefighters who go on strike, and the sequestration of assets.
      We do not believe that that is the appropriate way to proceed in the current circumstances. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about a Bill that is time-limited to two years; it is a short-term emergency provision. The Minister has made it absolutely clear that in terms of time, he expects it to dovetail with permanent legislation arising from his White Paper. I understand from what has been said before that whether or not the Government support no-strike provisions, the White Paper will explore that area and the possible relevance of a no-strike power.
      John McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify two points? His amendment No. 1 refers to
      'the power to make provision about conditions of service relating to—
      (a) membership of trade unions by fire brigade members".
      Does that mean that this provision could enable the Secretary of State to say that firefighters are not eligible for trade union membership? On the amendment and disciplinary offences, if the Secretary of State introduces disciplinary measures against an individual trade unionist for not abiding by an instruction and that trade unionist's colleagues come out on strike, what happens then?
      Mr. Hammond: To answer the second question first, those that did so, if the Secretary of State had so regulated, would he in breach of the disciplinary code, just as police officers who went out on strike action would be in breach of the police disciplinary code. We can ask the question: ultimately, what do we do with those who do not obey the regulations? They would be in breach of their contract and of the disciplinary code, and the fire authority would have an additional weapon at its disposal. On the hon. Gentleman's first question, the answer is clearly yes: the Secretary of State could use that power to prevent membership of a trade union by members of a fire brigade, in the same way that powers exist to prevent membership of a trade union by members of a police force.
      Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is taking us into some very interesting territory. His amendment may
      96
      indeed be defective, because he should have sought derogation from both International Labour Organisation conventions and the Human Rights Act 1998 in order to give himself, as a putative Secretary of State—
      John McDonnell: No chance.
      Jeremy Corbyn: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman should have sought derogation to give himself the power to legislate to prevent people from being members of a free association of workers.
      Mr. Hammond: I suspect that I have a little more chance of becoming Secretary of State than the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but we will leave that matter for another day. I am seeking to discover, as the hon. Member for Islington, North sought to do, how this Bill will perform its function as effective emergency legislation that addresses a real and present danger that needs to be addressed. We have told the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that we can and would support properly designed and constructed legislation with proper teeth that enables the Deputy Prime Minister to impose a settlement and make it stick. We will not support the Government in a propaganda exercise that is not designed to produce effective legislation. If there is no provision to enforce a settlement, as well as to impose it, this legislation will not be effective.
      The preservation of public safety requires that strikes in this vital emergency service do not take place while we are in the current situation of great overstretch of military capacity and an absence of adequate military resources to deal with any fire strike, should it occur.
      Jeremy Corbynrose—0
      Mr. Hammond: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman one more time; my only disappointment is that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central has missed the meaty part of the debate.
      Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman wants, in effect, to have a no-strike clause for the fire service because of what he calls the current national emergency, but what about the ambulance service, accident and emergency units in hospitals, and so on? Once we go down this particular route it does not stop; we end up with a very oppressive state that controls its work force in order to cope with a perceived emergency.
      Mr. Hammond: We are dealing with a very specific case. We are dealing not with a theoretical problem but with an actual problem. The dispute has been running for a year, strikes have occurred and Ministers and the Deputy Prime Minister have confirmed that further strikes will put public safety and lives at risk. We do not face a similar situation in relation to any other services—there is no issue to be addressed. They ain't broke, so we don't need to fix them, but the fire service presents a real problem that needs to be addressed today. This is not intended to be the slippery slope. The fire service is right in the front line, and we are addressing the problem that we face today.

      97
      When the Deputy Prime Minister introduced this Bill, he said:
      "Legislation is therefore necessary in the public interest and to protect … safety."
      But safety is protected by requiring the fire service to be there when it is needed, and the Bill as it stands gives the Secretary of State absolutely no power to ensure that that is so. The Deputy Prime Minister continued:
      "My main point about anti-strike legislation … is that it would take many months for it to go through the House and be achieved."
      That is hardly a principled objection to anti-strike legislation, and it is also palpably not true. If the Government accepted this amendment tonight, they could include in the Bill provisions that would give it teeth and ensure that any settlement that the Deputy Prime Minister imposed could be effectively implemented.
      Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister spelled out the risks on Second Reading. He listed the reduction in troop numbers available, and he told the House that only 250 green goddesses and 9,000 troops would be available in a future dispute to cover the entire United Kingdom 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He concluded:
      "If the FBU calls for further strikes, lives will be endangered and property put at risk."—[Official Report, 8 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 856–59.]
      In those circumstances, when the Government themselves have identified that further strikes will endanger life and put property at risk, surely the duty of a responsible Government is to ensure that strikes do not occur. Of course, a strike ban unilaterally imposed by the Secretary of State represents an erosion of rights—I would be the first to acknowledge that—but so does the rest of this Bill, through the imposition of pay settlements and terms and conditions of work. That is why we have argued—successfully—for a time limit on this measure. But with no power to impose a strike ban, the entire Bill becomes an unenforceable nonsense.
      Back-Bench Labour Members know very well that although a settlement that the Secretary of State purported to impose against the will of the body of fire brigade employees might stick in Shropshire and Surrey, it stands not a chance of sticking in Essex, Merseyside and Clydeside. The Secretary of State needs to have a way of making the powers that he has under this Bill stick. We believe that in the longer term, just as firefighters are entitled to fair pay that reflects the indispensable and much enhanced role that they play in our society, so the public are entitled to be free of the threat to their safety, and the military are entitled to be free of the intolerable burden that fire strikes impose on them.
      We expect that the White Paper that the Government are promising to publish will consider the mechanisms for setting pay and conditions for the fire service independently. The point was made earlier that if people's rights to take industrial action are restricted, a fair and independent mechanism for setting pay must be in place. I acknowledge that that is not available under the Bill, because the Secretary of State will set pay unilaterally. In the longer term, when consideration of the Bill comes to an end and we are left with permanent legislation arising from the White Paper, two key
      98
      principles must go hand in hand: the unique contribution of firefighters must be recognised, likewise the unacceptability of using public safety as a pawn in industrial disputes. Strikes therefore cannot be permitted as part of such a dispute.
      For now, the focus is on the Bill. If it is to work as an effective, short-term, time-limited measure that will resolve the current dispute, relieve the unacceptable impact on our military preparedness and ensure public safety, it must include a power to make anti-strike provisions: otherwise, it will not succeed. It does not mean that the Deputy Prime Minister has to use the power, but it must be available to him. A settlement imposed by the Deputy Prime Minister will simply be ignored if it does not have any teeth.
      8.30 pm
      The Government have consistently refused to tell us how they will deal with such a situation where a settlement is imposed and ignored, but have made it clear that they will not provide and finance military cover to fire authorities that face industrial action. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions said on Second Reading:
      "The public has every right to a fully functioning fire service. We are therefore seeking the powers in the Bill so that we can draw a line under the dispute".—[Official Report, 8 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 918.]
      The first sentence is right, but the second sentence is simply a non-sequitur. Drawing a line under the dispute will not, without no-strike powers, ensure that the public secure a fully functioning fire service. The Minister has failed to deal with the question of enforcing a settlement, which, to be blunt, is likely to inflame the mood in the more militant areas. He acknowledged that further strike action would inevitably create a greater risk to public safety.
      I noticed that the Minister carefully avoided—[Interruption.] That must be the Deputy Prime Minister on the phone now, telling the Minister what to say. The Minister carefully avoided endorsing the Deputy Prime Minister's position against no-strike provisions and promised that the White Paper would set out the Government's intentions in that respect. However, the Minister also referred to the Attorney-General's continuing involvement in the process. The Attorney-General already has powers, but Ministers have insisted throughout the dispute that he cannot be prevailed upon to use them.
      If I were a conspiracy theorist—other Members in the Chamber are more likely candidates—I might just wonder whether the collective judgment of Ministers is that dramatically reducing the number of troops and the number of appliances available for future disputes, and drawing attention—as both the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have done—to the increased risks that a strike would entail, are a means of forcing the Attorney-General to apply for an injunction because of the commensurate risks to public safety. The Government could then secure the no-strike position without having to go through the internal Labour party conflict that supporting such a provision in the Bill might produce. If that is their game, surely it is better to be up-front about it and build the power into the Bill as part of a package to impose a settlement and make it

      99
      stick. A responsible Government with the safety of the public at the forefront of their mind should take the opportunity to make such a power available and ensure that the Bill is workable.
      We can support the Bill only if it is a time-limited, effective measure that will genuinely bring the dispute to a conclusion and enforce a settlement that the Secretary of State imposes. If the Government will not assume powers to enable them to enforce such an imposed settlement, the Bill will have been a waste of Parliament's time. It will not achieve the Government's stated objectives. I urge the Minister to put the needs of public safety ahead of considerations about internal Labour party or labour movement politics and accept amendment No. 1. At the very least, the Government should give a commitment to produce something similar to that amendment, so that the Bill has real teeth and to ensure that the powers assumed by the Secretary of State can be deployed as part of a negotiating process and made to work to bring the dispute to an end and restore public safety to its former level.
      John McDonnell: I shall speak to my amendment No. 14 in a moment. However, the Pinochet of Runnymede and Weybridge has excited me in respect of his vision for the future of industrial relations in this country. We should perhaps phone Anfield now, because he mentioned Merseyside as one of the areas that would not accept an imposed settlement. He would first introduce strike bans in such an area, then ban trade union membership and, if people still went on strike, he would presumably bring the full force of the law against them.
      That was the Pinochet model, and he also usually had people crowded into football stadiums. Under the hon. Gentleman, Anfield and other football stadiums would be fairly crowded.
      Mr. Hammond: To clarify the situation, I confirm that General Pinochet was a guest in my constituency for some time, at the insistence of the Labour Government, but he has now departed. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the clause is specifically drawn so that a criminal offence would not be created? Any action would be a disciplinary offence between the employer and the employee, not a criminal offence.
      John McDonnell: And then what would happen? What would the next sanction be? It must be a free ticket to Anfield. Once we have legislation that bans human basic human rights, it must be taken to the ultimate conclusion—as with the Shrewsbury pickets—of locking people up. Amendment No. 1 is farcical. I always thought that the organisation Conservative Trade Unionists was a contradiction in terms.
      I just hope that trade unionists have witnessed this debate. The 9 million members of the TUC will now know that if they go on strike under a future Conservative Government, if ever elected, that Government could define their industry as an essential service. The members would then not only lose their right to a negotiated settlement, but their right to strike and, eventually, to trade union membership.
      100
      What is an essential service? Is it the ambulance service? We had an ambulance service dispute a short time ago. Is it local government? We had a social services dispute last year. Is it transport? Some American states are seeking to ban strike action in the shipping industry and control who may work in the industry.
      We have had a revelation tonight of what a Conservative Government would mean for trade unions. I sometimes have a few problems with new Labour, but this debate has reassured me about why it is important to maintain Labour in power. It is clear that fundamental human rights would disappear if a Conservative Government were ever elected again.
      Amendment No. 14 seeks to delete from the definition of conditions of service the words
      "hours of duty or leave".
      The present dispute concerns pay and allowances, so I can understand why the Government wish to take a power to impose a settlement on pay and allowances, although I do not agree with that. However, I do not understand why the Government wish to impose conditions for hours of duty or leave. I thought that that issue was to be a subject for local negotiation. It is best left to negotiation at the local level, as the Minister said this evening about the introduction of new shift patterns. Local negotiations can ensure that shift patterns are family-friendly at the specific level of individual fire stations. Why is it thought right to give the Secretary of State the power to impose conditions for hours of duty or leave at the local level? Why do the Government want to extend the power beyond pay and allowances, which is what the dispute is about?
      Matthew Green: I thought that the Conservatives had so far lived up to their latest more cuddly incarnation and their attempts to be the middle-of-the-road party. The way in which they dealt with the first few groups of amendments could certainly have fooled people into thinking that. However, on amendment No.1, the ugly face of Conservatism has re-emerged. People are right to be concerned about what will happen if parties to the dispute refuse to accept the settlement imposed under the Bill. If the Conservative amendment had stopped at disciplinary offences, we could have understood their logic—although we would not have supported it. However, the Conservatives have gone one step further. They want to include membership of trade unions. This is GCHQ all over again.
      Mr. Hammond: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment is based on the current practice with police regulations? Members of police forces are not allowed to belong to a police force trade union—although, bizarrely, they can retain membership of a union that is irrelevant to their police service. Officers cannot belong to a police trade union, and it is a disciplinary offence to fail to obey a lawful order. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that what our constituents care about is the preservation of public safety and security. It is much to their credit that fire brigades members play as important a role as the police in protecting us against the threats that we face every day in our society.
      Matthew Green: Ambulance workers do the same, as do workers in NHS accident and emergency

      101
      departments and, to some extent, the people who work in our power stations. The logic of the amendment is that if—heaven forbid—there were to be another Conservative Government, strikes would be banned every time there was industrial action in any sector that could be said to affect public safety. Moreover, the workers in those sectors would be banned from belonging to trade unions. The amendment is more than draconian—
      John McDonnell: It is fascism.
      Matthew Green: I shall not repeat the word used from a sedentary position by a Labour Member, but the amendment goes well beyond anything that the Conservatives have said before on the matter. It is incredible that the proposal should have been introduced in this way.
      The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) did not want to use a certain word when he asked about disciplinary offences, but it is clear that the Conservatives would sack fire brigade personnel. If the amendment were agreed and a settlement imposed, everyone who refused to accept it would be sacked. If all the FBU members went out on strike, the Conservatives would sack them, with the result that we would not have a fire service. Presumably, the Army would have to step in—the very thing that the Conservatives are trying to avoid.
      Mr. Hammond: What would happen, in the absence of the amendment, if the Secretary of State imposed a settlement that was rejected by fire service personnel, who then went on strike?
      Matthew Green: It is to cover exactly that circumstance that we tried to introduce, earlier in the Bill's passage through the House, provisions to allow rounds of arbitration and postal ballots. None of us wants to get to the stage that the hon. Gentleman has described, but the problem with the amendment is that it sends a message to fire brigade members that a future Conservative Government would impose a pay settlement and sack anyone who did not like it. Then there would be no fire service, and we would have to start all over again. We would have to recruit brand-new people to the service, and the Army would have to cover the entire country during that period.
      Jeremy Corbyn: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest. Will he confirm that Shropshire would not be a strike-free zone? I hope that it would not. However, is not the logic of the argument for the amendment that members of a union would be dismissed from their place of work and only allowed back if they signed some sort of loyalty oath, to the effect that they would not take part in industrial action or join a trade union? That is what has happened in other countries with oppressive Governments who operate on principles that are totally anti-trade union—principles that the modern Conservative party seems to want to adopt.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman may know more about other countries' arrangements. He might be disappointed to learn that FBU members in Shropshire continued to go on strike only because they felt that they
      102
      owed it to fellow union members in other parts of the country. They wanted to accept the settlements, and that has been the feeling in Shropshire for some time. I therefore do not think that there exists the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman remind me of how many times since 1919 policemen have had to be dismissed because they went on strike? How many times has the Army had to take over the role of the police? What the hon. Gentleman describes is not a real situation, and it does not happen in practice.
      Our point is that we need to recognise that the time has come to place the fire service on a par with the police service. As we go forward with the Minister's White Paper and the new Fire Services Act that this Bill will become, there will have to be proper and independent arrangements for setting fire service pay in the absence of a right to strike.
      8.45 pm
      Matthew Green: We have just heard Conservative policy and we can assume that it would also have to apply to ambulance workers, as a minimum—
      David Davis: How many strikes since 1919? Does the hon. Gentleman know?
      Matthew Green: No, of course I do not know how many strikes there have been since 1919.
      It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman does not have much understanding of how to resolve industrial disputes. Threatening to ban people from membership of a trade union generates industrial disputes, as happened at GCHQ, rather than resolving them. Such inflammatory language—the pun is not intended—will serve only to encourage FBU members to reject the offer on 12 June. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives tabled such an amendment. There is no way we could support it; indeed, we shall vote against it.
      Mr. Drew: Thank 'you for calling me, Sir Alan. I shall be brief.
      The Bill has at least one benefit; it has drawn out what the industrial relations policy of the Opposition actually is. They may have b: en in listening mode for the past year, but I do not know which trade unions they have been listening to; the ones that I meet and consult would be horrified at the proposals in the amendment. Although we are referring to a particular dispute in a specific service, the danger is that such ideas might become more generally applicable. As the Opposition are in listening mode, I hope that they will listen to some trade unionists rather than act as they have done so far.
      Mr. Hammond: I listen generally to my constituents. What the hon. Gentleman said of the amendment is equally applicable to the Bill. Is he really alarmed that the Government are about to embark on a path where they could use similar legislation, with powers for the Secretary of State to impose settlements across all essential services such as transport and utilities? Of course he is not. This is a specific dispute; it is a specific problem in a unique emergency service. It is disingenuous of Labour Members to try to tell us what

      103
      our policy is when we have made it clear that this is a special circumstance and the policy would apply only to the fire service.
      Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman; he has almost taken the words out of my mouth. I was about to say that, much as I welcome the fact that we have managed to tease out the thoughts of the official Opposition, the proposals draw out even more clearly the reason why some of us are bitterly opposed to the measure. It would be a slippery slope—this is a classic case. The Bill would allow any Government, although not of a hue that I would ever support, to use this dispute as a precedent. They could say that as these circumstances had been dealt with in that way, they could do the same thing in the next case and in the one after that. The ratchet would keep being tightened.
      There is another notion with which I am genuinely trying to struggle: when a decision had been arrived at democratically by members of a trade union through a free ballot and been acted on through some form of industrial action, although not necessarily strike action, sanctions would be taken against individuals. In all the often ill-thought-out industrial relations legislation that has been passed in this place, the notion has always been that the collective, not the individual, is attacked.
      The individual's human rights— and dare I say that labour rights are a form of human rights?—are sacrosanct. However, the Opposition's proposals mean that sanctions against a strike or whatever action is taken involve attacking individuals and their rights.
      We all know that it is easy to talk about taking disciplinary action, which all sounds meek and mild. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) pointed out, disciplinary action can involve sacking people. That is not a million miles from what the official Opposition appear to want. It involves attacking a trade union by taking action against individuals, and that is a totally reprehensible change in our culture of dealing with the way in which people—whether it is the Government, the employer or the work force as represented by their trade union taking the lead—behave in industrial disputes. It is a deplorable line to tread with hobnailed boots.
      I have a final observation. If anyone thinks that there is a close parallel between the fire service and the police, they should think again. There are great differences between them. However, I always smile when people talk about the Police Federation as though it is not a trade union. Whenever a Government have acted directly against the views of the Police Federation, I doubt that they have ever managed to get changes introduced. In the past pay and conditions debacle, the Police Federation clearly came out against the settlement and, to and behold, the Government completely rethought their policy. In a sense, one could say that that is good industrial relations. The collective worked and individuals did not need to be put into a position in which they were disciplined. However, if one ever took disciplinary action against a policeman or woman because they were carrying out the democratically arrived at will of the Police Federation, the results would be very interesting.
      104
      Anyone who naively thinks that the Opposition proposal is a good one does not know much about industrial relations. I urge not just the official Opposition but the Government to think again about the route that they are taking, because it is fraught with problems.
      David Winnick: I do not know whether the amendment was tabled to unite Labour Members, but at a time when we are somewhat divided about the Government's Bill, it has done precisely that.
      To say the least, I have a number of reservations about the way in which the current dispute has been conducted by the union, and I have made that clear. However, I shall not go into that point now. I am very much opposed to the Conservatives' amendment. They say that the nature of the work undertaken by firefighters means that, like the police, they should not be allowed to take strike action. The Opposition are using the police as an example to be followed by the firefighters. However, if a Conservative Government were to take such action, I can imagine that those involved in other essential or emergency work would be told that the police and the firefighters are banned from taking strike action, so why should the same rule not apply to other groups of workers? The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) shakes his head, but I am concerned about the escalation of the argument.
      We know why the police are not permitted to take strike action, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was right to point out the effectiveness of the trade union—the Police Federation—that represents the police.
      In a democracy, the fact that the police cannot take industrial action, for reasons that most of us understand, should not be an excuse to deny other groups of workers the right to take action if they so wish. Obviously, I would rather that firefighters did not take strike action, but I accept that they have the right to do so if a majority vote is secured in a ballot.
      I was in the House on 25 January 1984 when the then Government announced a ban on GCHQ employees taking any form of strike action. My hon. Friends and I protested and introduced ten-minute Bills about that year after year, especially on 25 January. The Government elected in 1997 reversed that ban and we all agree that they were right to do so, although I do not know what a Tory Government would do in the future. I am convinced that if we live in a democracy, which we do, the right of employees to take industrial action should not be taken away, certainly not in peacetime.
      I conclude by asking a question. Does the amendment represent official Conservative party policy? Will the Conservative party give a clear commitment at the next general election that if it is elected, firefighters will not be able to take strike action? If the party adopts such a policy, it should be made absolutely clear when the electorate makes up its mind. The issue is important and everyone in a democracy should be aware of it. I look forward to hearing what the Conservative party says when the election comes.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had an illuminating debate that has shown clearly the division among the parties in

      105
      the House. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and his party will deeply regret the unattractive face of anti-trade union and authoritarian Conservatism that lies behind the amendment.
      The hon. Gentleman said that Conservative Members had three main proposals. The first was a sunset clause, which we agreed to. The second proposal was a provision for secret ballots. We said that there was a case for secret ballots but that the mechanism proposed was neither workable nor appropriate, although we did not disagree with him in principle. However, the hon. Gentleman's third proposal is an anti-trade union provision with which we profoundly disagree.
      It is essential to adopt a measured approach to solve what has been one of this country's most difficult industrial disputes in recent years, which is what the Government are trying to do. We do not pretend that we are taking an easy route or that it is not fraught with difficulties. Our response is measured and serious, and balances proper concern for public safety, which remains our overriding priority, with respect for people's rights to organise in trade unions and advance their interests in a democratic society. Our proposals are designed to help to secure a solution, whereas the Conservative party's proposals seem to be designed to create a more bitter and extensive industrial conflict and to provoke a serious breakdown in relations with the trade union movement in this country. I cannot believe that the Conservative party, on reflection, will want to continue to advocate the policies that we heard tonight. I also hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will realise on reflection that his conspiracy theory about the Government and the Attorney-General is deeply unworthy and of no substance whatsoever. I hope that he will agree, on reflection, that the comment should be withdrawn.
      The central issue is the right to strike. I remind the House that there is no statutory right to strike in the United Kingdom. On the one hand, there is no practical way to prevent people from withdrawing their labour or to force them to work but, on the other, people who do not work normally will usually he in breach of contract. The de facto right to strike is given by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It provides statutory immunity for striking workers and their trade unions so that they are protected from legal action on breaches of contract, provided that the industrial action is in response to a trade dispute and subject to proper balloting and notification procedures. In addition, the ability to strike is an important part of the freedom to associate under article 11 of the European convention on human rights. That is also germane to the debate although the Conservative party appears to have little or no regard for such conventions.
      9 pm
      In the Government's view, employees' ability to take lawful strike action should be withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances. We have no plans do so at present in relation to firefighters. We have made it clear that the issue will be covered in the White Paper. Indeed, it was raised by the Bain review, which suggested that it be considered further. We will do that, but as the Deputy Prime Minister made clear on Second Reading our judgment is not in favour of removing that right from
      106
      firefighters. I accept that it is a matter of judgment whether firefighters, like the police, perform a role that possibly justifies interfering with the basic right of any working person to withdraw their labour. Our judgment remains that they do not.
      The fire service does, of course, have similarities with the police service, but there are also significant differences in the light of which we believe that anti-strike legislation would not be appropriate. There is a fundamental difference in the role of the police and fire services. The police, as enforcers of national law, must be independent and must act on behalf of us all. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated in the course of the past year that the armed forces have been able to provide effective alternative fire cover to a high standard. In normal circumstances, there is no such alternative to the police service.
      In addition, the House will remember that before this last year there had peen more than 25 years without a national strike in the fire service. There had been local disagreements and local industrial action, but nothing that led to proposals of this nature being introduced by any party on either side of the House. We should not make the mistake of confusing the current situation for the norm. We must certainly not allow the dispute to continue and we need a strategy for the future that will minimise the chances of it happening again. I have already described how the Bill and our forthcoming White Paper will do that in their different but complementary ways. Achieving a fire service for the future will depend on committed and motivated staff at all levels. Reducing the rights of staff is, in my view, neither helpful nor likely to achieve a productive outcome.
      In all events, I do not think that the kind of powers that would be conferred by amendment No. 1 would be in any way appropriate. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge spent a great deal of time during our consideration of the Local Government Bill criticising the Government for giving too many powers to the Secretary of State. Yet he is proposing not only that the Secretary of State should have power to legislate about fundamental things such as trade union membership, but that he should also be able to change the disciplinary code to make strike action an offence solely by order rather than by primary legislation on which the House decides. I cannot understand the logic behind those proposals.
      Amendment No. 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is designed to restrict: the Secretary of State's power so that he could not fix or modify the hours of duty and leave of fire brigade members. The intended effect of that would be twofold. First, the Secretary of State would not be able to address firefighters' conditions of service as a whole. He would not, for example, be able to make changes to hours of duty or leave arrangements that might be welcomed by firefighters. There would inevitably be less scope to produce a package that could address the range of issues to which firefighters attach importance.
      Secondly, the amendment might make it more difficult to make progress with the modernisation of the service. A key question is how to match hours of work to the peaks of demand o nd risk. That will almost certainly

      107
      require some change from the current patterns of work, which have remained pretty much the same for 25 years or more. That does not mean, as some have suggested, wholesale changes to shift patterns and working conditions. Our best judgment is that new flexible arrangements could be introduced under which a majority of firefighters would remain on their current shift patterns if they wanted to.
      There are likely to be other options, however, including different shift patterns and working hours, some of which will involve more family-friendly hours, which could be more attractive to some serving firefighters and potential new recruits. The precise changes needed will have to be considered locally and will emerge from the risk management plans on which fire authorities are working and on which they will consult. If we are driven to a position in which we have no option but to use the powers, we will need to be able to make the right changes that work with fire authorities' agreed plans.
      I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that there could be some downsides to his proposal and I have explained why I do not support the purpose of the amendment. Having said that, perhaps I should also tell him that I do not believe that it would have the effect that he wants to produce.
      The definition in clause 2(2) is not exhaustive: the phrase "conditions of service" includes the matters listed, but is not limited to them. If the matters listed were amended to remove any mention of hours of duty or leave, the phrase "conditions of service" would still have its natural meaning, and the so-called grey book, which contains firefighters' terms of service, makes it clear that that meaning includes hours of duty and leave. My hon. Friend's amendment would therefore not have the effect that he desires, and I ask him not to press it.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will agree to withdraw his, frankly, unworthy and undesirable amendment.
      Mr. Hammond: It is my turn now to accuse the Minister of synthetic anger. We have heard from Labour Members the most ridiculous extrapolations from a very specific provision relating to a very specific Bill. The Bill deals with the fire service. The Minister is himself taking powers to impose a settlement; we are trying to ensure that such a settlement can work and to make the Bill a piece of legislation that in the two-year interim period in which it will be in force will deliver the end to the current dispute and to strikes that the Minister says he wants.
      It is interesting that the Minister has not ruled out an anti-strike provision. He has said that the White Paper will give consideration to it in the context of the new fire service legislation—the permanent Act. We believe that in any such situation, there must be an independent and fair mechanism for setting pay. The Minister says that it is a matter of judgment and that his judgment is that it would not be helpful. I respect that, but I am glad that he at least acknowledges that the matter is one that should be aired, that it will be in the White Paper, and that the House will have an opportunity to consider it again.
      108
      Our judgment is different. When the Government have already admitted that further strikes would endanger life and property but they are going to do nothing about it; when the Government are introducing legislation that gives the Secretary of State a power to impose a settlement but absolutely no power to make that settlement stick; when tens of thousands of troops are potentially to be tied down—
      It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, THE CHAIRMAN pursuant to Order [8 May] and Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided:Ayes 112, Noes 335.

      Division No. 215]

      [9.07 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Amess, David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Baldry, Tony

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Bellingham, Henry

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bercow, John

      Leigh, Edward

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Blunt, Crispin

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Boswell, Tim

      Lidington, David

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Loughton, Tim

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Brady, Graham

      Maclean, rh David

      Brazier, Julian

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Maude, rh Francis

      Burns, Simon

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Burt, Alistair

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Butterfill, John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Chope, Christopher

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clappison, James

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Norman, Archie

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Collins, Tim

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Conway, Derek

      Page, Richard

      Curry, rh David

      Paice, James

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Pickles, Eric

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Evans, Nigel

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fallon, Michael

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster

      Ruffley, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Forth, rh Eric

      Selous, Andrew

      Francois, Mark

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Goodman, Paul

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Grayling, Chris

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Greenway, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Hague, rh William

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hammond, Philip

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Tredinnick, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Viggers, Peter

      109

      Waterson, Nigel

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Whittingdale, John

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Wiggin, Bill

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wilshire, David

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

      NOES

      Alexander, Douglas

      Colman, Tony

      Allan, Richard

      Connarty, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Corston, Jean

      Cousins, Jim

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cranston, Ross

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Crausby, David

      Austin, John

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Baird, Vera

      Cummings, John

      Banks, Tony

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Barnes, Harry

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Barrett, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Battle, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Beard, Nigel

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Denham, rh John

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Dismore, Andrew

      Benn, Hilary

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Berry, Roger

      Dodds, Nigel

      Best, Harold

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Betts, Clive

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Blackman, Liz

      Doughty, Sue

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Borrow, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Breed, Colin

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Brennan, Kevin

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Bryant, Chris

      Flint, Caroline

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Follett, Barbara

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Burnett, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye

      Burnham, Andy

      Burnside, David

      Foulkes, rh George

      Burstow, Paul

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cairns, David

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Caplin, Ivor

      Godsiff, Roger

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Goggins, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Grogan, John

      Challen, Colin

      Hain, rh Peter

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chidgey, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentalands)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Healey, John

      Heath, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      110

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Heppell, John

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hermon, Lady

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston

      Heyes, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hodge, Margaret

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Holmes, Paul

      Merron, Gillian

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Miliband, David

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mole, Chris

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Moran, Margaret

      Morgan, Julie

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston

      Mountford, Kali

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Hutton, rh John

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Illsley, Eric

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate

      Organ, Diana

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Owen, Albert

      Jamieson, David

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jenkins, Brian

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Pound, Stephen

      Keetch, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E

      Kemp, Fraser

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Prescott, rh John

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lamb, Norman

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Lammy, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Purnell, James

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lepper, David

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

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

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Love, Andrew

      Rendel, David

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      McCabe, Stephen

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      McDonnell, John

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      MacDougall, John

      Rooney, Terry

      McFall, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ruane, Chris

      McIsaac, Shona

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McKechin, Ann

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      McNulty, Tony

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Salmond, Alex

      McWalter, Tony

      Sanders, Adrian

      McWilliam, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sawford, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shaw, Jonathan

      111

      Sheerman, Barry

      Truswell, Paul

      Sheridan, Jim

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown

      Singh, Marsha

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

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

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Ward, Claire

      Southworth, Helen

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Spellar, rh John

      Watts, David

      Squire, Rachel

      Weir, Michael

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      White, Brian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Straw, rh Jack

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Stringer, Graham

      Wills, Michael

      Stunell, Andrew

      Winnick, David

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Wishart, Pete

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Woolas, phil

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Trickett, Jon

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Trimble, rh David

      Charlotte Atkins

      Question accordingly negatived.
      THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment made: No. 17, in clause 1, page2, line 18, at and insert—
      () No order shall be made under this section more than two years after the commencement of this Act, except for the purpose of revoking provision contained in a previous order..—[Mr. Raynsford.]
      Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS
      Amendments made: No. 18, in page 2, line 32, leave out from "(c.51))" to end of line 33.
      No. 19, in page 2, line 35, leave out from "1947" to end of line 37.
      No. 20, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
      '() In its application to Northern Ireland, this Act has effect as if—

      (a) for references to the Secretary of State there were substituted references to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety;

      (b) for references to a fire authority or fire authorities there were substituted references to the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland;

      (c) for references to a fire brigade there were substituted references to the fire brigade within the meaning of the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (S.I.1984/ 1821 (N.I.11));

      (d) in section 1(1), "made by statutory instrument" were omitted;

      112

      (e) in section 1(2)(b) and (c), "another fire authority or to" were omitted;

      (f) for section 1(7) there were substituted—

      "(7) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
      (7A) An order under this section that makes provision authorised by subsection (1)(a) shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c.33(N.I.))."'
      —[Mr. Raynsford.]
      Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.,

      TITLE
      Amendment made: No. 21, in line 1, leave out
      on the Secretary of State'.
      —[Mr. Raynsford.]
      Bill reported, with amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.22 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Today, we have had the opportunity to debate in detail the issues arising from the powers that we are seeking in the Bill. Like the events of the past year, these debates have illustrated how difficult it is to strike the right balance between the competing interests and points of view of the staff of fire brigades who want a fair level of pay for the difficult and dangerous job they do; the employers who have to manage fire brigades so they provide a good service to the public within budget; the public, who are entitled to expect protection from fires and other accidents; and the armed forces and the police, who have been diverted from their usual duties during the current dispute, often at significant personal and professional cost. But in the end, that balance must be struck. In the public interest, we cannot allow the dispute about pay in the fire service to continue indefinitely. A resolution must be found one way or another, and that is a responsibility that we as a Government must accept.
      The Bill will provide us with the powers to draw a line under the current pay dispute and begin to set a new direction for the fire service. If the House agrees, it will enable the Secretary of State, in England and Wales only, to make orders to do two things. Under clause 1(1)(a), he will be able to set or modify the pay and conditions of fire brigade members. Under clause 1(1)(b), he will be able to give specific or general directions to fire authorities about the use or disposal of property or facilities.
      The powers in the Bill extend to Northern Ireland, where they will be exercised by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. For the time being, that means that they will be exercised under the direction of the Secretary of State, but as and when devolution is restored they will revert to Executive Ministers.
      As a result of amendments made today, the powers in the Bill will have a limited life and will lapse two years after Royal Assent. Any orders already made will remain in force unless specifically revoked.

      113
      My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said on Second Reading that he hoped he would not need to use the Bill. He believed that it was still possible to reach a negotiated settlement and that the time required for the Bill to become law would provide a further opportunity for that settlement to be reached. Hon. Members will be aware that, not long after he made that speech, the employers made a further offer to the FBU. So far as pay is concerned, the offer remains as before: 16 per cent. over two and a half years. The employers said that they could not increase that amount, which is generous in any case, but they have been able to take another look at the modernisation elements of the offer. Modernisation is still the bedrock of the deal, but the employers have clarified what they propose. That gives firefighters more assurances about some of the matters that concern them, especially changes to their duty systems and shift patterns. I believe that the employers have responded to much of the misunderstanding and misinformation that has surrounded the dispute. Firefighters can see that what is on offer is fair. It does mean change, but it does not mean reductions in safety or arbitrary changes to shifts for the sake of it. The FBU is taking soundings about the offer and will decide whether to accept it at a further recall conference on 12 June.
      There are therefore grounds for hope that a negotiated deal is within reach, but our optimism about that prospect should be tempered by prudence. We have thought that agreement was near on previous occasions. I cannot help wondering what role the introduction of the Bill may have played in persuading the two parties to try once again to reach agreement. I am sorry to say, however, that even if the two sides are able to reach broad agreement we cannot be certain that that will be an end to it. The terms of the employers' offer mean that there would still have to be detailed negotiations over the next few months. It is therefore important that we enact the powers in the Bill so that we can intervene if any such negotiations break down. We therefore intend, with the agreement of the House, to press ahead with further consideration of the Bill in another place.
      Today, we have considered a wide range of issues, from the right to strike, to rationalising fire stations, to the role of secret ballots. Those are all issues that it is right for us to debate. I urge hon. Members, however, to bear in mind that the Bill is only a temporary measure. Although we should still get it right, what may be right, reasonable and feasible as a short-term, stop-gap measure may not be what we would want for the longer term.
      Mr. Davidson: The Minister says that it is a temporary measure. Does he recall that income tax was introduced on the same basis?
      Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to say that I was not alive when income tax was introduced, but in my recollection William Pitt did not introduce a sunset clause. We have accepted a sunset clause, so my hon. Friend's concerns should not prove too serious.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the Minister accept that it would be wrong to use a temporary Bill of
      114
      this nature to regionalise fire services and to take control away from local authorities or, indeed, to take control rooms away from local authorities such as my own?
      Mr. Raynsford: We make no such proposal in the Bill. It is a temporary measure that is focused on two issues. First, it gives the Secretary of State the power, if necessary, in the absence of an agreed negotiated settlement to the dispute, to impose a settlement in those circumstances. As we have said, we do not want to do that. We hope that there will be a negotiated settlement, and there are good grounds for believing that there may be, but the Bill acts as a stop-gap in case that is not possible. Secondly, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct fire authorities on the use and disposal of assets and facilities, for the obvious reason that that enables us to protect the public interest in the event of further strike action where it is necessary to ensure that appropriate appliances are available. Those are the purposes of the Bill and it does not have the wider effects that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) suggests.
      What might be right in the short term might not be what we would want for the longer term. We have to deal now with the very serious situation provoked by the failure to reach a settlement for more than a year. The Bill is directed at that; it does not attempt to deal with the need for a new long-term framework for the fire service. That means that we have to work within the current structure, accepting that it is flawed. For the future, however, we have the chance to set a new direction for the fire service through the forthcoming White Paper. That is where we will set out our thinking on the role of the service, on how it should be organised, and on getting the right relationship between central Government, the fire authorities and the fire service. We need to provide clearer leadership, and we will start with the publication of the White Paper.
      Implementing our policies will require legislation, which we will seek at the earliest opportunity, so that we can put the fire service on a new footing that recognises properly the wide range of activities that it is already carrying out—a far wider range of services than those defined in the Fire Services Act 1947, which still provides the statutory basis for the service. Over the next few months, therefore, we expect to have a debate about what we say in the White Paper. After that, the House will have a full opportunity to consider in detail the necessary legislation.
      That legislation will be the right vehicle for finding longer-term solutions to the problems that the service faces: solutions that are not overshadowed by a long drawn out industrial dispute, but that focus instead on the needs of our society in the early 21st century and on the challenges that we face in responding to those needs. Those challenges will require measures to reduce the number of fires and the number of deaths and injuries caused by fire, to improve community safety and the effectiveness of the fire service in preventing as well as responding to fires and other emergencies, and—last, but by no means least—to provide a rewarding and properly rewarded career for the men and women in our fire service who undertake the difficult and dangerous tasks on which we all depend. I commend the Bill to the House.
      9.31 pm
      Mr. Hammond: The background to the Bill is the long dispute in the fire service, for which the Fire Brigades Union and the Government must share some responsibility. Notwithstanding the history of this matter, I believe that all hon. Members—whatever opinions they have expressed this evening—hope that there will be a settlement on 12 June. The Government have decided to press ahead with the Bill anyway, perhaps as a form of insurance, or perhaps as part of their negotiating tactics—something that the Minister effectively alluded to earlier.
      The Conservatives look forward to the White Paper and to having an opportunity to discuss in a more leisurely way the long-term future of the fire service to ensure that it delivers the service that the people of this country need while providing the career structure and fair pay and conditions that firefignters delivering an incredibly important service to the community expect and deserve.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the services provided by the fire service go beyond attending fires? Will he bear it in mind that, when there are serious accidents, the fire service is often called upon to relieve the suffering that occurs? I have in mind a recent serious incident in my constituency, in which a young man died as a result of a motor cycle accident. The road was covered with blood, yet there was no arrangement in place to ensure that it was hosed down. The blood was emerging through the sand covering the scene of the accident. Let us therefore take account of the wider involvement of members of the fire brigade.
      Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right; it is not called the fire and rescue service for nothing. As a Northern Ireland Member, he will know of the role that fire brigades play in protecting us against the effects of terrorism, which, sadly, we on the mainland also increasingly have to consider.
      We have supported wholeheartedly the strategic objective of the Government and the employers to link pay to the reform of working practice, even if we have not always agreed with the Government's tactics. We have indicated to the Government our willingness to give a fair wind to a piece of emergency legislation designed to impose a settlement, ensure public safety, lift the burden from the military and pave the way for a longer-term and fairer arrangement that will ensure fair pay and conditions for firefighters while recognising the public's need for certainty in the protection that they expect from one of the key front-line emergency rescue services on which our safety and security increasingly depend.
      Conservative Members made it clear at the outset on Second Reading that we required three changes to enable us to endorse the Bill as an effective, if draconian, emergency measure: first, it needed to be time-limited; secondly, there needed to be provision for proper canvassing of the views of all fire brigade employees before the Secretary of State's emergency powers were used; and, thirdly, there needed to be a power to invoke a no-strike provision to give the Bill teeth. The Bill introduced on Second Reading did not meet those criteria.
      116
      I am delighted that the Government have recognised the need for the Bill to be time-limited so that it is clearly seen as a response to the specific situation in which we find ourselves, but I am surprised by the resistance of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to the idea of a ballot. I thought that he and the Deputy Prime Minister had indicated that they feel strongly that sense would have prevailed long ago if only all members could have been balloted and that a ballot is an essential step that should be taken. The public would find it difficult to accept the Secretary of State imposing a settlement because of a failure to reach agreement on a negotiated settlement when nobody had consulted, through a secret postal ballot, all the people being asked to accept that negotiated settlement about whether they were in favour of it. I am disappointed that the Government did not accept such a provision.
      Of course, I am not surprised that the Government did not accept the proposal for a no-strike provision, although I am disappointed. I emphasise the fact that the no-strike provision had a specific target, just as the other powers have a specific target. The powers would have been permissive to the Secretary of State—they would not have required him to do anything. The Bill has a limited, two-year life, so Labour Members who got terribly excited about what a future Conservative Secretary of State might do with those powers need not have done so.
      Jeremy Corbyn: It will never happen.
      Mr. Hammond: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because even in my wildest dreams I do not expect a Conservative Secretary of State to exercise those powers in the next two years, so it is simply not an issue. He should have put more trust in his Deputy Prime Minister and Government.
      The Bill has a limited life in which to deal with the emergency period when we simply do not have the military resources to cope with a strike, and the Deputy Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that any such strike would place lives in danger. What the arrangements for the future should be is an open question. The Minister says that the White Paper is still coming soon, as it was when we last debated these matters a month ago. We recognise that, if there are any restrictions on the rights of fire brigade members to take industrial action, they will have to be compensated for in such circumstances by an independent and fair mechanism to determine pay.
      Despite all the trumped up and fantastically exaggerated scenarios advanced by Labour Members and despite all the synthetic anger about what was imagined to be the thin end of a very large wedge driven into industrial relations, no one answered the key question: what is the point of this emergency Bill and the powers that the Secretary of State is taking if he has no sanction with which to enforce them? How can he ensure public safety when he has acknowledged that strikes will put lives at risk, but has taken no power to prevent them?
      The Bill was a far from perfect vehicle, but it was a vehicle, as the opportunity existed to grasp the nettle, to put public safety first and turn it into an effective, short-term emergency measure that would restore public

      117
      safety, relieve pressure on the military and settle the pay dispute. We could also have considered, in a less pressurised atmosphere, the future role of and arrangements for delivery of a modern fire and rescue service following the publication of the White Paper.
      The Government have accepted that the Bill should be time-limited, which is a great step forward, but it would be inappropriate to go down the route of imposed settlements—perhaps less generous than those previously on the table—without properly testing rank-and-file opinion through a secret ballot. It is pointless to introduce the powers that the Government are taking without also taking powers to enforce a settlement made under them.
      Sadly, the Government have not been able to bring themselves to follow the inexorable logic of their own Bill, and match the power that they are giving themselves to impose a settlement with a power to enforce such a settlement and protect public safety and military preparedness by imposing, if necessary, a strike ban during the two-year life of the Bill.
      Perhaps, given his background and history, it was optimistic of us to expect the Deputy Prime Minister to be able to break out of the mould; but that is what is required to make the Bill the effective emergency measure that we were prepared to support—a Bill that would do what the people would expect the Deputy Prime Minister to do, and put public safety, and the concerns that he himself has expressed in regard to public safety in the event of a further strike, ahead of any other consideration. I strongly believe that that is the primary concern of our constituents, and that they will see protection of public safety as the principal purpose for which they sent us here.
      The Deputy Prime Minister has not grasped the nettle. We wish him well in achieving a settlement of the dispute, but he has failed the test that we set as a condition of our support for the additional powers. Therefore—I say this with some regret—we cannot support the Bill.
      9.41 pm
      John McDonnell: We have had a long, continuing debate during the current dispute, and we all hope that we are nearing the end of that dispute: we hope for a settlement next week.
      I suspect that the Bill may be used to try to threaten the union—that it will be used if there is no dispute. I do not think that firefighters can be threatened: I think that they will stand firm no matter what, and that they will only allow this dispute to be resolved if they feel that the resolution is just. If the Bill does not constitute a threat, it is intended for practical implementation; and I do not think that it stands up to the test of scrutiny in that context.
      Let me make a point that has already been made about the logic of the Bill. What will the Government do if, after they have sought to impose a settlement, the trade unionists still refuse to accept it? They will be drawn down the path represented by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond)—that of banning strikes and banning trade union membership.
      I hope that there will be a settlement next week; but I also hope that the Bill, with its sunset clause, will not be needed for implementation purposes. I hope that we will
      118
      allow the individual negotiations that will be necessary after next week's hoped-for resolution—negotiations on hours of work, shift patterns and the provision of local services—to take place locally, in the atmosphere that once prevailed in the fire service. There used to be local negotiation, and co-operation between union and employers.
      In that event the Bill will not be required; but we must send a message to our own Government that we should never present such legislation again, we should never again try to undermine trade union rights, and—more important, we should never again get into a mess of this kind. The dispute could have been settled last July. We had a second opportunity to resolve it in November, and we failed to take it. Let us hope that we do not fail next week and that the Bill and its implementation will never be necessary again.
      9.43 pm
      Matthew Green: Until the introduction of the Bill, we supported the Government's strategy throughout the strike. We have now departed from that line, because we feel—it is a matter of judgment—that this is not the right way in which to resolve the dispute. Indeed, as has been said, the Bill's very existence may harden opposition to such resolution in some instances. As I have said, it is a matter of judgment; there is no hard-and-fast rule, and we realise that there is an element of guesswork in the assessment of the Bill's likely impact on the feelings of FBU members.
      We hope to see the White Paper soon, although I fear that the word "soon" should be replaced by the word "mañana", because it is always being promised. It is always threatening to appear. I do not quite go to bed expecting to wake up and discover that it has been published, but we have been given the impression that it is about to appear. We would welcome its early publication because there are issues that need to be addressed, not the least of which is pensions. The financing of pensions is one of the biggest issues that the fire service faces, and we want a resolution to it.
      We wanted amendments to three specific areas, the first of which was the sunset clause. We are glad that the Government accepted some movement in that regard. We would have preferred that the Bill fall sooner than after two years, but such a time limit is acceptable.
      On the substantive issues of a secret ballot of members and the introduction by the Government of new pay proposals through independent arbitration, we felt that such measures would give the employers and the Fire Brigades Union the confidence that this was a way forward—a way not of creating greater difficulties, but of resolving the dispute. Unfortunately, the Government saw fit to reject both of those measures; had they accepted them, we might have shifted our position and supported the Bill. One glimmer of hope is the Government's resistance to the Conservatives' idea of banning membership of trade unions. The Conservatives will came to regret suggesting banning the membership of those who carry on a dispute for a long time.
      Overall, the Bill sets a very dangerous precedent. A particular concern is the use that will be made of it not this time, but in future years by future Governments. It will be alluded to tirne and again. There will be those

      119
      who will say, "We had to do it then, so we must do it now," and such legislation will be applied to different disputes and different unions. I am afraid that it could be used repeatedly, and all because a Labour Government have seen fit to introduce this Bill. Our judgment remains that this Bill will not help to resolve the dispute. We accept the strategy that modernisation and pay must go hand in hand, but we believe that that can be delivered through other means. The way in which the Bill has been framed will not help to end the dispute, and we will continue to oppose it tonight.
      9.47 pm
      Jeremy Corbyn: This is a very sad day for the Labour party and for this House. We are passing this legislation apparently as part of industrial negotiations, but in reality it threatens to take away a fundamental tenet of the British labour movement scene: the right freely to negotiate wages and conditions. The Government are not prepared to negotiate wages and conditions; instead, they are threatening to remove that power and impose a settlement. That has caused anger among ordinary firefighters—members of the Fire Brigades Union—and as a result, their attitude towards this House and this Government is serious. The House would do well to recall many of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) during these debates, and to thank him for all the work that he has put into using this House to scrutinise Government legislation.
      Like other hon. Members, I have met and talked to many firefighters in my constituency. They entered into a dispute knowing full well that the Government were reluctant, shall we say, to concede their wage demands. But they felt that as an emergency service—a service that everyone in this House relies on and is happy to praise when an emergency is sorted out in their constituencies—theirs had a good case and a good deal of public support, which it certainly does. Now, they are being told of the possibility of an imposed settlement, or that under that threat they will agree to some new proposal—all of which is to be paid for, apparently, by the sale of buildings and job losses. For us to have reached this situation is a very sad clay indeed.
      When the question is raised of what will be done next—I raised it in previous debates with the Deputy Prime Minister—there is an obvious answer. If the Government seek to impose a settlement and the firefighters continue their strike action, something else will have to be done.
      The logic is clear: the procedure is in line with Conservative proposals to take deeper and greater control of industrial problems that should be sorted out through collective bargaining. I hope that the Bill will not be passed, but I suspect that it will. It will certainly not gain my support. I am pleased only about the sunset clause, but it is a pity that it is such a long time away.
      The House should represent ordinary people. The Labour party and the Labour Government should represent ordinary trade unionists, who have supported us throughout their lives. Such people are looking for support from our party and our Government. As I said, today is a truly sad occasion. I hope that a similar Bill
      120
      will not be applied to other services. I have organised in the public sector and I know the pressures on ambulance drivers and people who work in accident and emergency departments. Such people love their job, but they feel a sense of moral blackmail all the time. We should treat emergency workers properly and with respect. We should recognise their rights under the International Labour Organisation and other human rights conventions and not pass legislation such as the Bill. We should respect the right of independent trade unions freely to negotiate and to reach a free and independent settlement.
      9.51 pm
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has expressed his opposition to the Bill. I agree with him, but I must say that my process of reasoning is not exactly the same. He knows that we agree quite often, which must distress us both. We agreed on Iraq, for example, but that is by the way, as we are dealing with the Fire Services Bill.
      I do not believe that the Bill should secure a Third Reading and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has made that clear on behalf of the official Opposition. I disagree with the Bill for several reasons. First, it has not been properly debated. I greatly objected to the programme motion: I spoke and voted against it. Its effect was to shut out many amendments—and, indeed, speeches—which we otherwise could have debated. Many amendments have not been discussed, far less voted on, because of the programme motion. The other place will have to debate an imperfectly considered Bill, which is itself a reason for opposing Third Reading.
      There are other more substantive reasons for opposing the Bill. We have to start by recognising that, notwithstanding its sunset clause, the Bill is draconian. It gives to the Secretary of State—the Deputy Prime Minister—a unilateral power to vary conditions of service. I made that point in debating the first group of amendments. It also empowers the Secretary of State to order the disposal of property and to impose financial imposts on third parties. The powers conferred on the Deputy Prime Minister are substantial, and the only check on them is the negative procedure. Again, we debated that point in respect of the first group of amendments. I do not believe that the negative procedure is a proper or sufficient check on the Secretary of State's powers—a good reason in itself for not supporting the Bill.
      I must ask why the Bill was ever introduced. The reason is that the Fire Brigades Union embarked on industrial action. If that union had not embarked on industrial action, we would never have had the Bill. The House should bear in mind the fact that a power is already on the statute book to allow the Attorney-General to go to the courts and obtain an injunction. If the Attorney-General had done his duty, he would have made an application to the High Court for an injunction and there would then have been no requirement to interfere with the contractual rights of the Fire Brigades Union. The Attorney-General would have done his stuff.

      121
      I believe that it is lamentable that the Attorney-General is not a Member of this House. If he were, we, the elected representatives, could have asked him why he was not going to exercise his discretion under statute.
      Because he is a member of the other place, and not subject to proper scrutiny or debate, he is not subject to such inquiries. It is another example of the contempt that this Government—whom I detest—have for democracy. If they had any respect for democracy, they would have the senior adviser on legal matters to the Government in this House, but they choose not to do so. The Bill has been introduced solely because the Attorney-General would not do his duty, as prescribed by statute, and go to court. Had he done so, we would not have had the Bill.
      The Bill allows the FBU to continue going on strike. The Bill provides no penalties for going on strike, but any hon. Member will recognise that those members of the FBU who go on strike are putting at risk the lives and property of their fellow citizens. What possible moral right is there to do that in a civilised society? It is profoundly wrong. If people do not understand that, the House should take the power in the Bill to say that it is wrong. I gave the House the opportunity, in new clauses 1, 2 and 3, to say that industrial action should not be permitted.
      I never criticise the Chair, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but those new clauses were not selected—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not use Third Reading to refer to those new clauses now.
      Mr. Hogg: It is permitted, however, to comment on what is in the Bill and to refer obliquely to what is not in the Bill. What is not in the Bill is a power to protect citizens from the actions of the FBU—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Obliquely or otherwise, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should stick to what is in the Bill.
      Mr. Hogg: What is in the Bill is a draconian power, given to the Deputy Prime Minister, to vary contracts of employment unilaterally, to dispose of property and to impose charges on third parties that are not properly constrained by democratic control. That is what is in the Bill, and it is a scandal. Furthermore, the result of the programme motion is that the House has not been able fully, adequately or properly to discuss, far less vote on, the contents of the Bill. We will send to the other place a Bill that may be otiose, but that gives to the Minister or his boss draconian powers. All of us know that those powers are not properly constrained. That is a disgrace, and that is what is in the Bill.
      9.58 pm
      Mr. Drew: I cannot agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, even though the conclusions we reach are similar. As various hon. Members have said, especially Labour Members, the Bill is not only the wrong Bill, but it comes at the most inopportune time. I cannot think of a worse occasion to introduce a Bill that could be construed as anti-union than on the eve of an
      122
      important ballot, an important meeting, and an important moment in a dispute that everybody wants to see settled.
      The great sadness felt by many Labour Members is that, although a settlement will be achieved, it will arouse resentment among firefighters. I have spoken to many firefighters, both before the dispute began and during it. They have told me about their hopes for the discussions that took place when the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), was the Home Office Minister with responsibility for the fire service. They wanted to move to a modernised service based on risk-based management. Those hopes have been ripped asunder by the dispute, and this Bill will only make matters worse.
      That saddens me greatly. No Government—certainly no Labour Government—should intervene in an industrial dispute when there are far better ways to achieve a settlement. I do not like the term "modernise" very much, but we could make the service better and more efficient, and ensure that it could do the things that all hon. Members want.
      However, the most important matter has been alluded to many times by Opposition Front-Bench Members, in connection with an amendment tabled in Committee. We have at least had the opportunity to see the Opposition's approach to these matters. That is one good thing to come out of the debate, but those of us who oppose the Bill feel that the Government have taken a risk by introducing it at this time. It does not take a stretch of the imagination to see that the Bill could be followed by a raft of anti-union legislation. That much has been made only too clear by Labour Members this evening.
      We have managed to get a sunset clause inserted into the Bill. That is our only victory this evening, but it could be a pyrrhic victory. It affects only this Bill, at this time. If there is another public-sector dispute in the future, some other Government could introduce legislation that is timeless, rather than time limited. Such legislation would be designed to bring in anti-union controls that go against the nature of a state that believes in both human rights and labour rights.
      That is why some Labour Members are dismayed by the Bill. We will vote accordingly this evening.
      10.3 pm
      Mr. Llwyd: This short and insidious Bill introduces unwarranted interference in legitimate negotiating rights. I questioned the Minister earlier about the use of the word "disposal", and his response confirms my view that the Bill will be a vehicle for wholesale cuts, especially in the smaller rural services. I am very unhappy with the Bill, and I shall be very pleased to vote against it, as will my colleagues and many other hon. Members. The Bill is an insidious attempt to skew the process of negotiation. It is a gross interference with workers' rights. It is incredible that a Labour Government of any hue—new, old, or in any shape or form—should have introduced the Bill. I am utterly unconvinced by the Minister's explanation of the use of the word "disposal". I am sure that there will be wholesale cuts in rural fire services. We will return to that debate at some point.
      10.4 pm
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in this debate. Because of the guillotine, or the programme motion, to use the modern name, we were unable to discuss the provisions relating to Northern Ireland, so I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fire service in Northern Ireland. Through the years of terrorism, its members have suffered, and some have given their lives, serving the community. As a result of the lawlessness that still prevails in certain areas, firefighters, like other public servants, are attacked as they serve the community.
      Reference has been made to sunset clauses. As someone who used to watch those old westerns where the hero rode off into the sunset, I w Drider who will be riding off as the hero in this case. The fire brigades will still be around when we are gone.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 198.

      Division No. 216]

      [10:05 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Coaker, Vernon

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Colman, Tony

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Corston, Jean

      Cousins, Jim

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cranston, Ross

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Crausby, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cummings, John

      Baird, Vera

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Banks, Tony

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Battle, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Beard, Nigel

      Denham, rh John

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Benn, Hilary

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Best, Harold

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Belts, Clive

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blackman, Liz

      Edwards, Huw

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Farrelly, Paul

      Borrow, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Flint, Caroline

      Brennan, Kevin

      Follett, Barbara

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, rh Derek

      Bryant, Chris

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye

      Burden, Richard

      Burnham, Andy

      Foulkes, rh George

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Cairns, David

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gilroy, Linda

      Casale, Roger

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caton, Martin

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Challen, Colin

      Grogan, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & chrystion)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Healey, John

      124

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Martlew, Eric

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hesford, Stephen

      Merron, Gillian

      Heyes, David

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Miliband, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      Miller, Andrew

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Mole, Chris

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Moran, Margaret

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Morgan, Julie

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Mountford, Kali

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Mudie. George

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmaston)

      Mullin, chris

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Hutton, rh John

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Iddon Dr. Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Illsley, Eric

      Olner, Bill

      Ingram, rh Adam

      O'Neill, Martin

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Organ. Diana

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Palmer, Dr, Nick

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Picking, Anne

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Joyce Eric (Falkirk W)

      Prescott, rh John

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      primgrolo, rh Dawn

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Khabra, Piara S.

      purchase, Ken

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Purnell, James

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lammy, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

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

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Lepper, David

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Linton, Martin

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roche Mrs Barbara

      Love, Andrew

      Rooney, Terry

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ross Ernie (Dundee W)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Ruane, Chris

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      McCabe, Stephen

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sawford, Phil

      MacDougall, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McFall, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheridan, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Southworth, Helen

      McNulty, Tony

      Spellar, rh John

      Mactaggrt, Fiona

      Squire, Rachel

      McWalter, Tony

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McWilliam, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Straw, rh Jack

      125

      Stringer, Graham

      White, Brian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Wills, Michael

      Timms, Stephen

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Trickett, Jon

      Woolas, Phil

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmounth)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Ward, Claire

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Watts, David

      Mr. John Heppell

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Allan, Richard

      Amess, David

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Dismore, Andrew

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Austin, John

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bacon, Richard

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Baldry, Tony

      Doughty, Sue

      Barker, Gregory

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Barnes, Harry

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Evans, Nigel

      Barrett, John

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Fallon, Michael

      Beith rh A. J.

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Bercow, John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Berry, Roger

      Francois, Mark

      Blunt, Crispin

      Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

      Boswell, Tim

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Brady, Graham

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Brazier, Julian

      Gidley, Sandra

      Breed, Colin

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Goodman, Paul

      Brooke, Mrs Anntte L.

      Gray,James (N Wilts)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Grayling, Chris

      Burgon, Colin

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Burnett, John

      Green Matthew (Ludlow)

      Burns, Simon

      Greenway, John

      Burnside, David

      Grieve Dominic

      Burstow, Paul

      Gummer, rh John

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Butterfill, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Chidgey, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Chope, Christopher

      Heath, David

      Clappison, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hendry, Charles

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hermon, Lady

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Collins, Tim

      Holmes, Paul

      Connarty, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Conway, Derek

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Curry, rh David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Davidson, Ian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      126

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Keetch, Paul

      Salmond, Alex

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Sanders, Adrian

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lamb, Norman

      Selous, Andrew

      Lansley, Andrew

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Leigh, Edward

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

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

      Lidington, David

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Loughton, Tim

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      McDonnell, John

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Steen, Anthony

      Maclean, rh David

      Swayne, Desmond

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Syms, Robert

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maude, rh Francis

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinick, David

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Trimble, rh David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Norman, Archie

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      viggers Peter

      Öpik, Lembit

      Waremg, Robert N.

      Osborne, George (Tattcn)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Watkinson, Angela

      Paice, James

      Weir, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Whittingdale, John

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Wiggin, Bill

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Willis, Phil

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Wilshire, David

      Redwood, rh John

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Rendel, David

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Wishart, Pete

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Ruffley, David

      Mr. Mark Hoban

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

      EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
      That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Arab Republic of Egypt) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.
      That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Chile) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.

      COMPETITION
      That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Anticipated Mergers) Order 2003, which was laid before this House: on 29th April, be approved.
      That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Protection of Legitimate Interests) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.

      PRISONS
      That the draft Release of Short-Term Prisoners on Licence (Amendment of Requisite Period) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 10th April, be approved.—[Mr. Woolas.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (9)(European Standing Committees),

    CONTROL OF FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15831/02, draft Directive on Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease and amending Directive 92/46/EEC; and supports the Government's objective of agreeing measures for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease which allows the European Union's foot-and-mouth disease-free status to be maintained, including the possible use of emergency vaccination from the start of an outbreak.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to.

    A36 (Wellow)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    10.21 pm
    Sandra Gidley: I welcome the chance to have this Adjournment debate, which I requested because too many people are dying as a result of accidents on the A36 near Wellow. There is a touch of poignancy to the debate. The Minister is probably aware that a dreadful accident occurred on that stretch of road this very day. The multiple car incident appears to have caused at least one death, possibly two, and a number of serious injuries. I am sure that he will join me in expressing our condolences to the victims and their friends and families.
    The picture is bleak. The latest figures that I have show that, from June 1997 to May 2002, 71 personal injury accidents occurred along the length of the A36 from New road to Fighting Cocks farm. At the junction with Whinwhistle road alone there were 21 personal injury accidents in that five-year period. The EuroRAP survey confirmed that that stretch of road has a higher than average accident rate. That is damning enough, but by examining recent history it is clear that the road has a long and chequered past with a long accident record, yet sadly little appears to have been done about it. It might help the Minister if I outline some of that history.
    Most of my knowledge of the route is relatively recent, but a search of the web revealed a meeting of the road and development sub-committee of Hampshire county council on 12 December 1988. The introduction of the report of that meeting referred to
    "increasing anxiety being generated regarding road safety on Trunk Road A36 through West Wellow and Plaitford. Recent tragic fatalities of a schoolgirl and County Council road worker have intensified local concern."
    The same report stated that there had been 31 injury accidents in the preceding three years, of which four were fatal, nine involved serious injuries and 18 slight injuries. If we do a simple comparison with the latest five-year figures, it would appear that there has been an increase in the accident rate. The 1988 report provided further detail and suggested accident remedial works at two junctions—the junction with Whinwhistle road, where eight accidents had been identified, and the junction with Maury's lane. I shall return to the problems at Whinwhistle road. Although I do not have complete details, I am led to believe that today's fatal accident was near the Whinwhistle road junction.
    The report also highlighted problems with driver behaviour, HGVs, overtaking accidents, and the speed limit. Thankfully, some progress has been made to reduce the speed limit, but sadly not enough. In addition, the report mentioned the possibility of a Wellow bypass. There was a recommendation to
    "immediately put in hand the procedures leading to the earliest implementation of a bypass for West Wellow".
    I do not want my case today to be sidetracked by the reemergence of that issue, but I will put the question of a bypass into context later.
    I became more closely involved in the thorny issue of the A36 when a group of residents contacted me to discuss problems with the road surface, which were

    129
    having an adverse affect on their quality of life and the structure of their homes, as well as problems with crossing the road and the possibility of providing a safe crossing. The road was resurfaced last year and there has been some improvement in the surface, but all the other issues remain. The more familiar I became with the stretch of road, the more I realised that something had to be done. It might help the Minister if I set the scene.
    The A36 is a wide single-carriageway trunk road. The village of Wellow is clustered along one side of the road; on the other side is scattered development backing on to the New Forest. A certain amount of development has taken place over the years, which has contributed to increased usage of the junctions placed at intervals along the A36. That, coupled with the year-on-year increase in car usage, makes it easy to see why the accident rate has increased over the years. A roundabout has been installed at one of the junctions, the speed limit has recently been reduced from 50 mph to 40 mph, and signage has been improved, but little else has been done. The problems with the road are exacerbated by its slightly undulating nature. Toward the Plaitford end of the village, large vehicles head into Wellow over the brow of the hill and have to slam on the brakes when they suddenly spot cars emerging from a pub car park or other side road. Put simply, it is a recipe for disaster.
    Let me concentrate for a moment on the problems in the vicinity of Whinwhistle road. That the problems were identified as long ago as 1988 is bad enough, but I recently learned the true extent of the procrastination on the issue. In November 1994, the Whinwhistle road feasibility study was carried out by Hampshire county council; that was rapidly followed by the 1994 Whinwhistle road supplementary report by Hampshire county council; and the May 1995 Whinwhistle road second supplementary report by Hampshire county council. All went quiet for a while, until in July 2001 we had the Whinwhistle road junction improvement study carried out by Atkins on behalf of the Highways Agency. The icing on the cake is a second study by Atkins: the A36 Plaitford to West Wellow speed and safety study, January 2003.
    After nine years, five reports, and thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money—how many, I shudder to guess—there has been no action. That is not good enough, and the reason I asked for this debate is to urge the Minister to use whatever means he has at his disposal to ensure that something happens, and that it happens sooner rather than later.
    There is a small bureaucratic matter that needs to be dealt with first. When I first started to pursue the matter in October 2001, the county surveyor at Hampshire county council told me that he was in negotiation with the Highways Agency about the de-trunking of the road. He hoped that that would happen some time in 2002. I was led to believe that that would be a good thing, because it would be possible to identify a package of de-trunking improvements that could be achieved prior to the road being handed over to the county council.
    By December, the position had changed. In a letter dated December 2001, the county surveyor stated:
    "there is now a little delay in the de-trunking process, largely on account of disagreements with authorities to the west, particularly I think Bath and North East Somerset.
    130
    As far as we are concerned we have resolved most of the maintenance issues but there are still outstanding matters concerning the safety schemes and speed, particularly in the vicinity of Whinwhistle junction."
    For the good news, he stated that
    "There is a steering group",
    and that it had requested further reports, mainly on issues connected with Somerset, but impinging on some more strategic points, such as the potential effect of the approval of the Dibden bay planning application. He added:
    "The latest advice from the Highways Agency is that they would not expect de-trunking to take place before April 2003."
    A letter from the Highways Agency confirmed that. It also informed me that Bath and North East Somerset council had requested a study commissioned by the Government office for the south-west before it would proceed with the de-trunking. The agency said that there was a possibility that the route could be divided into sections, and that that would be discussed at a later date. To the best of my knowledge, that never happened.
    I come to the part that I find difficult to comprehend. The future of this road in Hampshire and the safety of my constituents is governed by the Government office for the south-west, even though we are in the south-east. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why that is so. Given that all parties appeared keen to go ahead and de-trunk the A36 in my part of Hampshire, why were others allowed to throw a spanner in the works and delay the whole process?
    In January 2002, I received a fax from an irate constituent, who pointed out that there had recently been three multiple car crashes in three weeks, one near School lane, one outside the Red Rover and one opposite Landford new road. In February 2002, I decided to ask a parliamentary question, to ascertain whether I could elicit more information. There was little more information available, but the answer confirmed that de-trunking negotiations were likely to be on hold until early 2003.
    In early 2002, I held a site meeting with some local residents, representatives of the Highways Agency and officers of the county council. I suggested that we walk along a stretch of the A36. The suggestion was greeted with horror. The response was, "No, you can't possibly do that." I should point out that there was a footpath and that we were not walking along the road itself. I was told that the road was far too dangerous to walk alongside it. There was some puzzlement when the residents burst out laughing at that stage. That was not on my behalf but because of the attitude of the officers. The residents felt that the reaction of the representatives of the Highways Agency and of the county council proved their point that the road was dangerous.
    After some negotiation and promises not to sue, conspicuity security jackets were produced and we walked along a stretch of the road. Even though traffic always slows when a number of strange looking people are seen wearing fluorescent yellow jackets, the problem of speeding heavy goods vehicles was all too evident.
    The residents we re requesting a safe crossing point so that they could enjoy the pleasures of the New Forest. The little walk that we had could not have highlighted more the need for such a facility. However, a crossing in isolation in the wrong spot could be dangerous.

    131
    Although I support the provision of a crossing, it must be part of a package of safety and traffic calming measures.
    A little later the road was closed for resurfacing. That aspect of the road was much improved, but I would like to refer to a fax that I received from the A36 Residents Association, which clearly highlights its frustration. The fax reads:
    "The traffic goes even faster now and no new safety measures have been installed, on this road in a village in the New Forest which is known as death alley. After all the money spent on the rebuild we do not have speed camera warning signs, speed cameras or safety barriers. There are now warning signs by the Red Rover of HGVs bombing along over a blind brow of a hill, where car drivers are exiting the car park after legally consuming some alcohol.
    There are now warnings or protection for people at the Shoe Inn—yes they can still come out of the pub door 18 inches from the road and get killed as happened last year. There is not one safe crossing for children going to school."
    There are many more points, but the fax goes on to claim that the improved road means that the traffic is travelling faster and the danger of a major incident is now greater. I am sure that the writer of that letter is not happy to have been proved correct.
    I was also deeply frustrated, as there seemed little that I could do until the de-trunking issue was sorted out and various studies were completed. In November, I received a letter to say that the report was being finalised but that it highlighted a speed problem at both ends of West Wellow. I am not quite sure how much the report cost, but in the words of John Cleese it does seem to be "stating the bleeding obvious."
    I was also assured that Atkins was committed to improving road safety and was continuing to seek longterm solutions. I certainly hope that there is not longterm implementation.
    Sadly, despite the site meeting and despite numerous letters expressing interest, I have still not seen a copy of the report, despite a promise to let me do so. I understand that possibly it is still in draft form.
    So where do we go from here, and why have I involved the Minister? I am aware that there are some schemes in preparation, such as the extension of the 40 mph speed limit and a puffin crossing at Canada roundabout. Hampshire county council is keen to install speed cameras at Whinwhistle road junction. This is a welcome, if long overdue, move, and I hope that the Minister can assure me that the scheme can proceed without further delay.
    I am also aware that a scheme is being developed to provide a three-arm roundabout at Whinwhistle road. The observed accident rate at this junction is 7.4 recorded personal injury accidents a year, compared with the national average of 0.7. This scheme is due to take place in 2005–06, subject to the purchase of a suitable piece of land. I urge the Minister to use every means at his disposal to ensure that this happens sooner rather than later. Put simply, another two years is far too long.
    I ask the Minister to take a look at the area. Plans for a bypass were dropped in the mid-1990s, although for a number of years the idea had a great deal of support. But
    132
    no one could agree on the most suitable route and the idea seemed to be quietly shelved. Unfortunately, the shelving of the scheme did not coincide with a review of the safety of the road. I am not calling for a resurrection of the bypass plan, but if the accident record on such a busy road continues to rise, we will have to think again.
    In the short term, various steps need to be taken. As a matter of urgency, a decision must be made on the de-trunking. If we are still at the mercy of the Government office for the south-west, I urge the Minister to go ahead with a decision for that stretch of road now. There is no reason why Hampshire should be subject to the whims of another county and another Government region. If the decision is definitely to go ahead, negotiations must be a priority, and a package of safety measures should form part of a de-trunking agreement. Residents of Wellow and users of the A36 do not need yet another survey. They do not need further procrastination. They need the road to be made safer, and they need that to be done as soon as is humanly—nay, superhumanly—possible, if we are to avoid further fatalities such as we have suffered this very day.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before I call the Minister, may I say to the hon. Lady that the quotation that she used was inappropriate and should not have been used? I hope she will bear that in mind for a future occasion.
    10.36 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on securing the debate. I know that she has taken a special interest in road safety on the Wellow section of the A36 and has corresponded regularly with the Department and discussed at first hand a number of safety issues with the Highways Agency and Hampshire county council officials. I was deeply saddened to learn of the deaths and serious injuries on the A36 this afternoon.
    Our thoughts tonight must be with the families who have lost their loved ones, and with those who are injured. My latest information is that two have been killed, two others have life-threatening injuries and there are others with other injuries. That makes the debate even more poignant, as the hon. Lady said, but I am truly sorry that we must conduct it against the backdrop of such an appalling tragedy as happened today.
    Although this country has a good road safety record compared with that of other countries, today's terrible tragedy shows that we cannot afford to be complacent. Such accidents make the Government all the more determined to improve our record. In the 10-year transport plan, we made a commitment to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent. by 2010 compared with the average for 1994 to 1998, and there is also a 50 per cent. target for cutting child deaths and serious injuries. That is why we are putting the resources in place to improve safety. According to the latest information, we are well on the way to meeting those targets, but I am the first to accept that we have more to do and that there are still many roads on which the death rate is too high.
    I should explain the current status of the A36, as it sets the background for how the road is currently operated by the Highways Agency. In December 2000 the

    133
    decision was taken to confirm the A36 Bath to Southampton trunk road as non-core. The Highways Agency is responsible for operating the road, maintaining it in good condition and carrying out any safety improvements to the route. Promotion of other improvements for reasons of environment, accessibility, economy and integration is the responsibility of local transport authorities. In the Wellow and Plaitford locality, Hampshire and Wiltshire county councils are the responsible authorities. Our aim is to transfer the responsibility for the road to the local transport authorities. If I have time, I shall say a little more about that later.
    I well understand the hon. Lady's concerns about safety on the A36 in her constituency. In the five-year period from June 1997 to May 2002 there have been 71 personal injury accidents. Three were fatal—that does not include today's appalling tragedy—nine were serious and 59 were slight. The accidents took place along the 4 km stretch of the A36 between New road in Plaitford and Fighting Cocks farm, to the south-west of West Wellow.
    Those figures are approximately 20 per cent. higher than the national average for roads of this type. I hope that what I say today will demonstrate that we have not been idle in assessing the problem and working up and implementing appropriate solutions.
    As the hon. Lady pointed out, there were plans for a bypass of West Wellow, but the proposal was withdrawn from the trunk road programme in 1994. Following that decision, a number of studies were commissioned along the route. They include a number of studies carried out by Hampshire county council, when it managed the road on behalf of the Highways Agency. The council looked at the 5.6 km length of the A36 between the Ower roundabout at the M27 and the Wiltshire-Hampshire border and, in particular, safety problems at the junction of the A36 and Whinwhistle road.
    In 1999, WS Atkins became the managing agent for the Highways Agency for the A36. WS Atkins has carried out studies in the locality, including the Whinwhistle road junction improvement study in July 2001. A range of improvement options were identified and appraised in that study and a roundabout was considered the best long-term solution for improving the junction. More recently, the A36 Plaitford to West Wellow speed and safety study was initiated, and it is now substantially complete, although comments from Hampshire county council are still awaited. The study recommendations include reduction of the speed limit from Wellow to New road in Plaitford and provision of a crossing at the Canada Common roundabout.
    Those studies have helped to inform the decisions on what works are required to tackle the problems identified. In the period between 2001 and 2003, the following works have been carried out in the Wellow area. In February 2002, the existing 40 mph speed limit area was extended by slightly less than 1.5 km to take in the junctions of School road and Whinwhistle road. Additional appropriate signing was erected and red surfacing was laid on the carriageway to emphasise the difficult nature of that section of the road. That work was carried out in recognition of the undulating nature of this section of the route and the resulting poor visibility, which, in combination with a number of
    134
    private accesses and two junctions, contributed to the accident record. The majority of collisions at the Whinwhistle road junction were nose-to-tail shunt collisions, which suggests that speed on the A36 was a contributory factor. We have also moved the advance direction signs on the approaches to Whinwhistle road to give better warning of the junction ahead and a new direction sign has been erected opposite the junction.
    The Wellow village name signs have been re-erected on the approaches to the village. The signs reinforce the village ambiance to drivers approaching Wellow. A major maintenance scheme was undertaken in April 2002 to improve the road surface between Plaitford and the Canada Common roundabout. I am sure that the hon. Lady will remember those works, as the A36 was closed for about four weeks to allow them to be carried out. A new footway was also provided as part of the scheme between the Shoe inn and Purley way in Plaitford. The new footpath will improve safety for pedestrians in the area, especially for those who are leaving the pub in the evening, although I am sure that her constituents are totally sober when they do so.
    For 2003–04, we are planning to implement two schemes. The first will provide a puffin crossing at the eastern arm of the Canada Common roundabout to improve accessibility in that area of the village. The second will reduce the speed limit of 50 mph to 40 mph from Wellow through Plaitford to New road. The successful implementation of those schemes this year is subject to agreement with the police and local authorities, but I hope that there will be no unexpected delays. We shall also carry out a review of crossing points throughout Plaitford and West Wellow to identify locations where dropped kerbs and refuges can be provided to encourage safe movement through the villages. We also consider that those measures will help to change the character of the road to emphasise that people are crossing the road at those points and that drivers should therefore reduce their speeds.
    The Highways Agency is part of the Hampshire safety camera partnership and is working with its partners to provide two cameras at Whinwhistle road junction. We consider that cameras in that location will reduce speeds and therefore the numbers of nose-to-tail shunt collisions at the junction, which we believe are the main indicator of why the collisions are occurring. They mainly involve vehicles trying to turn right into Whinwhistle road and other vehicles approaching from behind or moving towards them too quickly.
    Other works planned for 2003 in the Wellow area include improvements to the bus stop at Whinwhistle road to provide raised kerbs, a new shelter and an extended footway. We will also add further 40 mph signs and surface treatment on the carriageway to further encourage drivers to reduce their speed.
    I have already referred to the Whinwhistle road junction improvement study of July 2001, which recommended a roundabout at Whinwhistle road. That will reduce traffic speeds and right-turn accidents and act as a gateway to the village from the south-east, thereby improving safety and accessibility in the area. We plan to carry out the scheme in the year 2005–06, but that is subject to the successful purchase of the land required and the availability of funding. Let me assure the hon. Lady that I am aware that the location is in a sensitive landscape area adjoining the New Forest, and

    135
    that will be a major consideration in the design of the scheme. Today, however, in her mind and in the minds of her constituents, the main issue at that junction must be that of safety.
    As was mentioned earlier, in the longer term responsibility for the A36 will be transferred to the local transport authorities when the road is de-trunked. Therefore, safety on the A36 in the Plaitford and Wellow area will become matters for Hampshire and Wiltshire county councils. The decision to de-trunk the A36 was reaffirmed by the Secretary of State in December 2000. However, as the hon Lady pointed out, the south-west regional assembly—the regional planning body for the south-west—continued to have outstanding concerns about aspects of de-trunking the road further north of this section of the A36. I undertake to look at those issues to determine whether the delays can be reduced. I take the hon. Lady's point when she asks why one region should be affected by the deliberations of another, although if the whole road is to be de-trunked I am sure that she appreciates that it has to be done as one. We shall consider whether any of the problems can be overcome to get the de-trunking moving.
    Following preliminary discussions with representatives from local transport authorities along the corridor, the Highways Agency and English Heritage, the Government office for the south-west
    136
    commissioned a study entitled "The Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study" to supplement existing information derived from an earlier study. The study commenced in July 2002 and is likely to report in July 2003. Its overall aim is not to consider further whether the route should be de-trunked, but to recommend an appropriate strategy to manage the north-west to south-east axis transport corridor between Bristol and Bath and the south coast. In particular, it also aims to develop an integrated transport strategy to address the issues relating to through traffic in the corridor of the historic city of Bath. The findings of the study are to be reported to the south-west regional assembly to allow it to consider what changes it might wish to recommend to the south-west regional transport strategy.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to explain our plans and to listen and respond to some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady about improving safety along the A36 in Wellow, both in the short and longer term. I hope that I have at least been able to demonstrate our commitment to safety on the road in general and in the Wellow area in particular. The terrible tragedy on this stretch of road this afternoon, in which people were killed and seriously injured, with all the misery that that causes, spurs us on in Government to redouble our efforts in progressing the improvements and thereby improving road safety in the area.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOE BENTON in the Chair]

Middle East
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
9.30 am
Andrew George (St. Ives): I am delighted to have secured this debate on the middle east peace process and the road map. These are significant times. In fact, this is a significant day on the road to peace in view of the meeting taking place today in Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt. We hope that, ultimately, there will be peace between the Palestinians and the state of Israel.
I come to the debate as a relative newcomer compared with many of those present. In view of that, and the large number of hon. Members who want to speak, I will do my best to keep my comments brief, so that as many hon. Members who want to speak on the subject can do so. I cannot claim to be a scholar on the subject, certainly not compared with others here today. I have not visited the region, but I do not accord with those who take the view that, by visiting a place, one earns the right to be regarded as an authority on it. I have taken a deep interest in the region for many years and I have often challenged the modern myth that travel broadens the mind.
Often, the most ardent advocates of that myth are possibly trying to justify the disproportionate use of non-renewable resources to travel around the world; in fact, people may travel around the world and return with the same teeny-weeny minds they started with. Travel itself does not broaden the mind, but if one starts with a broad mind, there is much to be gained from travel. Many people in the Chamber today and others have travelled in the region and had many experiences that they will want to relate to the Chamber. I accept that, in that sense, I am a Johnny come lately to the debate.
Having initiated the debate and received representations in the last week from people on all sides of the debate, I know how deep the anxieties are, and that to give one smidgen of nuance that implies favour or bias to either side will be picked up very quickly. However, I believe that it is impossible not to come to the conclusion, whether one is an Israeli or not, that the current position of the Palestinians is unacceptable.
I come to the debate with no bias against the Israelis either. My brother-in-law is a Jew. We recently celebrated the wedding of my sister and brother-in-law on the cliff tops in my constituency. It was a joint Hebrew-Cornish Methodist service and a celebration of two rich religions, of which I am very proud. I am therefore concerned about the need for this debate.
I shall briefly construct a canvas for the debate, and others will no doubt add their own comments. The roadmap involves a process of relearning universal truths—those of Sophocles, Homer, Shakespeare and others down the ages. People must learn that they
2WH
cannot bludgeon others into submission, although they can bludgeon them into retaliation. Indeed, if they try to bludgeon others into submission, they will ultimately face retaliation. Therefore, there must be a process of reconciliation.
Faith and religion can be taken over by those who want to use them as respectable fronts for their own prejudices, agendas and vengeful purposes. Indeed, the idea that religion justifies self-righteousness and dogma, that it gives one a divine right, and that God is on one's side runs through the whole debate.
In that respect, there was a tragic plane crash in South America a few years ago, and a breathless backpacker, who just missed the plane, gave a telling quote in an interview. He missed it by 10 minutes and proclaimed to the world that that proved that "there must be a God", yet 250 or so poor souls were dead on a South American hillside. That disturbingly absurd sense of a divine right and of personal salvation runs through many religions. It sounds absurd, but we understand it to an extent. It is at the core of concerns on both sides of the divide, and those concerns must be resolved if the road map is to achieve a peaceful solution.
It is important that all involved in the process retain pride and dignity. It cannot merely be seen as an elaborate method for getting one's enemy to eat humble pie. The magnanimity of unexpected generosity can lead to a thawing of relations. That is the path along which we must seek reconciliation, and I am sure that the Foreign Office seeks it, too.
We must remain focused on where we want the process to end, because it is not simply a means—there is an end. There are people on both sides whose purpose is war and terror, and they have lost sight of where they want to go, what this is about and why they do what they do.
Mr. David Chidgey: In the light of President Bush's intervention this week—we can be grateful for that—does my hon. Friend agree that the Americans' key task is to convince both sides that forsaking violence as a means to an end is the only alternative leading to lasting peace? Using violence as a means will ensure that there is no end at all.
Andrew George: Absolutely—my hon. Friend is right. I shall come to my questions to the Minister in a moment. One key sticking point is the view on both sides that the other side is not doing enough to constrain people and therefore to achieve the peace that they both want, so that they can take the next step on the road to peace. It is extremely difficult to make a judgment about that, because even the leaders of the two regimes cannot constrain every individual.
The context of the road map is not especially promising. Indeed, there was strong cynicism about the publication of the draft in March, which was believed to be timed partly to reassure a wider world and to enable the US and the UK to engage in military action in Iraq. That cynicism about the timing has created a problem and an opportunity for the Government and the US. They must overcome it and demonstrate that the roadmap was not introduced for purely cynical purposes. It must also be recognised that the middle east is a focus for the whole world and for the tension between the west and Arabic and Islamic countries.

3WH
On the campaign on terror, the perpetrators of the atrocities of 11 September 2001 must be pursued. However, the only way ultimately to deal with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is the overwhelming retaliation of friendship, not war. We do not want to create a fertile recruiting ground for future generations of terrorists by ignoring the situation, doing too little about the problems of the middle east or stoking up problems by simply attacking Islamic nations.
The road map has been agreed by both Israel and the Palestinians; the first step on the road has been made. However, Israel has listed several concerns, and the Minister will be aware of them. Some have been put in the public domain, and the United States has said that it will address them. Will the Minister outline what he sees as the Israelis' concerns and whether the UK Government agree they should be addressed? What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the ability of individuals or ad hoc organisations, neither attached to nor controllable by the Palestinian Authority, to continue with terrorist incursions and suicide bombings in Israel? Is a cessation of suicide bombings a prerequisite for Israeli co-operation? Is that either realistic or achievable?
What confidence does the Foreign Office have that the road map will lead to a lasting and just peace settlement, or does it fear that the journey will be held up by violence and Israeli checkpoints? What justification could the Foreign Office have to argue for the simultaneous rather than sequential implementation of the proposals? Does the Foreign Office agree that certain achievements must be made before progress can be taken a stage further, and what does it believe are likely to be the main mechanisms for applying pressure on both sides? Does it intend to work through the European Union and use the EU-Israel association agreement and its human rights clauses as a lever in negotiations?
Britain has sold and still sells arms to Israel on the proviso that they are not used in the occupied territories, but that condition is often breached. What safety mechanisms prevent British arms from being used in the occupied territories and what monitoring is undertaken? What representations have been made about known cases of inappropriate use of British-sold weapons? Has the breaking of that proviso resulted in the withdrawal of or a reduction in arms sales?
What role should Israel's neighbours play in the process? How important are those countries, particularly Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, in the development of the road map, and what contact has the Foreign Office had with them thus far? As we know, an oil pipeline between Syria and Israel is under consideration. What discussions has the Foreign Office had with those countries on that?
Which UN resolutions does the Foreign Office believe are relevant and should be fully complied with for the road map process to succeed? Does the Foreign Office accept that international law and United Nations resolutions should be applied, not simply superseded by the roadmap? What assessment has the Foreign Office made of the time scale for the road map's implementation? Many are concerned about the
4WH
forthcoming US elections, which may stall future progress. Since the road map was discussed in Israel, in some political quarters, politicians are referring to implementation taking years rather than months. It is important that things are speeded up.
Will the time scale be enforced by the Quartet or will the US take the lead? What efforts will the Foreign Office make, in concert with the Department for International Development, to ensure that adequate aid is given in particular to the Palestinians during the process? What contribution will be sought from Israel towards those efforts? Only recently, Ariel Sharon expressed some sympathy for the situation in which Palestinians find themselves.
We are talking about two of the worlds' rich religions, which should be capable of living side by side. We need a two-state solution and to recognise that, unless fundamentalists, literalists and extremists can be removed from the process, the international community may have to accept the need for perpetual peacekeeping in the region. We must find a better way. The road map is the best opportunity, possibly for a generation. I seek a clear indication from the Minister of how Britain will be engaged, and how it will deal with the predictable stumbling blocks on the road.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that the winding-up speeches will commence at half-past 10. A large number of Members have indicated that they want to speak, and it is up to them to accommodate that.
9.46 am
Richard Burden: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing today's debate. It is timely because it is held the day before the summit at which President Bush will meet Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Sharon. Few more important issues face the world today. The human suffering that we have witnessed during the past few years bears witness to that: more than 700 Israelis and 2,000 Palestinians have died during that time. There are few more important things about which we can show our determination. The issue has great relevance not just to the people who live in that part of the world but to the entire world and its security.
I pay credit to our Government, and to the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister in particular, for their efforts in moving the road map and the Israel-Palestine conflict up the United States agenda. We must also recognise, however—the hon. Member for St. Ives referred to this—that a good deal of scepticism has surrounded what the road map can offer. Until the past few days, the lack of progress showed that in many ways that scepticism was well founded, but during the past few days there have been some encouraging and hopeful signs. We look ahead with expectation and anticipation, and welcome what the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas—also known as Abu Mazen—has said about his hopes that a ceasefire will be declared by Hamas and perhaps other organisations. We welcome his efforts to rebuild the Palestinian security services, which were so woefully degraded and undermined over the past few years, principally by Israeli military action.

5WH
I am not known for complimenting Ariel Sharon; I take a deep breath before I do so. However, it is fair to say that the first few tentative steps are being taken. It is good to hear the Israeli Prime Minister begin to use the word "occupation"—others have rightly used it for some time. It is also a step forward that he has indicated that perhaps 10 of the 102 illegal outposts that dot the hills around the west bank will be dismantled. That is tempered by the fact that those 10 are unpopulated. Nevertheless, that may be a start—and let us hope for more movement beyond that. It is good to hear that there will be easing of some of the movement restrictions on Palestinians and, hopefully, on others. We await the practical realisation of that. It is also good to hear from the White House, which has not always shown itself to be as even-handed on this issue as we had hoped. President Bush has said that he will devote as much time as necessary to dealing with the issue and seeing the road map through.
There are some hopeful signs, but the important thing about the road map is that it happens, not whether we talk about it. That puts responsibilities on all of us; it certainly puts responsibilities on the parties. For those of us—like me—who come from a background that has, perhaps, been closer to the Palestinian side of the story than the Israeli side, it is important that we make it absolutely clear that violence against civilians is not only wrong morally, but totally counter-productive for the Palestinian cause. It is also correct that we give all the support we can to the reform of Palestinian political institutions, so that Palestinian civil society can enjoy the democracy its people want and which its leaders want, too.
It is also important that those who come from the other perspective make some things clear to the Israeli side. The road map is very clear. It is not a sequential document. The obligations on the parties are in parallel; that must be said without qualification, especially by friends of Israel. It is also important that they—and all of us—express some regret at the string of reservations that the Israelis have put on the road map.
First, the reservations published in Ha'aretz on 28 May, which are strident and right in saying that the Palestinians must unequivocally cease violence, specifically say that
"the roadmap should not state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."
That is not on. If there is to be an obligation on the Palestinians to cease incitement and violence, there must be an equal obligation on the Israelis as well.
Secondly, there is the right of return, which is a complex issue that is left to the end of the process. There will, no doubt, have to be painful decisions on both sides on that issue: it is complicated. Nevertheless, for Israel to rule out, or to attempt to rule out, the right of return at the start of the process, as it has, will not build the confidence that is needed in the process. The practical way to secure justice for the refugees will need discussion. Refusing to recognise the injustice that was done to the Palestinian refugees in 1948 and subsequently, in 1967, will not make it go away. Quite often, the arguments put forward insisting that Palestinians waive the right of return are about Jewish Israelis not wishing to be outnumbered in future. I understand that. However, those people must
6WH
understand the message that that sends to Israel's own Arab citizens today: that they may be tolerated as a minority as long as they know their place and stay a minority in their own country. There will have to be some reassessment of that.
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, just as it was in relation to Oslo. I will always keep this memory with me: while the world was talking about the Camp David negotiations in 2000, and about what was and was not going on, I and many hon. Members who are here today were over there in Jerusalem and the west bank and we saw what was happening on the ground. The most important thing was not what was or was not happening in Camp David, but that land was still being expropriated and water was still being denied to Palestinian farms. Unless we secure changes on the ground, all the talking in the world will not achieve peace.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I acknowledge the work that the hon. Gentleman has done in his field and his excellent speech. However, does he share my frustration that despite all this talking year in, year out, hopes are raised and then dashed and the Palestinian people are becomingly increasingly poor? They cannot reach their medical services, their children cannot go to school and are malnourished—I forget the percentage—and women are dying in childbirth. It is a terrible humanitarian situation, and the world is simply standing by, watching it.
Richard Burden: I totally endorse the hon. Lady's remarks. Her passion and anger are shared by many of us.
Mr. Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend mentioned the Oslo process. He will recall that we travelled together to speak to Hanan Ashrawi when she left the negotiations over the much vaunted Oslo process for the reasons that he mentioned—the continuing increase in the number of settlements and the increasing withdrawal of water from Palestinian villages. It was, in fact, a cul-de-sac and a trap for the Palestinian people. The problem can never be resolved until we deal with the question of settlements and a land divided by the Israeli Government; the road map can lead to nowhere but a cul-de-sac.
Richard Burden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should not lose sight of the fact that some 72 new settlements—more than 8,000 new dwellings—have been built in the occupied territories since 2001. He is right that we will not secure peace unless we deal with that.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) talked about the humanitarian catastrophe. It is difficult to overestimate the problems. More than 70 per cent. of people in Gaza and more than 50 per cent. of people on the west bank live on less than $2 a day. The poverty is grinding. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to say something about non-governmental organisations operating in the occupied territories and about foreign nationals who visit the occupied territories for different reasons.
The international aid agencies wrote a letter to the Quartet envoys on 12 May. That was followed by a press release from the United Nations dated 18 May, which

7WH
talks about the closures of borders into Gaza, checkpoints, and new visa restrictions leading to a Catch-22 situation in which aid agencies can get into the occupied territories only if they have a particular sort of visa that is very difficult to obtain.
According to the letter to the Quartet of 12 May, the end result is that the
"feeling of disempowerment and outright despondency amongst international staff is now overwhelming. It would seem that the GoI does not want to facilitate our work in the GS, and does not want an international presence there. In addition, there is no evidence, or feeling, amongst INGOs that the situation will improve in the near future, despite the recent introduction of the 'Road Map'."
Only a few days later, the United Nations said:
"The closure of Erez has made the operations of all UN Agencies, NGOs and other humanitarian and development agencies unreasonably difficult, inefficient and costly. If these new restrictions persist, a number of international and non-governmental humanitarian organisations may be forced to stop their operations in the Gaza Strip."
It then lists organisations that have been affected.
I am pleased that the Minister of State, Dept of State for International Development, expressed the Government's concern about these matters in an answer to a parliamentary question that I asked a couple of weeks ago. However, although concern is one thing, the important thing is that we do something about it, because in the meantime there is poverty and people will simply die unless we can somehow sort out the problem.
Lastly, I want to talk about foreign nationals who, for different reasons, may be in the occupied territories and who have died or been injured as a result of their work there. Last year, Ian Hook, a United Nations worker, was shot by Israeli troops in Jenin. This March, Rachel Corrie, a United States citizen wearing a bright orange jacket, was crushed under the tracks of an Israeli bulldozer while trying to prevent house demolitions in the Gaza strip. Brian Avery, another American, was shot in the face in Jenin, again by Israeli troops. Tom Hundall, who is a British citizen, and who, as a photographer, was observing the work of the international solidarity movement in the Gaza strip, was also shot in the head, and today lies in a coma in a London hospital. When he was shot, he was trying to rescue Palestinian children from Israeli bullets. He was wearing a bright orange jacket when the bullet struck, as Rachel Corrie had been.
I met Tom's father at the weekend: he and Tom's mother are witnessing our proceedings today. Not surprisingly, they are asking some fundamental questions, to which they are owed answers by the international community and particularly by Israel. They ask how it was that Tom, a photographer, rescuing children in Rafah, was shot in the head by the Israeli military.
We understand that the Israeli military have undertaken some inquiries, but that the results of those inquiries have been partial. The document produced resembles a Powerpoint presentation rather than an inquiry report, and the arguments in it focus as much on why the international solidarity movement should not
8WH
be there, as on addressing the issue of how Tom Hundall came to be shot. It is important that Israel undertakes a full, proper and independent inquiry into the shooting of Tom Hundall in Rafah. It is also important that his family and, indeed, the world should have access to all the evidence about what happened.
I welcome the fact that Tom's family will meet the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs later this month, and that he has written to Mr. Hundall expressing the British Government's concern about what has happened. In that letter he said that the British Government have
"continually pressed the Israeli Government for a full and transparent enquiry"
into Tom's shooting. He also said that the British Government asked the Israelis to review their
"rules of engagement to try to avoid further civilian casualties in the future."
That issue was raised by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), on 19 April.
Will the Minister clarify in his response today what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office means by a "full and transparent enquiry" by Israel? Does the Minister agree that if that inquiry is to be transparent it must be independent, and that all the evidence should be made available both to Tom's family and to the public? Will he also tell us what Israel's response has been to the request from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for a review of the rules of engagement?
I ask those questions because we owe it to Tom's family, to Tom, and to Rachel Corrie and other foreign nationals who have been shot to insist that such an inquiry takes place. However, I also want answers to those questions because that would help to ensure that the road map has meaning, and to remind us why Tom was there and why he was shot—he was trying to rescue Palestinian children.
If Tom had not been shot, would one or more of those Palestinian children have been shot instead? Those children are not in the Gaza strip by choice—they are there because that is where they live, and there is no escape for them. We need to find out what happened to Tom, to ensure that that does not happen to any more foreign nationals, or to Palestinian children. If we can stop such things happening, end the occupation and also end the violence by Palestinians, that will ensure that the road map means something in practice, and will determine whether we can achieve what we all wish to see—peace in the middle east.
10.4 am
Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate. I have not been to Israel and Palestine but grew up partly in Cyprus. I worked in the Persian gulf and I have a longstanding interest in Lebanon, which I have visited on several occasions and about which I have a considerable concern.
It would be worth while to spend a few moments looking at the history of the region. My father served extensively in the middle east. He was in Palestine from 1945 to 1948 and his father also served extensively in the

9WH
region. My grandparents met in 1916 in a military hospital in Basra; the first world war has a certain amount to answer for in producing me. It is important to understand that our concerns are not just about a grave and monstrous injustice but about one half of a dreadful fracture that runs across the world—Kashmir is the other half, the other side of the region—which, if these matters are not addressed, threatens to cause generations of trouble on a scale that is difficult to exaggerate.
The current miserable situation in the Holy Land, which is sacred to three faiths, is grounded in an original terror—that of the Jewish settlers who arrived in what was then the Turkish province of Palestine before the first world war and between the wars under the British mandate. That terror was stoked first by the pogroms in Russia and eastern Europe, then by the unimaginably worse situation in the growing Nazi republic and by the concentration camps. It inevitably knocked on into their attitudes and their determination to have a state of their own where such things could never happen again, and that is understandable. It was shown in the attitudes towards the indigenous people, which, even in the 1930s, were expressed in language that would be regarded today as utterly unacceptable. It was made very clear that those people of "inferior" stock had no long-term role in the country, as accounts like Nicholas Bethell's remarkably impartial book on the subject testify, with many quotes. As one Palestinian writer put it, very sadly, the terrible evils visited on the Jewish people by the Europeans are being progressively repaid by the terror currently being visited on one small group of people, the Palestinians.
In 1948, a week or two after my father left the country in one of the last attachments of British soldiers to leave, the Jewish third of the population, which had almost all the weapons—they were provided mostly by America—seized 70 per cent. of the country. The Arabs were herded at gunpoint into the rest, and a number were killed on the way. I shall not dwell further on the history, except to say that, in 1967, the Arab nations tried to throw Israel into the sea. I will not go into who fired the first shot. The rhetoric was clear. Israel seized the balance and since then the remaining 30 per cent. of the portion of Palestine has contained a growing, deeply unhappy, dispossessed people who are virtually prisoners in their own country. There are 3.5 million people with no economic prospects, no rights and, above all, little hope.
I want to give two brief examples from the press of what it is like to live in the area. The first, which includes a comment from the Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, describes a typical incursion by the Israeli army. The article states:
"Israeli soldiers demolished 62 shops at a market yesterday, destroying the livelihood of hundreds of Palestinians. In the early morning, about 300 troops streamed into the market, just outside … Nazlat Issa. They brought seven bulldozers.
Villagers poured out to protest as the bulldozers tore down the village market, the main source of income for Nazlat Issa's 2,500 residents.
The village was once a place of peaceful co-existence. Nazlat Issa is among several Palestinian villages along the Green Line … Israelis travelled here to shop.
The market is now the site of one of the biggest Israeli demolitions in the West Bank for years."
10WH
The article makes the point that there is no suggestion that bombings or terrorists were involved, only that the market was not wanted.
I come next to a remarkable article that appeared in The Spectator a couple of weeks ago. It was written by Emma Williams, who has lived in Israel for some years. It states:
"Qalqilya, a once thriving market town of 45,000, is now shut off from the world by a fence and wall of concrete 24 feet high. There is one exit, guarded by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), who determine whether the occupants, their produce, their food and medicines may or may not pass."
She reminds us:
"The start of the Intifada set the scene: before a single Palestinian shot was fired, the world was shocked to see `riot control' that consisted not of baton charges … but of shooting dead scores of stone-throwers and bystanders.
Almost all studies of violence in the occupied territories have found countless cases of Israelis firing on children, onlookers, old women; of pregnant women dying at … checkpoints"
because they cannot pass through. For every Israeli child killed by a terrorist bomb, two Palestinian children have been killed by the Israeli army.
The horror has knocked on into Lebanon, a country that I particularly love. Between the twin horrors of the Syrians and the periodic Israeli incursions, the once democratic jewel of the middle east has been ruined. The hon. Member for St. Ives referred to the disadvantages of travel. I have done the Lebanese extremely badly: on my first visit to the Lebanon the Syrians overran Beirut and, on my second visit, the Israelis bombed the town—a Christian town that has never produced any anti-Israeli terrorists.
Mr. Alan Duncan: It would have been better if my hon. Friend had stayed away.
Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend is right. The situation is one of the world's most terrible injustices. It is an injustice that is felt passionately by hundreds of millions of people in the Islamic world. I refer to one conversation that I had with an ambassador to one of the most moderate, reasonable and westernised states. I shall not disclose his name, but I know his country well. He said, "You cannot imagine what it is like for our children and teenagers. They are growing up to hate the west because they see America and her ally Britain propping up the monstrous situation, which they see morning after morning, evening after evening on their television sets."
I shall end on a positive note. I am sick of people who constantly knock President Bush. He is the first American President to make a clear and specific commitment to a Palestinian state. He is the author of the road map. He is on his current tour to sell it. He has convinced Prime Minister Sharon—probably the most unreasonable leader that Israeli has had for a generation, since the former terrorist Prime Minister Begin—to accept that America means business. More important than that, the moderate, decent voices in the Israeli and the international Jewish community, who must be central to any deal, see hope in the road map, as do those various groups from that part of the world that send us e-mails. They are conducting a dialogue and want to see an Israel that can survive as a state in the long run.

11WH
I urge the Government in the strongest possible fashion to accept that the road map must not simply be a process; it must arrive at a destination that leaves the small part of the original state of Palestine—the 30 per cent. that is in the west bank and Gaza—as Palestinian, not dotted and balkanised by a mass of settlements. The message must be clear. There must be an end not just to suicide bombing but to Israeli army brutality or there will be no peace process. It will be not only the Palestinians who pay the price but the whole world.
10.14 am
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I, too, welcome the publication of the road map, and I do so for one essential reason. It is currently the only internationally backed initiative. That backing is the key. Let us consider what has happened in the past few years. Whenever apparent progress has been made in the middle east, it has happened only in the context of international involvement. We all recognise that a solution will be possible by direct negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians.
The other international issue that must be borne in mind is that the road map does not stand alone. It is a framework—a mechanism. It cannot override established international law and United Nations resolutions over many years that lay out clearly what the basis for the future of the region should be.
The road map rightly and understandably makes demands of both Israel and Palestine. When we look at progress towards negotiation we must bear it in mind that the two sides are not equally balanced. On the one side is the state of Israel and on the other the Palestinian people who have lived under occupation for many years. They are not two equal powers. Far too often the peace process is discussed as if what was happening, or might be happening was negotiation between two equal powers. That is a further reason why international involvement is crucial. There are omissions from the roadmap. The building of the security fences and the attempt thereby to appropriate land are missing. They had not been built when the road map was drawn up.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important signal that the Israeli Government could send now to demonstrate that they are serious about implementing all phases of the roadmap is to stop building the walls and associated fences immediately?
Mr. Gerrard: I could not agree more. That is a simple and important point. The Israeli Cabinet has said that it accepts the road map, but at the same time it has tried to attach a range of conditions to it. Settlements have been mentioned. The Israeli Cabinet says that it will not discuss settlements in Judea, Samaria or Gaza, excluding a settlement freeze and illegal outposts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, 10 illegal outposts will be removed. That is 10 that are not occupied out of 102. Let us remember that the definition of an illegal outpost that is being used by the Government of Israel is not the same as the definition of a settlement. En international law, every settlement on the west bank and in Gaza is illegal, not just the 102.
12WH
My hon. Friend spoke about the right of return of refugees. The Israeli Cabinet states that in both the introductory statements to the road map and the final settlement reference must be made to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the state of Israel. Again, the right of return of refugees has not been dreamt up in the road map: it is recognised clearly in international law. That right cannot just be written away, and if an attempt is made to do so, any solution will not work. We are talking not only about people in Gaza and in the west bank, but about people in the refugee camps in Jordan, Syria and especially Lebanon, where the conditions in the camps and the prospects for the people are probably worse than elsewhere.
If the aim is a viable Palestinian state—everyone says that that should be the aim—the obvious question is what constitutes a viable state. The only possible state that I can envisage in that region is a state that is based on the 1967 borders. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I visited refugee camps in the region two and half years ago, and every Palestinian to whom we spoke accepted that the 1967 borders provided the possibility for a viable state and that there could be no going back. However, a state will not be viable if it is made up of Bantustans and if settlements on the hilltops scattered in the west bank are still regarded as outside its control.
Although we are admittedly talking about a provisional Palestinian state with provisional borders and certain aspects of sovereignty, Israel has said that that state can have only police and internal security forces, and no authority to undertake any defence alliances. Israel will control the exit and entry of all persons and cargo, as well as the state's airspace and electromagnetic spectrum. That is not viable in the long term. Even in the short term, those demands will mean that anyone travelling from Amman to Jerusalem will go through Israeli checkpoints—Israeli soldiers and the Israeli army will be within that provisional state. I do not believe that that can last for very long if there is to be progress.
On the ownership of the road map, one of the Israeli Cabinet's reservations is for the monitoring mechanism to be under American management. That is not acceptable. The road map is not the property of the US—it is the property of the Quartet. Since that means that the United Nations is involved, the road map is the property of the international community. The Israeli Government cannot unilaterally allocate monitoring to one state. That is unacceptable, and we ought to say so now.
There is an opportunity that needs to be pursued. I very much welcome the fact that President Bush is today meeting both the Prime Minister of Israel and Abu Mazen. That needs to continue, because if the process fails, the situation could be catastrophic and there could be long-term problems in the area. However, I shall finish where I started by saying that our Government and the international community must take on the responsibility of ensuring that the road map is pursued, that negotiations are supported and encouraged and that, where necessary, pressure is put on either side to ensure that those negotiations develop.
10.24 am
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on his exquisite timing in securing the debate, with the Sharm el Sheikh summit in effect under way and with the active intervention of President Bush.
I share the perspective of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on the issue. In a passionate speech, my hon. Friend made it clear why hundreds of millions of our fellow citizens on this planet, particularly those from the Islamic community, feel so passionately about the issue. That cause has to be addressed in terms of future global stability, let alone righting what many people in the United Kingdom now believe is a wrong. Over the past two or three decades, public opinion in the UK has moved from seeing the little assailed state of Israel trying to defend itself against what appear to be stronger armies and countries surrounding it. Israel has established its own security, so now people do not see the justice of this affair in that small state heroically trying to protect itself, given the appalling history of oppression that the Jewish people have suffered. They see that oppression now being meted out to the Palestinians by the Israelis in turn.
Last year, I saw Israeli security policy for myself on a visit to Israel and the occupied territories. My conclusion is that it is not only cruel, but wholly counter-productive. In a sense, one now sees Israel as boxed into a corner. Talking to Israelis out there, I was made aware that they see no way out, except through an extreme and tough security policy, which has almost no policy objective other than defending the immediate interests of their people by defending them as best they can against the threat of suicide bombers. Of course, the consequence of that policy is simply to breed more suicide bombers, not only among the Palestinian population, but among Islamic radicals, who join the Palestinian cause in a wholly unwelcome way.
I saw what are perhaps the more cynical parts of Israeli policy. The Palestinian Authority was expected to detain the people whom the Israelis identified as terrorists. The authority did detain a terrorist identified by the Israelis. He was put into prison in Nablus, under the control of the authority. Then, on the basis of information received and having identified the cell that they believed he was in, the Israelis sent a fighter-bomber to attack the prison and to attempt to kill the prisoner inside the jail.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blunt: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because I have only three minutes.
The prisoner crawled wounded out of the wreckage, but what does one say to the families of the prison officers who are dead as a result of that Israeli policy? One saw the action of the Israeli Government systematically destroy the effectiveness of the Palestinian Authority as an act of policy. Then it becomes wholly unreasonable for the Israelis to turn round and ask, "Why is the Palestinian Authority incapable of acting against the terrorists among its own population?"
14WH
However, it is important for those of us who see the injustice being meted out to the Palestinians to rotate the chessboard and to see it from the point of view of the Israeli population. I see the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) here, who represents a significant proportion of the Jewish population in the UK. In the short time remaining to me, let me say that it is crucial that we understand the perspective not only of the Jewish people living in Israel, but of the Jewish diaspora.
We accept that the role of the British Government will be to support the road map and to do all they can to bring about a settlement, but there is one community in our country that has a very important role to play in recognising the injustice that is being done to the Palestinians and in understanding that this is a historic moment—the Jewish community. The Jewish community in the United States is even more important in that respect.
It is an historic moment, when compromise is available. If anyone can deliver a solution to the settlement issue, it is surely a Prime Minister who is seen as a champion of the settlers. If anyone can face up to the need for a historic compromise and return to boundaries giving the Palestinians 22 per cent. of the land of the original Palestine to establish their state, it is Prime Minister Sharon, with the reputation that he has built, rightly or wrongly, in his past 50 years of involvement in Israel's army and politics.
Considering that, I hope that the Jewish community in the United Kingdom will support the voices of moderation and those seeking compromise in the Jewish community in Israel. I hope that the hon. Member for Hendon, who will not be able to speak today, and other hon. Members who represent significant numbers of Jewish people will focus on the fact that it is not only ordinary British and other citizens who want a solution based on justice. The self-interest of Israel and Jewish people around the world, and the security interests of us all, are now tied up in the historic opportunity of taking the road map to a successful conclusion. We must wish it well.
10.30 am
Mr. Michael Moore: This has been a typically passionate debate on an important subject and I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). He asked some important questions. to which I hope the Minister will turn his attention in a few minutes.
There were other important contributions. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) spoke about the scepticism that had greeted the slow progress on the road map and the reality of the past few days. He highlighted the humanitarian plight of many caught up in the conflict and, importantly, the personal tragedy that touches the lives of people even here in Britain. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made a strong contribution, describing the terrible fracture that the conflict represents through the whole of the world and the dangers that failing to resolve it will create for us and any hope that we have for a wider middle east peace settlement.
The significance of today's debate is not lost on any of us here, safely ensconced in Westminster Hall. It is lost even less so on the people whose daily lives are blighted

15WH
by the threat of violence and death. Since September 2000, there have been 3,000 deaths, which is just one ugly snapshot of the human misery and destruction that has characterised the conflict in Israel and Palestine for many decades. We all recognise that there will be huge benefits for the wider region and world as a whole if a peaceful outcome is achieved under the auspices of the roadmap, but we must never lose sight of the fact that, first and foremost, it is the Israelis and Palestinians who have the most to gain or to lose.
Summits in Egypt and Jordan are the latest in a long history of attempts by external parties to help to find a peace solution. Their significance is that they demonstrate a renewed and welcome commitment by the United States to push the parties along the road.
There has been great frustration about the delay in the publication of the road map and concerns that the timetable is already slipping. In phase one, which was due to be completed by the end of May—we are already past that deadline—we were supposed to see the ending of terror and violence, the normalising of Palestinian life and the building up of proper institutions. In a couple of years, we are hoping for an agreement that will ensure a permanent status for both Israel and Palestine and the end of the conflict itself. The timetable is ambitious to say the least and, as I have noted, it is already slipping.
The onus is on all sides to establish as a starting point the basic features of a peace process, which are set out at the beginning of the road map. For the Palestinians, that means reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security and an immediate and unconditional end to violence against Israelis everywhere. For Israel, it means that it must affirm its commitment to a two-state solution and an independent viable sovereign Palestinian state, and end all violence against Palestinians wherever it occurs. Without those basic steps, nothing else can be achieved. The summit in Jordan must surely be the key to making that start. Above all, the steps must be taken together. One side must not watch while the other takes the first step.
There are concerns that the commitment of the parties is not as wholehearted as we might hope. Certainly, the Israelis have endorsed the road map and the Cabinet statement of 25 May, which is welcome and important for the process. At the same time, however, they have listed 14 different reservations, some of which are hugely significant. If all of them were taken on board, they would substantially alter the roadmap as it exists at present. The Palestinians and the wider Arab world watch the response to those Israeli reservations with some concern.
Mr. Frank Cook: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Would he join me in paying tribute to the substantial portion of the Israeli population that has disagreed vehemently and passionately with the stance that the Israeli Government have adopted and is as anxious to see a peaceful solution as anyone else in the world?
Mr. Moore: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution. He is right to highlight the fact that there is substantial hope in Israel that progress with the road map can be made.
16WH
I hope that the Minister highlights what he believes are the important steps in the process and confirms the status of the road map. In June last year, President Bush signalled the beginning of his personal involvement in the middle east peace process when he said:
"This moment is both an opportunity and a test for all the parties in the Middle East: an opportunity to lay the foundations for future peace; a test to show who is serious about peace and who is not. The choice here is stark and simple … The time has arrived for everyone in this conflict to choose peace, and hope and life."
That moment may soon pass.
The summit taking place today and tomorrow is the latest in a long list of initiatives designed to create conditions for peace and security for the Palestinians and Israelis. We must hope that the declarations at the end will not become another sad, irrelevant footnote in this dreadful conflict. To avoid that, both sides must honour their commitments to and support for the road map. The members of the Quartet must hold each side, and each other, to those commitments. The bloody status quo should not be an option, but for too long it has been the only reality known by Israelis and Palestinians alike. Sustained and constructive engagement by all the parties is now more important than ever.
10.38 am
Mr. Alan Duncan: I welcome the debate and thank the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for securing time for it.
The road map's recent publication must stand as potentially one of the most important developments in the politics of the near middle east and of the wider region that we have seen for 50 years, and I took slight issue with the hon. Gentleman when he said that its origins are not auspicious. The road map is on paper and has been designed collectively by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. It contains a detailed schedule towards a defined objective of a Palestinian state, which is a first. What is more, it engages the United States from beginning to end—so often in the past, it has gone in and out and any process has been interrupted—and it does so across the timetable of a presidential election. That, too, is a first. This is all happening at a time when the domestic popularity of the President is uniquely based on his foreign policy actions in that very region, which is another first. When all those factors are taken together, the provenance of the document and the process it defines give grounds for optimism, not pessimism. That opportunity must not be squandered.
The Israeli-Palestinian dispute has proved not only to be one of the most intractable international conflicts, but has demonstrated its capacity to bedevil international relations with the entire region, to which it still remains the main geopolitical backdrop. It colours the attitudes of many Muslims to the west. America, in particular, is perceived as having a one-sided policy.
A settlement of the dispute would bring immediate benefits to both sides. In the long term, it would see Israel safe and secure within her borders and living peacefully alongside a viable, independent Palestinian state, thus fulfilling the aspirations of millions of Palestinians who feel humiliated and stateless. The key components to any agreement have existed in the past.

17WH
They were tantalisingly close at Taba, and the negotiations there and at Camp David, although not perfect, showed that agreement on the four main components—the Palestinian right of return, the settlements, borders and Jerusalem—was possible.
The goal of the road map, over its three stages, is the creation of a viable independent Palestinian state, with roughly the same borders as the ones that existed in 1967, and an Israel recognised and unreservedly accepted by its neighbours and free from the horrors of terrorist attack. The creation of such a Palestinian state is probably the best means by which Israel can enhance her security in the long term.
The road map also refers to the need for a comprehensive settlement between Israel and all her neighbours. Settlements with Syria and Lebanon are vital components of the eventual solution. Anyone who says that neighbouring Arab states will never recognise Israel are simply wrong: in the right circumstances, there is a clear collective willingness to do so.
We have, of course, been here before. The road map is no magical talisman, but previous talks have also shown how close the two parties can become. The key is to get the two sides talking. The road map contains a time scale, although, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, we must be realistic—the peace process will move at its own pace. We must also be wary of tying the process to rigid dates, which the road map document recognises when it states that the process can move faster or slower than envisaged depending on how quickly the two parties fulfil their obligations at each stage.
Early this year, the appointment of Abu Mazen as Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and the formation of a Cabinet were very positive developments. Despite the horrific bombings and the loss of innocent lives on both sides, I believe that both Abu Mazen and Prime Minister Sharon are now determined to make the peach process work. Their groundbreaking talks last week, which I believe lasted for more than two and a half hours, showed that they were both willing to talk and to engage. They also produced positive results. Abu Mazen made the all-important commitment to improve security and to prevent future bombings. According to press reports, he is working towards ceasefire agreements with all the organisations that have carried out attacks in Israel and on Israelis. Although Hamas appears unwilling to co-operate at this stage, I am confident that Abu Mazen will make every effort to secure agreement and that neighbouring countries that have supported such organisations will lend their weight to a process that gives Israel security.
Equally, I welcome Mr. Sharon's release of several Palestinians from prison and the easing of restrictions on the movements of Palestinians, enabling a large number of them to return to their jobs on the Israeli side of the border. Those are small but important first steps, without which the road map process would not get under way.
I also welcome Mr. Sharon's openness and political courage in pushing acceptance of the road map through his Cabinet and in referring openly to the west bank as occupied. He has also said that he is prepared to give up settlements as part of a deal. Those illegal settlements in another people's country are a source of constant dismay, and their eventual abandonment is essential.
18WH
In passing, it is worth remembering that it was Ariel Sharon who removed the settlers from Yamit in Sinai to return it to Egypt as part of the peace settlement then, which is often forgotten. I am not saying for a moment that Mr. Sharon's past is faultless, but he demonstrated a willingness to make a concession for peace then, which might be a hopeful pointer to what will happen now. Let us put his determination to secure peace and his willingness to make concessions to the test. He knows, as we all do, that the world is watching and hoping.
Reciprocity is at the heart of the road map and is vital to its success. The central tenet of the document is that both sides have obligations and must meet them in parallel. Attempts by either side to corrupt or alter that central principle should be resisted because they would undermine the basis on which the Quartet structured the road map.
Quite apart from the obvious benefits, Israelis and Palestinians stand to benefit in other ways from the peace dividend. Economically and socially, they are tied to each other in many tangible and intangible ways. Their futures and prospects are largely interdependent. The Palestinians have much to gain from a settlement with Israel, including the economic benefits of jobs in Israel, technological assistance in "making the desert bloom", the day-to-day fostering of trade links and the ability to travel freely to see relatives on the other side of the border.
Anyone in either country would prefer peace, a normal life and hope for their family to constant conflict and employment in the army rather than in a normal job. Above all, a just and balanced peace settlement for Palestinians and Israelis alike will give their children a future—one that is not dominated by violence, but in which they can grow up learning skills that will enable them to provide for their families, improve their lot and develop their country.
We all recognise that the reinvigorated middle east peace process must be accompanied by sustained and balanced American interest and encouragement to both sides if it is to be a success. Without the application of American political interest, no peace process will be seen through from beginning to end. American support and, on occasion, pressure, coupled with the realities of America's power and its ability to act as a guarantor of any settlement, are vital to success. Indeed, President Bush's speech on 24 June and his promise to see things through helped to kick off the current peace process. The forthcoming summit in Aqaba between Mr. Bush, Mr. Sharon and Abu Mazen will be a very public demonstration of that commitment.
It may be important for America to take the international lead in supporting the peace process, but there is also an important role for the British Government. We have a unique understanding of and standing in the region. I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure us that his interest and that of his colleagues in the issue, and the Prime Minister's determination, which I applaud, mean that the UK will continue to assist the process.
We are all united today in our desire for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and the vast majority of them are united in the same cause. To quote loosely something said by, I think, Shimon Peres, we now have the road map, but what we need is a vehicle. In the desire

19WH
for peace and the willingness to talk demonstrated by Ariel Sharon and Abu Mazen in the past few weeks, we now have that vehicle, and I look forward to steady progress towards a lasting peace. It is my genuine belief that the vast majority of Israelis and Arabs want peace to replace conflict, harmony to replace hatred, and hope to replace despair. The process could achieve that, and I hope that it does.
10.48 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing this important and timely debate. It is significant that interest in the issue and, indeed, well-informed opinion about it stretch right across the House. I am also struck by the fact that there is near unanimity about its importance and about how we should resolve it together.
In the short time available, let me respond to some of the points that have been made. It is undoubtedly true that the cycle of violence between Israelis and Palestinians has claimed more than 2,500 Palestinian and 750 Israeli lives since the start of the intifada just two and a half years ago. That must be brought to an end. We condemn the suicide bombings and the deliberate targeting of civilians. Terrorism is inexcusable in any circumstances. The Palestinians' legitimate national aspirations will not be helped or secured through the use of violence. Indeed, worldwide support for their cause is undermined and weakened by the suicide bombings. Such practices can only make the peace process more difficult to achieve. We call on the Palestinian Authority to do everything it can to stop further attacks.
Israel, like all states, has the right to ensure the security of its citizens. However, we remain deeply concerned about certain actions taken by Israel in the occupied territories, which have undoubtedly resulted in civilian casualties and the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and farmland. The humanitarian situation, which is a concern for all hon. Members, continues to deteriorate. Such hardship serves only to fuel hatred and violence, making a comprehensive settlement more difficult to achieve.
It is against that background of violence and despair that a political solution must be found. A solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an important precondition for long-term peace in the middle east. It is in the interests of everyone—certainly of the UK—that the violence cease and we see movement towards a final settlement. A negotiated settlement in the dispute between Israel, the Palestinians and her neighbours is long overdue. However, I share the view of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan): there are grounds for cautious optimism.
The outline of a just, lasting settlement based on UN Security Council resolutions is clear: a viable state for the Palestinians and security for Israel within recognised borders. Israel and Palestine alike deserve to enjoy security from attack and the freedom to run their own lives. The Quartet road map clearly sets out the steps to achieve that: a three-stage process with a clear
20WH
indication of time scales moving towards an eventual settlement in 2005. It is true that the road map talks about the pace being faster or slower, depending on progress, but we regard that time scale objective as important and we will urge all parties to adhere to it.
This Government and this country have played a central role in pressing for the publication of the road map and the Prime Minister has stated his personal commitment to working for its implementation. We welcome both parties' acceptance of the road map and the recent meetings between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas are a positive step towards renewed dialogue. Various hon. Members have commented on that. The immediate obligations on the parties are clear. Israel should withdraw its forces from Palestinian-controlled areas and it should ease curfews and closures. Settlement activity is undoubtedly an obstacle to peace. That has to stop. Similarly, the Palestinians must continue to promote reform. They must take action to prevent terrorist attacks. The Palestinians can achieve their legitimate aspirations only through peaceful means.
Andrew George: Surely the Minister must accept that Israel will hold the process to ransom. I fear that that will happen. Who will interpret what is sufficient in constraining suicide bombings? The Israelis may demand an absolute end to suicide bombings. Mahmoud Abbas cannot be omnipresent in constraining the frustration and hopelessness of individual Palestinians. There is not only that reason, but the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). Does the Minister not share the sense of frustration, and the concern that the process will be held up?
Mr. Rammell: We have to encourage progress and reform on both sides, and we call for an absolute end to the suicide bombings. A complete cessation of suicide bombings cannot be a precondition for the Israeli Government engaging with the process. We are saying that very clearly, and we will continue to do so.
The hon. Member for St. Ives talked about the cynicism around the timing of the publication of the road map. I wholly reject the implication that the timing was related to the conflict in Iraq. That assertion is not consistent with the actions and activities of this Government and our Prime Minister, who have been pressing for months and months to get the road map published. I know we live in cynical times, but it is important to put that issue into context.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the time scale and the impact of the United States elections next year. It is important to point out that President Bush is the first American President unequivocally to call for a two-state solution. The proof is in the pudding, and we need to see how that process is taken forward. The indications of his personal commitment on the issue are strong and developing. Undoubtedly, within any election campaign there will be pressures and forces in the opposite direction, which is why it is doubly important that we remain engaged with the United States on the process and seek to move that issue forward.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the 14 concerns about the road map that the Israeli Government want to be addressed. The process has to start. If there are

21WH
concerns, they can be addressed as that process is under way. Undoubtedly, there should be further discussion of the road map, but there has to be that clear commitment to start the process. There are strong indications that that is what we have seen. He also asked whether the commitments should be undertaken in parallel or on a sequential basis. It is important that both sides recognise the need to move forward in parallel. It is simply not practical for one side to insist that the other fulfil a series of near impossible conditions before there can be any response. We are expressing that view strongly to both sides.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the UN Security Council resolutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) raised that concern, too. Our position is that the roadmap does not override those UN resolutions. UN Security Council resolution 1435 is key. It calls for Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian cities, for a meaningful ceasefire and for the Palestinian Authority to bring those responsible for terrorist attacks to justice, leading to the resumption of political negotiations. The UK Government played a key role in securing that resolution, and we will continue to push for its implementation.
The hon. Member for St. Ives raised the issue of the export of weapons to Israel. He rightly pointed out that Britain sells arms to Israel on the proviso that they are not used within the occupied territories. We continue to put forward that view. There was one breach in March 2002, which was reported to Parliament. We have not identified further breaches of Israeli assurances about the use of UK-supplied equipment in the occupied territories since then. On that occasion, we asked the Israeli Government for an explanation, and we made it clear that their assurances under our arms export control guidelines would no longer be sufficient to allow those arms sales.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the oil pipeline between Syria and Israel. We have seen nothing specific about such a pipeline. If he wishes to write to me about that, I will follow it up. He also raised the important concern about international aid. We are a significant contributor: we contributed £22 million in 2002 and another £22 million to the special emergency appeal for the west bank and the Gaza strip. We will continue to assess what is the most effective and practical way to bring forward our aid contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow raised the issue of refugees. We recognise the importance to Palestinians and Israelis of the right to return. Undoubtedly, a just resolution of the refugee issue must be agreed. consistent with UN General Assembly resolution 194, which calls for the right of return and compensation for Palestinian refugees. We believe that a solution to that issue can be agreed and implemented without threatening the existence of the Israeli state.
Finally, and briefly, on the tragic incidents recently in the Gaza strip, we are regularly in contact with the families of people who have been affected. We have called for a full and transparent military police inquiry. We continue to urge that way forward and have called on the Israeli authorities to review their procedures. We have as yet not received a response, although the Foreign Secretary recently raised—
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. Time is up.

Tree Management (Network Rail)
11 am
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I notice in The Guardian this morning that Torn Winsor, the rail regulator, describes Network Rail as "out of control". In opening this debate, I wholeheartedly agree with him—that is the reason that we are here this morning. In seeking this debate, I intend to highlight the problems that Network Rail is causing for my constituents and for people in many other parts of the country through its failure to develop and consult on a proper tree and land management policy.
Let me begin by quoting from Network Rail's environmental policy statement, which says:
"In all of our activities, we: minimise emissions and waste; act to reduce adverse impacts to the local community and environment; comply fully with our legal obligations; are sensitive to natural heritage features.
The railway has a positive environmental impact, too. Buildings and natural habitats under Network Rail's care contribute greatly to the local community and its surroundings. For example, the railway offers an important habitat for many plants and animals. Because access to the land is limited, the linesides offer an undisturbed refuge from urban sprawl."
Network Rail's community relations policy statement claims:
"We are committed to developing our relationships with the community and strive to be good neighbours across the areas in which we operate."
No one argues that leaves on the line have not been a problem for the railways in recent years—it probably rates with the wrong kind of snow as one of the most familiar excuses that I have heard about British railways in recent times. However, now Network Rail claims to have a solution. It plans to eradicate all vegetation within 15 ft of railway tracks. That will result in thousands of trees being cut down along some 1,000 miles of heavily wooded embankments, many of which are important wildlife sites. According to Network Rail's own consultants, it plans to destroy an area the size of the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire.
The programme of destruction is already under way. On 19 March this year Network Rail's contractors arrived in Welby road, Hall Green, in my constituency, at six in the morning and began to chainsaw trees without giving any prior notice to local residents or the city council. That was despite the fact that the embankment forms a significant part of the council's conservation strategy. The contractors refused to explain to local residents what was going on and ignored advice that they were demolishing habitats at the height of the nesting season.
The contractors went on to Scribers lane site, which is a site of importance for nature conservation. They drove an excavator the whole length of Scribers lane to Slade lane, apparently to erect new fencing. However, they failed to clear the old fencing, which is now cluttering the site; they failed also to make the usual provisions for the badgers that inhabit the area.
Not satisfied with that damage, the contractors turned their attention to Hall Green's millennium woodland, which was developed at a cost of more than £11,000. In the course of that orgy of destruction, they

23WH
exposed badger setts, felled trees near Trittiford pool—a bat roosting site—and even managed to fell trees that were part of the "sponsor a tree for a railway station" campaign run by their predecessors Railtrack. Those trees were not even on the embankment—and they were evergreen conifers, not the most likely source of leaves on the line.
To date, Network Rail has failed to produce an environmental impact assessment of the work; perhaps the Minister will confirm it, but I understand that to be a legal requirement. After consultations with English Nature and the naturalist David Bellamy, Network Rail promised that it would not damage habitats and would concentrate on trees in high-risk areas only. It promised that it would concentrate on sycamore, ash and birch, as their particularly large leaves pose a specific problem, but its contractors are operating a scorched earth policy, which is leaving track sides desolate. It is absolute butchery.
Vegetation has been removed with chainsaws; and specially adapted rolling stock, with mounted flails, has been used to cut through huge swathes of land. Martin Buckland, head of vegetation, ecology and wildlife at the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, which advises Network Rail, said that many areas had been devastated. He said:
"They do not always go about doing it in the best way. There have been some examples of good practice but in some areas you would want to throttle them because they are just butchers."
That campaign of obliteration is not confined to my constituency. There are plans to extend it throughout Birmingham. Network Rail has also been up to mischief at Wigston near Leicester—again on a nature conservation site—and at Didsbury in Manchester, Wolvercote near Oxford, Colwall station near Malvern, and at Telford, Wrekin and a host of other areas, many of which my hon. Friends will no doubt wish to draw to the House's attention. Network Rail's justification is that it is a safety precaution.
I checked the number of accidents caused by leaves on the Stratford line between Earlswood and Tyseley in my constituency, where Network Rail has done so much damage. In a parliamentary written answer, I was advised that since records began 13 years ago, there has not been one incident involving leaves on the line. Network Rail claims that trees and bushes can obscure signals. I agree; but it happens also on the highway, which is why most local authorities and the Highways Agency have a policy of management, conservation and pruning. They do not destroy entire areas of woodland. In Hall Green, my constituents tell me that the only time when they saw leaves on the line was when an operative clearing the platform with his leaf blower blew them all back on to the track.
Network Rail says that land slippage can be caused by unstable embankments, but over-zealous tree clearing creates that very problem. It says that it is worried about vandalism, but huge logs and tree trunks were precariously poised at the top of the embankment at Hall Green, perfectly placed for vandals to roll them on to the track. One of its greatest disservices to my constituents was completely to expose the rear of their homes, thus directly contributing to a rise in house burglaries in the area. The contractors left behind
24WH
brushwood, which is a fire risk; they failed to inform the environmental health agency, despite a known rat problem in the area; and they did not even observe the basic health and safety requirements when using pedestrian footpaths in a residential area.
There appears to be evidence of a change of policy in the land management approach of Network Rail. Its new policy is to reduce all trackside habitats to ground level to minimise the cost of work in future years. Safety is not the real issue in Network Rail's tree felling policy. The core of the matter is money. Interestingly, the bonuses of Network Rail's directors are linked to delay statistics, so it might be reasonable to infer that money is a significant motivator.
Network Rail was supposed to be the friendlier, not-for-profit successor to Railtrack. For a company that has received such an intensely hostile press for years and has promised a fresh start to act with such arrogance and contempt for its neighbours and the wildlife that it supports is utterly incomprehensible. I wrote to the head of public affairs at Network Rail asking him to meet me and other Members of the House to discuss the problem. I have had no reply. I was not that surprised, as my constituent, Mr. David Hardy, wrote to John Armitt at Network Rail and, strangely enough, also received no reply.
Network Rail is a private company and says, quite rightly, that the embankments are its land and it can do with them as it sees fit. However, Network Rail is funded by the Government and therefore by the taxpayer, and those valuable embankments and lineside wildlife sites belong to all of us. In future, Network Rail should consult both local residents and organisations such as English Nature and local wildlife trusts before any further work is undertaken. Personally, I would prefer that consultation to be a statutory obligation, but at the very least I hope that the Minister hears what has been said today. We should also publish and implement a strategic approach to protect the national wildlife assets that Network Rail owns. It could be similar to the approach taken by the Highways Agency. Network Rail must make clear its policy for both the short and the long term. We need to know what will happen where and when.
At present, it seems that few people have any power to rein in Network Rail. I have been advised that its actions may be in breach of article 10 of the European habitats directive—I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that—and if that is so English Nature would be in a perfect position to mount legal action against the company unless it shows a dramatic change of heart.
No one wants to compromise rail safety, but the simple fact is that Network Rail has not provided evidence that the policy it has embarked on is wholly related to rail safety. It has treated local people with utter contempt, and exposed their homes to the risk of burglary. It has produced an environmental policy and then completely turned it on its head by destroying wildlife habitats without any regard for the views of others. It has acted in the high-handed, arrogant fashion that we had come to associate with its predecessor, Railtrack. My purpose in securing this debate is to expose what Network Rail is doing and to ask it to see sense before it causes any further damage.
11.14 am
Valerie Davey: I am delighted to take part in this debate on behalf of my constituents, who have been appalled by the situation and the way in which they have been treated.
The matter was first brought to my attention by a constituent in St. Werburghs, an area of Bristol in which people are particularly ecologically sensitive. There are allotments at the bottom of the first embankment, which was completely devastated. There is a city farm nearby, and a narrow ways strip, which, as one colleague here will remember from Avon county council days, we saved as a nature reserve. In that setting, all the trees and vegetation on a steep embankment that slopes away from the railway line were removed. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that constituents asked me what on earth was going on.
Mr. Don Foster: Can the hon. Lady confirm that when she viewed the bank to which she referred, which, as she said, slopes away from the railway line, she could see no justification for the argument that treating it in that way would prevent leaves on the line? Knowing that area as I do, 1 believe that such a justification could not be made.
Valerie Davey: I agree entirely. When I raised the issue with Network Rail, I was given a long and convoluted explanation about the existence of a suction element, which draws the leaves up the bank and on to the railway line. However, the same treatment was given to banks further along in the Montpelier area, which slope down to the line. I could not work out why the same treatment should be given to those two different types of embankment.
I wrote to Network Rail, and received a reply, which illustrates the illogicality of its approach to environmental issues. I was first told:
"At this site there has been a significant problem"—
I shall return to the significance of the problem in a moment—
"with leaves affecting the train braking system during the traditional Autumn leaf fall period."
The letter then discusses the "need to discourage re-growth." However, two paragraphs further down in the same letter, it is stated that
"non-native species such as Sycamore"
are a problem, and need to be destroyed because they do not allow the
"re-growth of indigenous plants and shrubs."
Therefore, on one hand it is said that there is a significant problem, and on the other, that the problem relates specifically to sycamores, because they do not allow the growth of indigenous species.
One of a group of constituents from the St. Werburghs area immediately looked at Network Rail's website, and read its explanation of its environmental policy. It says—or rather, said—that
"the company in all cases will make every attempt to conserve wild plants and animals and their habitats. If any work or development of Network Rail land would cause disturbance to wildlife, every effort is made to…minimise the disturbance"
and
26WH
"we aim to be sensitive in our management of natural and heritage features, taking into consideration the views of all those with an interest in our activities and working with them where appropriate."
Interestingly enough, that policy statement was removed from the website within a week.
Local people were dismayed by the lack of consultation and decided that they needed to take action. On 12 March, local people in St. Werburghs, as it says in their newsletter, were
"fed up with being fobbed off and having their intelligence insulted by Network Rail's inane justifications, so over 40 gathered in the early morning and dissuaded the chainsaw wielding contractors from continuing with their … felling."
I contacted the lady who co-ordinates the group yesterday, and she said that the work has not continued, so we are in an impasse on that site. However, I know from colleagues in Bristol that work has continued in the St. Annes area, where debris and logs caused a fire that meant two hours' work for the fire brigade, smoke on the line and long delays to trains.
The two ideas of environment and safety appear to be in conflict, but hon. Members will see no reason for that. In this situation, the safety aspect has been infringed, as brambles and undergrowth have gone, allowing more children access to the railway lines, which we want to keep them off. With good consultation, especially with people who know the St. Werburghs area and recognise the need to take down certain trees, those conflicting aspects could have been resolved.
I urge the Government to use their influence to make it clear that a national policy for Network Rail is implemented, that local people are drawn into the conversation so that their experience of their area is brought to bear and that, as a result, we have a railway that is both safe and environmentally friendly, particularly in our cities where we need the greenery and want to conserve wildlife.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) thinks that Network Rail's interest in delay statistics may have something to do with directors' pay, and if he is right, such delays must be a significant problem on my line, requiring immediate action. One would think that it was a main line, not the Severn Beach line carrying 16 trains a day—eight in each direction. One part of me is delighted that Network Rail has so much concern for the people and those trains, but we have no evidence of delays resulting from leaf mould. Instead, we have a difficulty in getting more trains, despite the need to expand the line and dual rail it, to ensure more commuters.
The situation has been rather like a traditional bereavement or sudden loss in a community. There was initial stunned disbelief and then guilt—had the people not done enough? We learned that Bristol city council had been contacted about the question of planning, but that the people were told simply that the land belonged to Network Rail and that it was a safety issue. It could do as it liked. Following that came the anger and now the determination to do something, and the one piece of good news is that the group in St. Werburghs have introduced proposals for replanting that area. In telephone conversations, Network Rail has given no definitive statements that it will look favourably on that, but it assures me that it will at least consider the

27WH
proposals for replanting in that area. I look forward to a positive and continuous dialogue with Network Rail to get some replanting.
The final outcome of any disaster is to ensure that it does not happen to other people, and we are here this morning to prevent the devastation of wildlife in cities and rural areas throughout our beautiful country as a result of some inane, misguided and short-sighted Network Rail policy that will do neither it nor anyone else any final good.
11.23 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I apologise for missing the first few minutes of the debate, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing it. Although rail punctuality, cost and safety are normally at the centre of attention, the environmental dimension is important, and it causes many of our constituents a lot of grief. In a way, I was relieved to find out about this debate, because I have been grappling for the best part of a year with the problems that the hon. Gentleman described. It is almost gratifying to discover that these things are happening throughout the country as it gives us a platform from which to try to do something about it. The consequences of two such incidents rumble on to this day.
The first was on a major branch line through one of the most densely populated parts of my constituency in the area behind Hampton Wick station. The details of what happened are almost exactly as the hon. Gentleman described. Last summer, Network Rail took away the tree covering along the side of the track and behind the station, which destroyed the local environment and created a perfect platform from which local teenagers could hurl stones and bricks at people's windows. It created a focus for local crime and has become a major environmental eyesore. We had some short-term success in shaming the rail companies into doing something about it. Network Rail accepted that it had made a mistake; there was a lot of publicity and a public meeting was held. One complication, however, as stations were involved, was that there were difficulties because of the fragmentation of the rail system.
The issue is who was responsible at the end of the day—Network Rail or the train operator. In this case, the train operator, South West Trains, assumed responsibility for solving the problem, although it had not caused it. Ever since, attempts have been made to get it to implement the results of that agreement. A few saplings were planted, which in 20 years may remedy some of the damage that was caused, and last summer the company felt able to finance a street party for the jubilee. We are still waiting for the fence that was promised to replace the trees that were destroyed. There will be a public meeting next week to force the company to take on the matter. A year later, the damage, the public anger and the sense of frustration remain.
A few weeks after the first incident, there was a similar episode in another part of my constituency—Hampton Hill—which followed the course of events that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) described. Local residents were alerted to the fact that the
28WH
chainsaws were out and an enormous area was being cleared of vegetation many yards from the track, far removed from anything that could conceivably have affected the operation of the railway. Nesting birds were being disturbed, and there was complete indifference to the effect on a very attractive area. I am lucky to have many environmentally aware people in my constituency, and fortunately there was rapid mobilisation: the press were brought to the scene and lawyers were wheeled out to draw attention to the fallacies in the Network Rail operator's brief. The clearance was stopped after about 30 to 40 yd. The operation has now been suspended, although what will happen eventually I do not know.
Such episodes are happening throughout the country, and I draw three conclusions from them. First, Network Rail shows a complete absence of environmental sensitivity. Most big utilities have an environment policy, but Network Rail seems not to—it is host to the main concentration of graffiti and shows not the slightest inclination to clean it up—which suggests a lack of environmental awareness or any feeling of obligation to maintain decent environmental standards.
Secondly, as hon. Members have said, there is a complete absence of public consultation by Network Rail. It reacts to protest rather than consulting in advance. There is no mechanism for involving local communities in decisions that affect them. Thirdly, there are the difficulties that arise as a result of the fragmentation of the ownership structure, and the poor relationships between Network Rail and its contractors and between Network Rail and the train operators. There is a lack of co-ordination, and difficulties are involved in their reaching agreement, which particularly affects the station environment. I should be interested to know whether the Minister has any power to intervene to alleviate the problem.
11.29 am
Ms Bridget Prentice: There is not much more that I can acid to the points raised by my colleagues, except to highlight what has happened in my constituency. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) for securing such a timely debate. I first came across the problem in April, when constituents wrote to me about what was happening on the track between Lee station and Hither Green station, which I use each day. They had seen the most appalling vandalism—it cannot be called anything other than that—as tree after tree was cut down in a relatively small area.
None of us would want to compromise safety on the railway. We all know of the tragedies that have occurred as a result of unsafe methods. We absolutely endorse the role of Network Rail in making our railways safe. However, that does not mean that it should completely ignore what is happening. Network Rail's actions are devastating the area around the railway, and I am not convinced that its methods are making our railways safer.
My constituents received a letter from Network Rail on 10 April in which it outlined its intentions and described its forthcoming action as "lineside vegetation management". The letter referred to a contract that would last three weeks and said that the work would

29WH
commence on 1 April. Had my constituents received such a letter on 1 April, they might have thought of it as an April fool's joke. However, they received it 10 days after the work had started, halfway through the contract period, by which time they had seen the utter horror at the back of their houses.
My constituents contacted me, as did Network Rail. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, such people are articulate. They put together a forceful argument. As other hon. Members have said, if Network Rail responded at all, its response was slow. After I had contacted it, Network Rail called my office and asked why I was so worried. I explained in detail the matters that I wanted to raise with it, and it promised to fax a response immediately. Well, my machine is churning out faxes from many people, but not from Network Rail.
Few large companies in this country do not place some value on decent public relations. It is not difficult to do that, and most companies have members of staff who can communicate positively to residents. Informing residents that work would start after it had begun is one of the crassest examples of incompetence that I have come across for some time. My constituency is in an inner-London borough with the greatest length of railway corridor of any borough in London—it covers 86 hectares. It also has the largest number of important nature conservation sites of any London borough, so it is important that our natural environment is preserved and protected. Hundreds of thousands of people travel on those railway lines each day; surely it would be in Network Rail's interest to encourage them to enjoy the colour and spontaneity of wildlife alongside the tracks.
The Minister may wish to raise with Network Rail the publishing of information on the biodiversity in our inner cities. Network Rail wrote to me:
"We are careful only to prune…or cut down problem trees."
No one would disagree with that commendable position. However, Network Rail wrote to my constituents explaining that it could not get to the unhealthy trees without cutting down healthy trees. Then, after the work had started, it discovered that the fencing behind the properties needed to be replaced, so more healthy trees had to be cut down. That is why in the small area between Lee and Hither Green stations there are next to no trees left standing. One of our major problems is not simply the fact that Network Rail went in with its bulldozers and chainsaws on that occasion; it is that for years it—and Railtrack before it—clearly did nothing to manage and look after the railside environment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green raised the issue of impact assessments. When my constituents asked Network Rail if they could see the ecological surveys and risk assessments that it said had been done, it replied:
"The request to see ecological surveys…and risk assessments is one we must decline. These are confidential reports"
commissioned by Network Rail for internal use only. Why are those assessments not available to the general public, or at least to the local authority? Although we asked our local authority to get involved—it was keen to be supportive and help the residents of Southbrook road—its hands were tied, too. It had only been approached as a basic matter of courtesy by Network Rail in the process of getting on with this vandalism.
30WH
I know that this sounds like Members of Parliament whingeing about small, relatively unimportant issues, but they are not unimportant to the people whose houses back on to a railway line where there were once trees and wildlife, including foxes and nesting birds. Now they can see not 16 trains a day, but four trains an hour going in one direction and four in the other, to say nothing of the freight trains going through all the time. This is, ironically, a conservation area. There are not many conservation areas in Lewisham and here is one environment that has been devastated through no fault of the residents or the borough, but by an independent, arrogant, unthinking and non-listening organisation.
The value of the residents' houses has dropped considerably as a result of that action, although I know that that is not the main concern. People do not buy a house from which they can watch trains go by eight, 10 or 12 times an hour, whereas they would buy a house that had vegetation and so forth behind it—that makes a huge difference. I have to say that those houses are very beautiful. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether there is any possibility that Network Rail will compensate my constituents for the remarkable drop in the value of their property in the past couple of months. I know that at least one person needs to sell their house for reasons that I will not go into here.
I raised the issue of security with the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green is correct to express concern about crime. In my constituency the fear of crime, rather than actual crime, has risen considerably since Network Rail's action. I raised that with my local borough commander, who said that he, too, was very concerned about what had happened and particularly about the resulting fear of crime. He has sent his local beat manager to speak to the residents about their concerns. He also confirms that Network Rail did not contact the police when it started this exercise, but the local police have taken the initiative and spoken to Network Rail, which has been made aware of the concerns expressed by the residents.
As a result—this is one of the few positive things to come out of this horrific exercise—Network Rail now says that it will contact the police in cases where it believes that police input is needed. However, the fact that it must feel that police input is needed is the get-out clause; we need something stronger. I do not argue in favour of regulation for the sake of it, but there is a loose cannon here. Network Rail is not taking its responsibilities to its neighbours or others very seriously.
Can the Minister put pressure, in one form or another, on Network Rail to ensure that it takes into account the aesthetic and environmental impacts of its work? It should also inform people of its conclusions and the reasons for its decisions. I should like pressure to be exerted to ensure that Network Rail talks to the local police and the British Transport police about the impact of its work in the form of a rise in crime or at least in the fear of crime, and to ensure that the work is not disproportionate to the need to keep our railways safe. As I said, I should also like to know whether there is any possibility of compensation for those people who may need it as a result of that work.
I end on this note: although my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) says that Network Rail will now involve people in its replanting

31WH
programme, which is a good thing, very few people have great faith that it will carry that out. I hope that when Network Rail considers, as it has told us it will, what replanting is needed and what has grown in the meantime, it will not just rely on sycamores reseeding themselves and so on, but will plant appropriately, in consultation with the residents and the local authority, whose environmental studies seem considerably better than anything that Network Rail has produced so far.
11.42 am
Claire Ward: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing this important debate. Having listened to other hon. Members recounting experiences suffered by their constituents, I should feel comforted by the fact that Network Rail has not simply picked on my constituents, but I actually feel greater anger, incredulity and despair because Network Rail has continued its arrogant mismanagement in the face of protests from residents, community organisations and MPs up and down the country.
My constituents, too, have the misfortune to live close to land owned by Network Rail. I should like to focus on a couple of the areas in my constituency that have been affected by Network Rail's policy of environmental rape and pillage. I want to raise serious questions about the total lack of accountability and responsiveness of senior managers in Network Rail.
I first became aware of the problem at the beginning of the year, when I was contacted by a number of residents of Gypsy lane in Hunton Bridge, in the north of my constituency. I had dealings with those residents when they contacted me with concerns about an electricity substation that Railtrack was due to install close to their homes to allow for the upgrading of the west coast main line. The land bordering the track is a popular location for walkers. It is a beautiful area that contains many habitats for a variety of wildlife. The residents were deeply unhappy about the development, but they took some comfort from the fact that the substation would partly be screened by vegetation and trees and from the firm's assurances that the screening would be further enhanced.
Railtrack staff gave those assurances at a public meeting in my constituency last May. Foolishly, I and many other residents believed them. I was therefore extremely surprised to be contacted again in January by the same constituents who this time were concerned that Network Rail seemed to be intent on removing all the trees and vegetation in the area. I thought that they might be exaggerating a little, but again, in circumstances similar to those that hon. Members have described, I soon found that they were not. A stretch of some 400 m of track had been cleared of trees, leaving only stumps behind. Many of the trees that had been removed were nowhere near the track or the overhanging cables that power the trains. Some were as much as 25 m from the track.
No one would ever question the need to remove trees that cause a health and safety hazard, but no one with any common sense could believe that that was the case in these circumstances. I immediately contacted
32WH
Network Rail and received an assurance that it would get a tree expert to examine the remaining trees further along the track to check whether they really needed to be removed and to consider the company's position. I had to ask the manager at Network Rail to get his contractors to stop work while we talked, because I feared that they would continue to cut down the tress while we discussed the matter. There would have been little point in having any discussion if all the trees were gone by the end of it.
The firm also promised to contact local residents to tell them what was going on and to warn them of possible future works. Again, I foolishly accepted that reassurance. In early February, however, more trees were felled in the same area. No letters had been sent to local residents, and Network Rail has never produced evidence of any investigation by an arboriculturist. Residents had to approach the site office to receive any explanation for the work restarting. They were handed a letter stating that the company had an environmental policy and a licence for the work, and was going to get on with it.
I acknowledged that it was now too late to stop work in the area around Gypsy lane, but made further inquiries with Network Rail and spoke to its head of public affairs, Mike Watson. He sent me an e-mail in which he assured me:
"Further, the matter has been raised with the Zone Area Asset manager in Network Rail Midlands Zone, who is responsible for ensuring that this programme is delivered, in terms of notification with lineside residents and local authorities."
Mr. Watson continued by assuring me that that the zone area asset manager
"is determined that, across the zone, contractors will notify those affected prior to the start of works together with any relevant local authorities. You have my personal assurance that I have raised the matter of notification prior to programmed tree level at a national level."
Because of my past experiences with Network Rail and its predecessor, I am afraid that I took little reassurance from that e-mail. I was annoyed that Mr. Watson had only raised the issue of telling residents that the work was going to be done, and that he seemed unwilling even to consider that the entire programme was a waste of money that could have been better spent elsewhere.
It seems that I was right to be sceptical, because only a few weeks later, residents in another part of my constituency, Southfield avenue, contacted me. Their homes back on to a small branch line that links my constituency with St. Albans, but they were hardly aware of that because of the extensive foliage and the number of trees at the rear of their properties. That was, however, until Network Rail decided to remove the trees and the foliage and erect a large, ugly metal picket fence in their place. That gave residents a wonderful view of an industrial estate that had previously been screened from them, and views of the railway line and the trains. Once again, the first that people knew about the work was when they heard the chainsaws and saw the trees coming down. There was little evidence that the zone area asset manager for the midlands had paid much attention to the words of Network Rail's head of public affairs, because no resident had been consulted or sent a letter.

33WH
With that in mind, I contacted Network Rail's chief executive, John Armitt. I hoped that he would be interested to learn that his firm was spending vast sums on removing trees and foliage. Given that the company is funded from the public purse, I also hoped that he would be interested to hear from a Member of Parliament who was representing her constituents. He wrote back, saying that the work in Southfield avenue had been carried out to stop fly tipping on railway land. That is probably one of the worst excuses that I have ever heard, and I shall explain why.
The short stretch of rail that has been cleared of trees is bordered by two level crossings, which give easy access to the railway. They allow trains to cross a couple of main roads and give pedestrians access to two small stations. Anyone with a mind to do so has always been able to fly-tip on that bit of railway land. Putting some bits of fencing alongside the track will do nothing to solve the problem, because it will not alter the fact that it is easy to access the line from the two crossings, which cannot be closed off. Indeed, clearing many of the trees will only aid the fly tippers, because they will have more empty land on which to fly-tip.
Mr. Armitt appeared to acknowledge that in his response of 17 April:
"I would also mention that the area has been reinspected by our contractor who confirms that further extensive fly tipping is already taking place and that garden refuse and building materials have been found on Network Rail land. You will appreciate that we take this issue very seriously and I understand that local residents will be advised of any action to be taken."
Perhaps it would be helpful if I paraphrased Mr. Armitt's words. As I understand it, he was saying, "My firm has spent vast amounts clearing land to stop fly tipping, but we've just discovered that our solution has been a complete waste of time and money, because the fly tipping has got even worse." Let us not forget that the trees were supposedly cut down for health and safety reasons.
In any case, the reasons that Mr. Armitt gave me for the work contradict those mentioned in a letter from the firm to local residents. It referred to the need to ensure that line-side workers had a place of refuge when trains passed, that the sighting lines of trains were not obscured, that drivers could see signals and that there were no leaves on the line—that familiar old phrase.
I wrote back to Mr. Armitt on 24 April and told him what I thought of his response. I asked him to provide me with a copy of the detailed study that had been carried out before the work was done and which showed that it was necessary. I also wanted to see a copy of the contract that Network Rail had signed to authorise the work, because I wanted to be sure that the firm's contractors were not being over-zealous. Additionally, I asked for an assurance that the firm that drafted the study showing that the work needed to be carried out was not the same one that had been given the contract to do the work. I am sure that hon. Members will understand my suspicions and my reasons for asking such a question. Finally, as Watford is only 20 minutes from Network Rail's Euston headquarters, I offered to show Mr. Armitt round the site of the devastation caused by his firm. All that was done at the end of April, and I have not even had the courtesy of a holding response from Mr. Armitt—so much for Network Rail's public affairs management.
34WH
What really concerns me about my experiences with Network Rail is that I know from press reports and conversations with colleagues that the same thing is going on throughout the country, and it must be a massive drain on the resources that the Government are putting into the firm. No one wants rail safety to be jeopardised, and some trees close to a line may need to be removed. That is fine, but why does Network Rail believe that all the trees along the west coast main line will suddenly fall down and crush unsuspecting commuters? Those trees have been standing for decades, and in most places they have caused no harm. I am not aware of any tree being implicated in the tragic accidents that have befallen the railway industry during the past few years.
Without doubt, it is a massive undertaking to chop down a tree that has been standing for decades and to dig out the stump that is left behind. Contractors spend many weeks clearing vast areas of land along many hundreds of miles of railway. That is an enormous expense, and I cannot help but feel that the money would have been better spent on replacing rail or signalling facilities, which have been demonstrated to have caused accidents when faulty. I am concerned that the removal of vegetation and trees, especially alongside steep railway banks, could lead to a weakening of soil close to railway lines and cause landslides on to tracks. In common with other Members of Parliament, I have been assured that extensive replanting will take place—I am sure that that will be of great financial benefit to garden supply firms throughout the country—but would it not have been cheaper to spend the money on a programme of reinforcement and selective cutting instead?
Commuters in my constituency are already facing higher fares and not gaining vastly improved services. Is it too much for them to expect Network Rail to be a decent neighbour? They should not have to put up with the environmental butchery that is taking place and the arrogant mismanagement by Network Rail. It is time that we made it clear to the company that it should be accountable to the Government, to commuters and to the people who pay—the general taxpayers—for the continued running of the company. I hope that the Minister ensures that Network Rail hears that message loud and clear.
11.56
Mr. Don Foster: As has already been implied by several speakers, one of the advantages of these debates is that they reassure individual MPs that they are not alone. It is clear from what we have heard that the concerns of constituents in various constituencies are shared—for the record, many people in my constituency, too, have written to me about such problems. It is also important to have an opportunity to hear the strength of feeling that has been expressed by our constituents, not least because they feel that they have not been consulted in any way.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing the debate. He follows a growing tradition whereby in recent times hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), have raised concerns about various areas of Network Rail's behaviour. My hon. Friend has raised concerns about the way in which

35WH
Network Rail has been installing masts on the land, and the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the destruction of wildlife habitats at the side of lines.
Today's debate was given the title of "Tree Management (Network Rail)". Were we discussing tree management, I suspect that many hon. Members would not have great concerns. As has been said, we entirely accept that Network Rail has a duty to ensure that the lines are safe and to take action that will reduce the many delays that we currently experience. I entirely accept that Network Rail has common-law responsibilities in respect of trimming vegetation that overhangs the line, and statutory responsibilities to protect the line. The problem is that those powers are wide ranging, and it appears that the company can, more or less, do anything it likes subject to its being
"required in connection with…carriage by rail".
That gives the company wide-ranging powers. It is therefore important that opportunities exist to introduce checks and balances for activities that take place.
Sensible tree management is something that we would all support, for the reasons that I have given. Sadly, we are not debating sensible tree management, but something far worse: the scarring of landscape and the devastation of wildlife habitats.
Members of the public may be concerned simply about appearance, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that a number of experts have passed their professional judgment on what Network Rail has been doing. For instance, Mr. Martin Buckland, the head of vegetation, ecology and wildlife at the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, a body that advises Network Rail, said that its actions had resulted in many areas being devastated, and that those responsible were butchers.
The hon. Members for Birmingham, Hall Green, for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) gave us some horrific examples of Network Rail not following its clear and welcome environmental policy document. However, it goes far beyond that; we have also heard that Network Rail is clearly not prepared to live up to the standards that it set when it said that it aimed to be a good neighbour. We also heard of a number of examples of a clear lack of accountability.
Network Rail is meant to be a not-for-profit public interest company, yet it has so little regard for the public interest that it seeks to prevent the media from attending its annual general meeting; and we heard from several hon. Members that it does not even bother to reply to their letters. So much for accountability, and its willingness to be involved in consultation.
Because much of the work carried out by Network Rail was not based on a detailed environmental impact study, it has led to wholesale devastation. I was delighted to hear that a diligent policeman in Didsbury in Manchester took action under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which requires people not to disturb nesting birds; he was able to get the work stopped, and I congratulate him on that.
Sadly, however, the devastation has occurred; as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green said, it will cover a total of about 30 square miles, an area
36WH
equivalent to the Forest of Dean. As a result, areas of vegetation are being lost, and various species, including nesting birds and badgers, have been affected. However, it is being done in a way that will not solve the problem. At times, particularly when I hear phrases like zone area asset manager, I wonder whether it is not a case of too many leaves on the track but too many managers.
Crucially, Network Rail has started telling us that it is not doing any of the things that we have heard about today. Not yet mentioned is its document, "Tree management in your area", which states:
"Network Rail needs to carry out some essential tree cutting in your area."
Under the heading, "What about the environment?" the document states:
"Whilst our first priority is running a safe, reliable railway, we are also concerned about the environment. We know how important trees are as a 'green screen' and as a haven for wildlife, therefore we are careful only to prune or cut down problem trees."
As the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) pointed out, Network Rail has found all sorts of excuses, including cutting down other trees to gain access to the problem trees and to fences. In reality, it has adopted a scorched earth policy because it is cheaper and easier than selective pruning.
The document continues:
"Network Rail employs its own experts and environmental managers to assist our maintenance departments. We also consult conservation specialists to minimise the impact that tree work has on nesting birds and native wildlife. Before starting a tree felling programme, they will liase with your local authority to inform them of our plans and to discuss and resolve issues particular to your local environment."
That is what Network Rails tells us that it is doing and, frankly, if that were what it was doing, there would not have been any need for this debate.
Given that Network Rail is a not-for-profit, public interest company, the question for the Minister is how it is possible for the House to hold its actions to account when it is not doing as it promised. If we had sensible tree management to reduce delays and improve safety, there would be no problem. The problem, however, is that Network Rail is not sticking to what it said it would do. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will say how we can hold Network Rail to account for the clear commitments that it has given. It is crucial that consultation with residents and local authorities be improved. It is crucial that before any work is done a proper environmental impact study is carried out. It is crucial that before Network Rail carries out any of the work it has a clear understanding of why that method of solving the problem is necessary and not some of the other methods that we know are available.
How do I know that those other methods are available? Because in the very document to which I have referred, six or seven alternative approaches that can be adopted to solve the problem of leaves on the line are listed. The onus should therefore surely be on Network Rail to say why it cannot use any of those six or seven alternative methods and why it must take the tree-cutting approach first. There are other, better ways of protecting the environment and the wildlife habitat, of providing security and protection to individual residents and of improving our environment generally. I hope

37WH
that the Minister will therefore tell us how, in the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, we are going to rein in Network Rail.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): I call Her Majesty's Opposition spokesperson.
12.6 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: May I say what a pleasure it is to appear before you this morning, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I also take the opportunity to declare my interest in the railway industry: I am still a shareholder in Railtrack, FirstGroup and Eurotunnel. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing this debate, which is timely, and all hon. Members who have contributed to a heartfelt and lively discussion.
Network Rail's policy on tree management and public consultation raises a number of pertinent questions that may, I hope, form the basis of a study and the taking of evidence by the Select Committee on Transport. The talk used to be of leaves on the line, but times change and we are now talking of trees on the line and whether Network Rail has the right to cut them down and, if so, to what extent.
I am delighted to see the Minister in his place looking so well today—he has obviously benefited from the recess. Will he use his good offices to find a commonsense solution? Clearly the residents have the right to enjoy the environment in which they live and work. Trees form a part of that and provide a natural habitat for wildlife and birds, as a number of hon. Members have said. Equally, however, Network Rail has the right to go about its business in the provision and maintenance of the railway infrastructure and in running a safe and reliable railway.
Trees near the railway—and roads, for that matter—are desirable. They soak up noise and pollution and also look nice and provide screening for residents and habitats for birds and wildlife. However, the problem is not new. The document from Network Rail to which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) referred says:
"In the past, trees and bushes alongside the railway could be ignited by sparks from steam engines and were therefore a serious fire hazard."
At times trees can also become a liability. When deciduous trees shed their leaves they obviously become an obstacle to trains. As frequent rail passengers we know that every autumn, delays are blamed on leaves on the line. At worst—no one has picked this up in the debate—trees can threaten the railway line themselves. Just as they can jeopardise a house when their roots grow too long, they can sometimes buckle a line.
In such circumstances, surely the Minister would agree that it is right for Network Rail to undertake a tree-trimming or tree-cutting exercise or, in its words, "a vegetation management programme". In what other circumstances might that be justified? Obviously, removing vegetation from the side of the line could be justified to give train drivers clear views of signals. Railtrack was criticised in Lord Cullen's inquiry into Ladbroke Grove for not taking action to make the signals more visible. Eight separate driver overruns were reported at that signal.
38WH
Track workers must see and be seen by approaching trains. They must have a safe walking route alongside the track. Old or diseased trees may fall on the track, causing a danger to trains. As I mentioned earlier, leaves falling on the line create the railway's equivalent of "black ice", which hampers train braking, thereby causing delays as trains have to travel more slowly. Even the law recognises the problem. Exemptions to tree preservation orders are set out in section 198(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They apply where trees have become dangerous. I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with those. We would all accept that in those circumstances Network Rail would be justified in taking action.
I turn now to the matter that caused most concern this morning and which has enjoyed all-party support. I pay tribute not just to those who have spoken today, but to Bob Harvey, the Conservative councillor in Hall Green, who has supported the campaign most vigorously. The hon. Members for Watford (Claire Ward) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) both spoke about consultation. Obviously, if a document is submitted to local residents on 10 April but the tree-cutting programme started on 1 April in any one year, that is not adequate consultation.
Does the Minister agree that the proposed consultations are an improvement, and does he consider that they go far enough? Approximately 10 weeks in advance Network Rail will liaise with the local authority tree officer and other relevant bodies such as English Nature and the Countryside Agency. Approximately eight weeks before works start, Network Rail will write to all local councillors and MPs. Approximately four weeks before the works start, it will inform residents living nearby.
Valerie Davey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss McIntosh: Unfortunately, time does not permit. The hon. Lady had longer than those of us who are summing up. Would the Minister see fit to invite Network Rail to extend the consultation to parish councils? That would be a welcome development. I certainly understand the concerns and the real sense of frustration expressed this morning, but I recognise that Network Rail is adapting its programme.
I sound a note of caution and invite the Minister to assure us that the ultimate test will be safety. We cannot afford a rail accident in any circumstances caused by a tree destabilising an embankment and creating a mudslide or landslip and buckling the line, leading to a collision or derailment. None of us would want it on our conscience if cuts in the tree management programme lead to another rail disaster. Does the Minister agree that safety should be the ultimate test and that we should do everything we can to encourage the widest possible consultation, which should be extended to parish councils?
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to reflect on the plethora of bodies that have responsibility for rail safety. The website of the Office of the Rail Regulator today says that the national rail network infrastructure was originally owned and operated by Railtrack but has now passed to Network Rail. It states:
"The framework for the regulation of Network Rail is designed to provide effective incentives so that the company is rewarded for doing a good job."

39WH
That is contradicted by the rail regulator's statement, to which hon. Members have referred. The rail regulator, Tom Winsor, is reported as saying:
"Network Rail's not-for-profit structure has made it harder to set incentives for management because he"—
the rail regulator—
"could no longer fine shareholders for the railways' poor performance."
The Strategic Rail Authority, together with the new body, the Rail Safety and Standards Board, is responsible for rail safety. There is a host of those who are responsible for rail safety: Network Rail, the rail regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority, the Health and Safety Executive, the new Rail Safety and Standards Board and the soon-to-be-created rail accident investigation branch. Will the Minister tell us who has the last word on rail safety?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a pleasure to call the heavily worked Minister.
12.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak when you are in the Chair.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) on securing this important debate and on the forthright and informed way in which he spoke on behalf of his constituents. If, nearly 30 years ago, I had been successful in my first parliamentary election, I might have been speaking for Birmingham, Hall Green. My hon. Friend obviously had more success in getting elected in that constituency. I know the area well, and the stretch of line to which my hon. Friend referred.
This has been a classic example of a debate in which hon. Members can strongly express their views on behalf of their constituents and they have done so most effectively. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) referred to "whingeing" about important issues, but I do not consider that we are whingeing. These issues have been raised, properly, by my hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), who made powerful remarks.
Several issues have arisen from the debate, to which I hope that Network Rail has been listening. I hope that it will study the Hansard report with care, especially the allegations of its not responding to letters from Members of Parliament. I take a very dim view of that; the Department has a good record of responding to hon. Members' letters and I hope that other organisations to which the Department is affiliated try to emulate our record.
I hope, too, that Network Rail has been listening to some of the criticisms that have been made and that it will respond appropriately to them. There are one or two environmental issues that are probably beyond my
40WH
brief. If hon. Members feel that those have not been adequately dealt with, I shall ensure that other Departments respond.
I should like to say a few general words about the objectives, responsibilities and priorities of Network Rail. As hon. Members are aware, it took over responsibility for the operation, maintenance and renewal of Britain's rail infrastructure in October last year, in the wake of Railtrack's going into administration. It must strike a balance between providing a safe, efficient, reliable and affordable rail network and meeting environmental and community concerns, as well as aesthetic concerns about the local environment. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about safety. That must, of course, be a priority for Network Rail. As we know, there is widespread public concern about rail performance, and delays caused by leaf fall each autumn have generated pressure for preventive action. The concerns raised today have to be viewed in that light.
Network Rail is a private "not for dividend" company. It is responsible to its membership—more than 100 organisations and individuals representing the railway industry—stakeholders and the wider public. The Government regard the creation of Network Rail as a crucial turning point. It is clear that it has consistently failed in its role as custodian of the rail network. Its priorities must inevitably be focused on the effective management of the rail network. Its first priority is to operate a safe, reliable railway. Tree clearance plays an important part in achieving that goal. I am sure that no hon. Member present today would disagree with measures that are intended to ensure the safety of rail users and those who work on the railway lines.
I appreciate the concerns that hon. Members have expressed today, on behalf of their constituents, about the removal of trees that stood for some 30 years. Younger constituents were not around when it was necessary for the side of the track to be kept clear of trees and other vegetation, to prevent fires. In those days there was little vegetation at the side of railways. I see that you nod, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I think that you and I may just be old enough to remember the last knockings of the steam engines on the railways. After the withdrawal of steam trains that kind of maintenance was reduced—some would even say neglected—by the British Railways Board and subsequently by Railtrack. As a result, the presence of trees and other vegetation on cuttings and embankments has become commonplace, whereas it was not 30 to 40 years ago. Network Rail has concluded that that presents an unacceptable safety risk and it has embarked on an accelerated programme of vegetation management that is prioritised in terms of the degree of risk to the operational railway.
Several safety risks arise from the presence of trees by the side of the track. Leaf fall, especially from broad leaved deciduous trees, can result in trains sliding past signals or platforms and, by interfering with track circuits, it can cause signalling systems to malfunction. That can be exacerbated by the gradient of the embankment, leading to the contamination of the rail head as the leaves fall to the bottom of the cutting. In addition to the safety risk, leaf fall has a significant effect on train performance and is a major cause of delays in the autumn. Last autumn was no exception, especially in the south-east of England and the London area.

41WH
Train drivers' views of signals may also be obstructed. Track workers must be able to see oncoming trains and they must be seen by the drivers; they need to be able to move quickly and safely from the track and tripping and slipping hazards arising from vegetation must be avoided. It is a sad fact that in the year 2001–02 four trackside workers were killed as a result of being struck by passing trains, which was double the number killed in the previous year. We cannot ignore that in the consideration of the matter today.
Falling trees are a risk to trains in certain areas, due to factors such as the steepness of embankment slopes, soil conditions and nature of vegetation. Obstruction of lines and consequent delays can be a major problem, such as after the storms last October. Again, Network Rail was criticised, because the service was disrupted by trees blocking the railway lines.
To address such problems, Network Rail is creating a 6 m flail strip adjacent to railway lines. It will be free from all woody vegetation and will ensure that signal-sighting lines are cleared and maintained, and that the safety of track workers is not compromised. In addition, other trees that pose a safety risk are being selectively felled. That primarily affects the species that have been mentioned in the debate.
Network Rail recognises that a cleared site is likely to be unattractive to residents and others. Arrangements are therefore being made for subsequent vegetation management, and advice is being taken from arboriculturalists and conservation specialists. That will control the re-growth of species that cause a problem and allow colonisation by herbs, grasses, shrubs and trees that do not.
The important issue of consultation was raised, and all hon. Members expressed concern regarding the lack of consultation about proposed clearance work. It has always been Network Rail's policy to consult residents and other stakeholders to explain why work was necessary. The company has produced a leaflet on the subject, and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library for those hon. Members who have not seen it.
It has, however, become apparent from correspondence that the Department has received and. not least, from today's debate that consultation procedures have not always been carried out effectively. In some instances, which have been mentioned today, individuals have either not been given prior notice or have been informed only after the cutting started.
I have been informed that Network Rail is revising its consultation process to ensure that key stakeholders are informed of intended operations in good time and given
42WH
a proper opportunity to express their views. I am sure that the company will also take into consideration the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York about consulting parish councils.
Consultation will involve a number of processes, which will start several months before any proposed work. About 10 weeks before, Network Rail will liaise with the local authority tree officer and relevant bodies such as English Nature and the Countryside Agency and invite them to view the proposed site. About eight weeks before, it will write to Members of Parliament in the area and to local councillors who represent areas covered by the works. About four weeks before, it will inform local residents near the proposed works. That should ensure that all stakeholders have a proper opportunity to comment, although we must recognise that there may be a need to act more urgently in an emergency, where there is an immediate danger to the railway.
Having listened to the debate, I am absolutely certain that Members of Parliament who are affected by the issue—the vast majority probably are—will want to monitor the effectiveness of the new arrangements. I shall certainly be looking carefully to ensure that the consultation process works.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green asked about environmental impact assessments. I am not aware of any requirement for an assessment to be carried out beforehand, but I undertake to find out from the relevant Department what the situation is. Rather than giving an inaccurate answer, I shall refer to the proper Department.
My hon. Friend said that money, not safety, was the prime reason for Network Rail's actions, but costs cannot be ignored. The rail sector as a whole, and Network Rail in particular, is facing affordability problems. I think that he will agree that it is not in the company's financial interests to pay to fell more trees than is absolutely necessary.
The hon. Member for Twickenham asked who took responsibility for tree clearance at stations. As he knows, most stations are leased to train operators, and they, not Network Rail, are responsible for tree clearance in the station precincts.
Network Rail will appreciate that hon. Members have expressed many worries on behalf of their constituents. I hope that it will carefully note the points that have been advanced powerfully in the debate because we must achieve a balance between providing a safe and reliable service, which our constituents want, and preserving the environment and ensuring that people are properly informed and consulted before such action takes place.

British Prisoners (Saudi Arabia)
12.30 pm
Dr. John Pugh: I will choose my words carefully because this is the first time in the two years of such sad events that we have had a chance to debate them in Parliament. I am not speaking to impress anyone, but to help to achieve a given result—the release of men who, I believe, are wholly innocent of the crimes with which they are charged. I know that their release depends on people outside the jurisdiction of Parliament because we are awaiting the outcome of an appeal for clemency. It sets aside the alleged guilt of the men in favour of the interests of mercy.
If the appeal for clemency were successful, it would resolve the destiny of men worn down by captivity and alleviate the anguish felt by their families who wait for them. Furthermore, it will clear away an obstacle to the wholehearted pursuit of terrorism that threatens the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom, undermines civil society and disfigures this very building in which we meet. The true antidote to terrorism is a just world order, which is defended robustly and is apparent to all. The conviction of Sandy Mitchell, James Cottle, Les Walker, Glen Ballard, Peter Brandon and James Lee of bombing forms no part of that just world order.
I say that as someone who came to the issue by chance—almost by accident. A constituent, David Brown, was one of the alleged victims. He felt strongly that the people accused were not those responsible for the crime that had blinded and maimed him. He has sought actively to ensure that justice is done and has appealed to many media outlets to listen to his story. I pay tribute to him and his selfless endeavours to secure the release of those citizens of England who have been charged unjustly.
The more that I looked into the matter, the more I believed that a grave injustice had been done. The convictions were made without any forensic evidence. They are based on confessions; indeed, in some cases, televised confessions. The convictions were allegedly extorted after solitary confinement at least and possible torture. The comments of a senior Saudi figure from the embassy on a recent radio programme on 23 February 2003 did not gainsay or contradict that particular allegation.
The convictions were criticised by the rapporteurs of the United Nations when they investigated the Saudi Arabian justice system. They have bizarrely failed to stop the offences for which the men have been charged because such offences have taken place subsequent to their arrest, conviction and incarceration. The convictions have also failed to ascribe a coherent set of motives to the accused. Fundamentally, they would not pass the stringent tests of British law and, possibly more important than that, fall short of the higher standards of Islamic and sharia law. As the Muslim lawyer arguing for their appeal on behalf of the men said:
"The majority of Muslim jurists back up the illegality of coercion"—
as a means of getting a confession—
"referring to the Koran, the Sunnah, the Athar and Logic".
44WH
There is no reason to consider the issue with a false sense of cultural pride. We have been here before. In our desperate attempts to stem terrorism on this island, we have made errors: we imprisoned the Birmingham Six for 17 years. Here we have a group of men who face 18 years or death, and in one case beheading, not for drinking or distributing illegal alcohol, which is against Saudi law—if they had been involved in that they could have no complaint—but for homicide, which I believe none of them would ever have contemplated.
The surprise is that this false hypothesis has been persisted with and has even led to further allegations against people who have been released. We all know of the case of Ron Jones, who was incarcerated at one stage then released. We know of his ongoing legal action in respect of that incarceration and his treatment during it. We also know that people who have been at the scenes of bombings and who have been associated in some way with people involved in bombings have, temporarily, been arrested and considered for some time to be culprits of offences of which they would not have dreamed.
On 23 February 2001, during a radio interview on a programme chaired by Robin Lustig, the Saudi ambassador, Prince Turkey al-Faisal, maintained that most of the offences were, as originally diagnosed by the Saudis, committed by Britons on Britons. If that is the case, it is curious that the incidents have persisted as they have.
Subsequent to the offences with which the men are charged, there was a further bombing on 15 March in Riyadh, involving a bomb in a bin near a bookstore, in which an Egyptian man suffered minor injuries—that was said to have involved Ron Jones. In May 2001, a United States chiropractor, Gary Hatch, lost his left arm and an eye because of a parcel bomb delivered by a courier. On 6 October, a pedestrian exploded a bomb, killing himself—he was subsequently found to be a Palestinian—and a US oil engineer, Michael Gerald. On 20 June 2002, Simon Veness was killed by a bomb that was planted under his Land Rover. And so it goes on. Maximilian Graf, a German, was killed on 29 September. A Dutch family found a bomb under their Cherokee jeep on 5 December 2002. An American couple found a bomb attached to the underside of their vehicle on 29 June 2002. It is difficult to sustain the belief that those incidents all involved disputes about alcohol.
Mr. John Lyons: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the recent events and bombings that he has listed should signal to the Minister and the Foreign Secretary that, if anything, it is time to intensify the campaign for release rather than ease up on it?
Dr. Pugh: I agree. The case against the men as based solely on confessions was slender. It has now become implausible in the face of subsequent events.
We all prefer to believe that life is less dangerous than it is. Recent events have disabused all of us of our preferred illusions. Earlier this year, the Saudis made 90 arrests of al-Qaeda suspects, which we all welcome. Shoot-outs occurred in Riyadh and there was the awful destruction of the compound there and the subsequent loss of life, including Muslim life. The pieces of a

45WH
horrible jigsaw are falling into place. Despite that, what the Foreign Office truly thinks about the situation remains a mystery. Perhaps we shall find out today. I have been unsuccessful in finding out through parliamentary questions its thoughts on the alibis presented by the men, the absence of forensic evidence and human rights issues. In public, the Foreign Office remains concerned, but silent.
Mr. Andrew Miller: I agree with a large part of the hon. Gentleman's preamble about the background to justice in Saudi Arabia. What we do not know—I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to be able to tell us this today—is precisely what has happened behind the scenes. I know, because of my connections with Mr. Walker's family, that an awful lot has been done, but so that we are absolutely clear, may I ask the hon. Gentleman what he would have the Government do? What is missing from the jigsaw? What more should Her Majesty's Government do? Mr. Walker's family would love to hear about it if initiatives could be taken.
Dr. Pugh: I think that the Government have pursued all relevant diplomatic channels with force, and I do not doubt their sincerity in doing so. Their mistake, which goes back some time, was probably not to have identified properly to all and sundry the predicament and the environment in which the men found themselves. The Government have been sincere in their diplomatic efforts, but they have not satisfied the concerns of the bulk of the relatives to whom I have been speaking. I say that as someone who is in constant contact with many of them. They have not expressed to me total satisfaction with what the Foreign Office has done, but I shall come to that in a moment.
In so far as the Government have pursued a concerned approach but have been relatively silent on the main public issues, they have been open to the criticism—I do not make it here—of subordinating the men's cases to the interests of geopolitics or, worse still, commerce, because we all know that Saudi Arabia has many very important economic links with England.
I have no doubt that the Government are concerned and think that diplomatic pressure is the safest route. I have no doubt that, despite the succession of false hopes and the long anguish of the relatives and their evident frustration, which has been voiced to me on a number of occasions, the Government still think that that is the best way. However, if it is true that careless talk can cost lives, it is probably also true that lack of plain speaking can, too. One could ponder whether, if there had been a more open dialogue about the case and more public concern expressed about the possible terrorist dimension, lives could have been saved—lives such as that of Robert Dent, who was shot in his car at traffic lights in Riyadh. He was a former constituent of mine.
I am genuinely struck by how much of what has subsequently gone on appears to have been predictable once we accept that we are talking not about a turf war between expats, but the insidious growth of al-Qaeda activity. I know of no better way to put it than this: four days before the awful bombing in Riyadh in May, I received an e-mail from a gentleman who was worried that precisely that type of event might occur. I shall say something about that gentleman and the circumstances
46WH
in which he found himself in Saudi Arabia. He found himself close to the scene of an attack, trying to help a comrade of his who was blown up and in fact killed. As a result, he was interrogated. He was traumatised already, but he was even more traumatised after being interrogated on several subsequent occasions and treated almost as the chief suspect for the attack. All he was endeavouring to do was to help his friend, who was killed by the blast.
As the evidence mounts up, the hypothesis of a homicidal turf war, which was shaky at the start, looks as odd and bizarre as trying to sustain a Ptolemaic view of the universe in the face of recent science. That is comforting for some, but it is downright false. Those of us who cannot accept the hypothesis of a homicidal turf war will not and must not keep quiet about the issue because that would let it die down. As we forget about it to some extent, the men's health has deteriorated. Organisations acting on their behalf have been clear in reminding us of the dangers to their health. We are talking about individuals with heart problems, individuals who have developed heart problems as a result of their incarceration, individuals who have had operations on their gall bladder, individuals who shock their relatives by their appearance and who have lost substantial amounts of weight. Their health is deteriorating almost as quickly as the case against them.
One acknowledges that illicit drinking goes on in Saudi Arabia, that illicit imports take place and that that is all punishable by Saudi law. However, one contests the relevance of that to the charges that have been made against the men. Therefore, we must ask the Foreign Office some questions. The questions that other Members and I have tabled have been answered in either a formulaic or an obstructive way. The answers have always been concerned but never precise, so we must ask specific questions.
What is the Foreign Office view of the men's probable guilt? I recognise that there are circumstances in which it would not be prepared to state that, but it has the opportunity to do so today. Does it have a view on the conduct of the trial? Is it satisfied that the trial would recommend itself by the highest standards of both English jurisprudence and Islamic law? Is there now a reliable expectation of release and are we likely to see a successful plea for clemency? What news do the Government have on that?
If there is to be a successful route to the men's release that sets aside guilt and concentrates on the future, is there a possible deadline that, unlike previous deadlines, will not be passed, dashing the hopes and expectations of relatives? Exactly what stage have negotiations reached and as they progress, will the relatives get regular feedback? If the men are released, will their medical state be checked? Will their medical, physical and financial needs be attended to as they try to rebuild shattered lives? The Foreign Office has done considerable work in connection with Ron Jones, so what does it intend to do if the men are released by an act of clemency?
What is the Foreign Office's current information about the men's physical and mental well-being? Does it know anything about a new witness to the original alleged crimes who is cited in the plea for clemency, and is that relevant to the trial or the men's guilt? At what level is the Foreign Office now negotiating with the

47WH
Saudi authorities on the appeal for clemency? The central question, to which we may never get an answer, is how we can be in such a situation when we are on such unprecedented good terms with Saudi Arabia—such good terms that the Foreign Secretary appears on television with senior Saudi figures in conditions of complete amity. I have taxed my mind on that question a great deal.
Mr. Miller: Looking from the outside, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's observations, but as you will remember Mr. Deputy Speaker, I dealt for a long time with a constituent who was in jail in the United States having originally been charged with murder. I asked exactly the same questions until I got inside the case, when I understood the situation more fully. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not expecting a Minister of the Crown to answer his questions today. That is absurd.
Dr. Pugh: There is nothing wrong with some of the questions that I have asked. They are not confidential and they are about current activity. They ask not that the nature of the dialogue be divulged, but simply for straightforward, factual evidence to which the relatives are entitled.
To conclude, the puzzle is how we can be on such terms of friendship and over two years have achieved so very little.
12.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): This is a serious and important debate, although, as I shall make clear, I do not wholly agree with some of the points that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) made. However, I congratulate him on securing the debate and welcome the opportunity to put on the record the actions that we have taken in this case.
The motivation of every hon. Member who has been concerned with this case is entirely understandable, and I recognise that this is an exceedingly difficult time for the men who are detained and their families. I shall make clear the position of the Government and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
From the outset, we have been deeply concerned about the case of the British men detained in Saudi Arabia accused of involvement in a series of bombings, and we remain deeply concerned about their case. We are in close contact at every level with the Saudi authorities, who are well aware of our concerns. We have raised those concerns at the highest levels and will continue to do so until the case is resolved to our satisfaction, and to that of the families concerned.
The British Government are working tirelessly on behalf of the men who have been detained. However—and this is the substance of the difference of emphasis between what I am saying and what the hon. Gentleman said—we believe that that pressure is most effectively applied by engaging the Saudi authorities in private because we believe that publicity will be detrimental to the men's interests. In this case, as in all consular cases, we have worked in the best interests of the men. When Foreign and Commonwealth Office consular officials
48WH
visited them, they made it abundantly clear that they did not wish us to discuss the details of the case in public. When such a view is clearly expressed, we must respect the judgment of those who are most closely affected.
Dr. Pugh: The Minister has almost made a generalisation that in all cases in which people are falsely imprisoned, publicity is a negative factor. Is it a negative factor only in the case of dealing with the Saudi Arabian Government, or in other cases, such as Burma?
Mr. Rammell: When we are dealing with human rights cases, judgments must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the particular circumstances and assessing the most effective way to achieve the desired result.
This issue is easy to grandstand on from the Opposition Benches. I was particularly struck by the fact that the hon. Gentleman said that he was not aware, from the answers to the parliamentary questions that he tabled, of what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was doing on the issue. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), took some time to explain to the hon. Gentleman that we would not say more publicly at the moment because we believe that that would not help the men's case. That is our judgment, and if we genuinely believe that to be the case, it would he irresponsible to act otherwise.
I should also make it clear that the men have legal representation. They see their lawyers regularly and discuss their cases with them. We are in close contact with those lawyers and discuss the men's cases with them. The lawyers also maintain contact with the Saudi authorities about the progress of the case. We are in constant touch with the families and keep them informed of developments. I stress that as the process continues, we will keep in regular contact with the families and will inform them of our actions in seeking to resolve this serious problem.
I understand that this has been a long and difficult process for the families. I do not underestimate for a minute how upsetting and concerning this must be for all members of the men's families. As in all such cases, the men's well-being is our paramount concern and we continue to make regular consular visits to reassure ourselves about their health and welfare.
Since November 2000, there has also been a series of small bomb explosions in Riyadh and Al Khobar, which resulted in the death and injury of British nationals and other westerners. At no time should we forget the victims of the bombings in Saudi Arabia. Nor do we underestimate the huge amount of pain, hardship and distress that has been caused by that series of bombings. Some people lost their lives; others were horribly injured. I reassure the House that we continue to work vigorously to resolve the case of those British men detained in Saudi Arabia who have been accused of involvement in the bombings.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I have a constituent, Mrs. Mitchell, who has not seen her husband, and he has not seen his wife or child, for more than two years. His health is suffering. Can the Minister say when quiet

49WH
diplomacy will be deemed to have failed? How much longer will he have to stay there? Are there alternatives, such as sanctions or United Nations involvement? I am desperately worried about Mr. Mitchell's health.
Mr. Rammell: I cannot pluck a definitive answer out of thin air; I say only that we would not be pursuing this course of action unless we felt that there was a significant chance of success. Given the sensitive stage that discussions have reached, going beyond that would be counterproductive and unhelpful, but we would not be pursuing that course of action unless we thought that it would bring results.
Let me make it clear also that we are not reluctant to criticise Saudi Arabia more generally, which was one of the summing up accusations made by the hon. Member for Southport. We address a wide range of concerns with the Saudi authorities. We raise human rights issues both generally and in the context of those men who have been detained. In our annual human rights report, hon. Members will see specific references to our concerns about Saudi Arabia. However, on issues such as that raised today, we judge that those messages are most effective when made in private.
Promotion of human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is at the heart of British foreign policy. We take every opportunity to urge states to pursue laws and practices that foster tolerance and mutual respect and to protect religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks. We also work with our partners in the European Union and with the United Nations to raise those issues with other Governments, including the Saudi Government.
I underline the fact that we have deep concerns about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Our concerns apply to a wide range of human rights issues. including the implementation of basic international human rights norms, aspects of the judicial system, corporal and capital punishment, torture, discrimination against women and non-Muslims, and restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and worship. We discuss our concerns about human rights matters with the Saudi authorities at every suitable opportunity, at both ambassadorial and ministerial level.
50WH
In response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), some progress has been made. Saudi Arabia has recently shown a greater willingness to engage with the international community on human rights issues. It has produced reports for, and answered questions from, UN treaty monitoring bodies. That is welcome progress, but it does not go far enough and we shall continue to reinforce our concerns.
I place on record the fact that the UN special rapporteur for the independence of judges and lawyers, Mr. Cumaraswamy, visited Saudi Arabia in October 2002. During his mission to Saudi Arabia, he examined the case of the British men who had been detained. He visited some of the men accused of involvement in the bombings and he also discussed their case with their lawyers and the Saudi Ministry of Interior. In his report, the special rapporteur voiced his concerns about the men's case. We welcome that because it underlines the fact that there is international co-operation on the issue.
It is a difficult and serious case. I respect the hon. Gentleman's motivation for raising the subject today, but we are acting according to the best information and advice about the most appropriate and effective way to deal with it—the one most likely to secure the release of the men.
Dr. Pugh: We have a difference of opinion, or emphasis, on tactics. However, the Minister has not yet responded to a specific question. Has anyone shared with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the information about an additional new witness that appears in the plea for clemency? Does he know what relevance that has to the original trial?
Mr. Rammell: I shall seek guidance on the matter. We will of course consider any further information that can help to secure the release of the men and act in the most appropriate way. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are already acting in the men's best interests. Surely he would not call on us to pursue the course of action that he suggests if it imperilled the men's situation? Nevertheless, we continue to pursue the matter in the most effective way that we can.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. This is a very important debate, but I am afraid that time is up.

Registration Officers
1 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: It is with great regret that I raise this matter in the Chamber today. I do so as the patron of the Society of Registration Officers—SORO. I was appointed to that unpaid position shortly after my election to the House on 1 May 1997, when my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), was appointed as a Home Office Minister.
Registration officers and their deputies—I shall refer to them all from now on as registration officers—are independent statutory office holders with no employer. Civilly, they are held responsible for their own acts or omissions. Local authorities appoint, accommodate and pay registration officers, but they do not have any power to dismiss them as they are not considered to be their employer. Consequently, registration officers do not have contracts of employment with those local authorities. They receive salaries chargeable to income tax under schedule E and receive redundancy payments under the 1967 regulations governing redundancy payments for office holders.
The Registrar General has the sole power to dismiss registration officers. They have only recently won an appeal against unfair dismissal, but the Registrar General must hear the appeal and only if new material evidence is to be considered. They do not have the right to go to an employment tribunal in cases of unfair dismissal. I have been campaigning for that fundamental right since I was appointed patron. In 1997, only coroners, rent officers, members of the clergy, the armed forces and the police were in a similar position. I believe that the position has now been regularised in relation to rent officers, but I stand to be corrected. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and Amicus MSF have been campaigning on behalf of the clergy, who of course are answerable to God, and there was an Adjournment debate on 8 April on the situation regarding the clergy.
The Economic Secretary and the Treasury have been responsible for the Office for National Statistics and registration officers since I was elected to Parliament. One of my difficulties has been that I have dealt with four Economic Secretaries since 1997: the now Secretary of State for Scotland; the now Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson); the now Financial Secretary to the Treasury; and the now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That difficulty has been compounded by the fact that employment law is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Industry. I have dealt with two Ministers of State: my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio when he was at the DTI; and the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions.
In 1997, I began my campaign with a letter to the now Secretary of State for Scotland. who responded on 2 February 1998 that the situation had been under review since 1985, when a Select Committee
52WH
recommended that registration officers become officers of local authorities. A Green Paper made the same proposal in 1988. It became a White Paper in 1990. Many of the White Paper's recommendations have already been implemented in legislation, but the right of registration officers to go to employment tribunals has not.
It has always been possible to take cases through the judicial review process, but that would consider only the procedures, not the fairness of any dismissal case. The Society of Registration Officers would prefer its service to become a national agency or board. It believes that that would be the best way of maintaining a consistent registration service throughout England and Wales. Different standards of accommodation are already offered by local authorities for the service as well as different charges; for example, for hiring an approved premises. However, the Government have dismissed that proposal on the grounds that it may increase costs and bureaucracy and, more important, damage the existing partnership with local authorities.
In another letter dated 30 April 1998 from the now Secretary of State for Scotland, I learned that the Department of Trade and Industry was reviewing employment status issues as they affected the coverage of employment protection rights. On 21 May 1998, I took up the issue with my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, then Minister of State at the DTI. In his response of 10 June, he mentioned that there was a way forward through the publication of the Government's White Paper entitled, "Fairness at work", whereby existing employment rights could be extended to allow office holders such as registration officers the right of appeal against unfair dismissal, which was encouraging news.
However, my right hon. Friend made it clear that,
"further consultation would be carried out on any changes before such a power was exercised".
To cut a long story short, clause 21 of the Employment Relations Bill 1999, which became section 23 of the Act, introduced those measures, for which I was grateful. I raised the unfair position of registration officers on Second Reading on 9 February 1999. In September 1999, the Registrar General published a consultation paper entitled "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service", which resulted in 968 responses and publication of a White Paper entitled "Civil Registration: Vital Change" in January 2002.
In a letter dated 1 December 1999 from the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, I was informed that consultation on section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, originally scheduled for autumn 1999, was postponed until the following summer—that is, 2000. In a letter dated 20 December 1999 from the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I was promised that consultation on section 23 regarding registration officers "would not take long" because they were a "small and discrete group". She reminded me that the Registrar General was in favour of an early order to give registration officers the right of

53WH
access to employment tribunals. That letter was extremely encouraging to officers in the service. However, it was received more than three years ago, and I have seen no sign of such an early order being made.
I wrote to the current Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 9 May 2002 about various matters, including employment rights, raised by registration officers at their annual conference, which I address every year—that year, it was held in Scarborough. In her response of 15 July, she informed me that a consultation was about to be launched by the DTI later in 2002 to seek views on the effects of extending statutory employment rights under section 23 of the Employment Relations Act to individuals currently excluded.
I was informed that the Government would use the order-making powers in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 to "deliver registration reform". The Financial Secretary also informed me that it would take two years for legislation to reach the statute book and that changes affecting registration officers would be phased in from late 2004. I raised the issue again at Department of Trade and Industry questions, which, ironically, was on 1 May just passed—an appropriate day for raising employment issues. The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), told me that there had been 400 responses to that consultation on section 23. Furthermore, he told me:
"My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear…that all new employment legislation must be implemented by 6 April or 1 October. We will work with the Office for National Statistics so that those deadlines can be adhered to."—[Official Report, 1 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 405–6.]
I assumed that he meant 2003—I hope that that is the case, although he did not mention a year.
However, that answer contradicts other information that I have been given and also a written answer that I received from the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions on 7 April 2003, in which he said that the results of the consultation were being analysed and that any proposed changes would be the subject of even more consultation. How long do we have to consult for on such a simple matter?
The employment rights of registration officers appear to have been under review since 1985. By 2004, it will have taken almost 20 years for successive Governments to resolve that simple matter. Is it any wonder that registration officers are losing their patience? Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me why it has taken so long to make progress on an issue that the Government might regard as minor but which is a great concern to the registration officers whom I represent? To consider only my part in the campaign, it will have taken seven years by next year to resolve the matter.
The most important point is that I seek a separate order—I emphasise separate—to be made, as I have been promised in the past, as soon as possible for registration officers, who are a named group. The Registrar General himself has agreed to be named as their employer in the order until the more radical changes that are proposed for the registration service are implemented.
Believe it or not, registration officers get dismissed—three in one day in Newcastle a few years ago. SORO has told me that some local authorities are pushing
54WH
interpretation of their powers concerning that group of workers to the limits, which often results in changes to their office practice; without proper consultation. That has inevitably led to stressful working conditions and increased the use of local disciplinary powers that potentially lead to dismissal through the Registrar General.
Radical changes in the terms and conditions of employment of these officers are inevitable when the recommendations in the White Paper entitled "Civil Registration: Vital Change" are implemented. Rights of access to an employment tribunal are necessary before such large-scale upheavals, rather than after, because, in my opinion, disputes there will be. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's response to what has been a long drawn-out procedure.
1.14 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing the debate, which, as he said, is the latest in a series of ways in which he has raised the issue in Parliament since 1997. I am conscious of that track record and of his role as an unpaid patron of the Society of Registration Officers. As he explained, he has raised his concerns regularly and tirelessly—I think he said that he had raised it with two DTI Ministers and four Treasury Ministers, so I am sorry that he is raising it now with me, as a fifth to add to his collection.
Civil registration is an important service, which touches everyone at some time in their life. It ensures the civil status of every person and protects individuals and society as a whole. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Registrar General is responsible for administering the law relating to the registration of births, deaths and marriages in England and Wales. The office of the Registrar General—the General Register Office—now forms part of the Office for National Statistics and therefore falls within the remit of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
In the Financial Secretary's temporary absence with her new baby Niamh, I have the pleasure of dealing with the issues. The Financial Secretary is conscious of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East and she does not want to see any momentum for reform stalled in her absence. I will do my best to honour that intention while she is on maternity leave. I shall explain later in a little more detail about the consultation document that we plan to issue next month, which I hope will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East that a sufficient momentum and priority is being given to reforms of the type about which he is concerned.
My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the problems have a long pedigree. He goes back 20 years, but I would go back further. The fundamental structure of the civil registration service in England and Wales dates back to 1837 when the current arrangements were established, including the introduction of registration officers holding statutory office, as they do, and the organisation of the registration service into small districts and sub-districts, as it is. Although the registration service functions well within its 19th century limitations, it is widely acknowledged that many of the arrangements do

55WH
not meet people's current needs and expectations. The limits that those place on the service mean that often it cannot be flexible and sympathetic to the present expectations of the public. I shall deal with that later in a little more detail.
I turn now to the employment relationship of registration officers, and therefore their employment rights, which is at the heart of my hon. Friend's concerns. He is correct. The 1,800 or so registration officers in England and Wales do not have a legal employer. As such, they do not have the full range of employment rights that many others take for granted; they are appointed, paid and accommodated by local authorities, but are answerable for their actions to the Registrar General. Currently, registration officers hold office during the pleasure of the Registrar General. That rather quaint employment status places a responsibility on the Registrar General to act with great prudence in matters of discipline and, ultimately, in matters of dismissal. He is, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the final arbiter in the decision-making process for registration officers and he is conscious of the duty of care and caution that he must employ, given the unusual employment status of those registration officers for whom he is responsible.
My hon. Friend will know, although he did not mention it in his speech, that the Registrar General has, in conjunction with the Society of Registration Officers, developed, introduced and subsequently revised an agreed system of disciplinary procedures for registration officers that are designed to mirror local authority procedures, as far as they can. The Government, and the Registrar General, are grateful to the society for the contribution that it made to that process and for making the procedures work as effectively as possible. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would pass that on to officers of the society.
The procedures strive to ensure that registration officers are treated with the same consideration as local government employees and are offered as high a level of protection as possible within the current registration law. The Registrar General liaises closely with local authorities wherever possible, to ensure consistency and fairness in all disciplinary cases.
As my hon. Friend said, a registrar may appeal in person or in writing against the Registrar General's recommendation to dismiss. Such decisions are not made lightly. The total number of cases involved in such procedures is relatively small and the dismissal of registration officers on disciplinary grounds is very rare. In the past 10 years, the Registrar General has considered fewer than 20 such cases.
Recent case law from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in April 2002 confirmed that registrars are not eligible to appeal to an employment tribunal when they are dismissed from office. That is the core of my hon. Friend's concern. They may not therefore follow an accessible and independent appeal route, which is open to the majority of other workers. Judicial review is the only way to challenge the Registrar General's decision, which is clearly a difficult route for ordinary people and has not been used to date.
56WH
As my hon. Friend said, there has been intent in the past to reform the registration service, but previous Governments could not find the time to follow through proposals laid out in the mid-1980s and in early 1990. More recently, the present Government's consultation paper, "Supporting Families", published in 1998, recommended a review of the civil registration service in England and Wales, and the Registrar General was asked by the Government to conduct that review. His consultation paper, "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service", was published in 1999 and, as my hon. Friend said, almost 1,000 responses were received. It was followed in January 2002 by the White Paper, "Civil Registration: Vital Change", which set out the plans for reform.
The Government's proposals will give more choice in the use of registration services: choices about where and how to register a birth or death and where one can get married, as well as wider choices about baby naming and marriage reaffirmation. The proposals will improve the services that users receive.
Central to the modernisation of the registration service is the reform of the status of registration officers, making them local authority employees. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is the proper way for the reforms that he wants to be introduced. We plan to make the legislative changes needed to implement the White Paper proposals using the order-making powers that exist under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. That contains wide powers matched by tough safeguards. It allows us to reform burdensome and outdated legislation for regulatory regimes such as that relating to civil registration. In future, within a framework of national standards, local authorities will be able to develop face-to-face services to meet the current and future needs of their communities. To achieve that, local authorities will need staff to be flexible, and will not want the hindrance of the current outdated restrictions.
Dr. Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the Registrar General, through the Government, to lay down minimal standards for the provision of services throughout England and Wales?
John Healey: I can tell my hon. Friend that the Registrar General is conscious of the integrity, future and standards of the service over which he presides. That sort of concern will play a part in the way that we reform the service in future.
My hon. Friend questioned the process by which we shall have to undertake the reforms. I want to make it clear to him that regulatory reform orders are scrutinised by the House of Commons in the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform and by the House of Lords in the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. As the first step required by the 2001 Act, we plan to publish a detailed consultation paper next month. The publication of that document will be followed by a three-month consultation period, which is required by law. The consultation will include the proposals necessary to make legal changes to the Registration Acts and other legislation. The determination to change the employment status of registration officers, which was announced in the White Paper, is settled. The consultation document will consider the best way of achieving that.

57WH
As I said earlier, the law restricts registration officers in the range of duties that they may perform when acting as statutory officers. The White Paper proposes that registrars should become local authority staff and thus obtain the full employment rights held by that group of employees—my hon. Friend's objective. There will then be no need to involve outside bodies in disciplinary matters, and responsibility for disciplinary action will be placed firmly where it belongs—with the local authority responsible for delivering the registration service, which we want to reform. The authority will have responsibility for all aspects of disciplinary action against what will then clearly be its employees.
The regulatory reform order should provide an opportunity to reform and modernise the registration service. It will allow for the staged implementation of reforms, and I intend the transfer of registration officers to local government employment to be completed at an early stage of the implementation process.
More widely, the Government recognise the importance of all workers having appropriate employment protection. The Department of Trade and Industry is reviewing employment status and employment rights. My hon. Friend referred to that review, which is considering the position not only of certain officeholders, such as registration officers, clergy and, in some cases, coroner's staff, but of a much wider group of workers, who are not confined to specific sectors, such as casual and agency workers, and those with atypical working patterns.
The discussion document that was published last July examined the issue. It sought views on whether there were problems with the present coverage of employment rights and on possible ways to tackle them, including non-regulatory action and the extension of employment rights to certain groups of workers under section 23 of the 1999 Act.
The Society of Registration Officers has played an active part in the process. It attended a round table discussion that was held in November 2002 as part of a wider consultation on the interests of the larger group of workers that I mentioned.
58WH
The responses to the DTI discussion document are being analysed, and the DTI aims to publish its response later this year. I should, however, make it clear that because the discussion document was broad, sought views on a broad front and proposed no specific changes, any proposed regulatory action under section 23 of the 1999 Act would require further consultation.
I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that the Government plan to issue the consultation document on civil registration reform next month. I hope that he accepts that that is the proper place to deal with his long-standing concerns, and that his proposals are part of a package of reforms that we are looking to put in place. I also hope that he accepts that the issue of the consultation document will maintain the significant momentum that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was keen to see behind such reforms, and that it will properly settle the inconsistencies in the present position, which have caused concern.
Dr. Iddon: I ask my hon. Friend not to lose sight of one important point that I tried to make. Registration officers feel that their employment rights should be protected before, not after, they are officially transferred to local authorities in a large-scale upheaval. I respect my hon. Friend's point about officers' rights being fully protected once they are transferred, but there may be cases of unfair dismissal during the transfer process.
John Healey: I took careful note of my hon. Friend's point, and I hope that he sees from my comments about the process of reform by means of order-making powers that the issue of employment status will form part of the early changes that are brought into effect. I hope that that meets the concerns that he and the society have. In the absence of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, I will ensure that that is given full ministerial attention. In that way, we can achieve the objective that we share, which is to ensure that, almost 170 years on, registration officers have the employment rights that everyone has now accepted they should have.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): The Minister has finished in the nick of time, and we are grateful to him for his response. We now move to the final debate in Westminster Hall today.

Early Years Learning (South Somerset)
1.30 pm
Mr. David Laws: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to have secured this debate on children's centres and early years learning in south Somerset. I am pleased that, for both of us, there is some life outside the Finance Bill proceedings at this time. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), and thank her for her participation in the debate. I hope that it will be enlightening. There is a great deal of common ground between the position of my party and that of the Government, so I hope that it will not be a contentious debate on most issues, although obviously I want to press the Minister about my concerns, particularly as they relate to south Somerset.
I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is with us. He represents the other part of south Somerset and is therefore here to ensure that the interests of the whole area are fully represented.
There is a great deal of shared concern on the Government and Liberal Democrat Benches about early years education. That has been a priority for the Liberal Democrats for many years. We are pleased that the Government have not only increased the provision of early years education, particularly for three and four-year-olds, but recognised what is increasingly obvious to me from my experience in my constituency: the need for investment in all aspects of early years education, not only in education itself, but in social skills and health care support, to ensure that every individual has the best start in life.
The commitment to early years education and to some of the Government's measures, such as sure start, underline the Government's commitment and the Liberal Democrat commitment to equality of opportunity. It is increasingly obvious to me from experience in my constituency that many young children arrive in our primary schools having already fallen behind many of their peer group, not just in relation to issues of education, literacy and basic numeracy, but particularly in relation to the social support that they may not have received in their upbringing, and the health and other support that also makes a great deal of difference in the very early years. Many young people who fall behind before they even arrive in our formal education system never catch up. They often end up being the individuals who fall out of the education system and end up in unemployment and poverty and reliant on state benefits.
I therefore very much welcome the fact that the Government are investing additional resources in schemes such as sure start, which are designed to ensure that there is not only additional provision in the early years, but support in areas such as child care, support for families and support for good parenting. In an ideal world, the state would not have to interfere or involve itself in all those matters, but in the real world I fear that a role for the state in that area is inevitable if we do not accept the relative neglect of a large portion of our
60WH
population. Often those children do not receive the support in the early years that many of us benefited from both because they live in families that are in dire poverty and, increasingly, because many children are brought up in homes with only one parent. In some cases, that can mean that they do not enjoy all the advantages that many others in society do.
Two aspects of Government policy on early years learning and child care are particularly welcome. The first is the provision of free places for three and four-year-olds whose parents want to take them up. The second is the Government's sure start initiative, to which I should like to return later, particularly with regard to children's centres.
I pay tribute to the people in south Somerset and the rest of Somerset who have led the work locally to put Government policy into practice and who have worked on initiatives that must be regarded as being locally led rather than Government led. The Minister will he aware of the excellent work of the early years development and childcare partnership in Somerset, which was recognised by the awarding of an MBE to Paddy Macmaster, who leads the partnership. I pay tribute also to the work of John Kirby of the local education authority, who heads up the partnership for Somerset county council, which has a good reputation in the early-years scheme.
The Minister will also be aware—I shall lean on the good news before dealing with those aspects of Government policy about which we are more concerned—that a new neighbourhood nursery early years centre in Chard will open officially on 15 June in what will be called Clare house. The neighbourhood nursery was created by the former Chard pre-school and schools out group. It involves a new building at a cost of more than £600,000.
The building design is innovative, and I hope that the Minister or one of her colleagues will have the chance to see it soon, because it was assembled in an extraordinarily short time. It will provide for 66 children from birth to the age of four, and a total of 100 children if one includes the out-of-school club. Sure start family support services will also operate from the building. I hope that the centre will provide important training in parenting skills and social support, which is so important if children are to succeed in education.
The neighbourhood nurseries initiative in Chard was funded in part from the Government's central pot, some of which comes from the lottery, and about £150,000 was provided by South Somerset district council. I recognise the work done by Councillor Jill Shortland in fighting Chard's corner and lobbying to raise the ambitious target of more than £600,000, a sum that seemed unachievable a couple of years before.
In praising the Government and the county and district councils for their work, we should not lose sight of the fact—it is relevant to many other aspects of early years education—that the scheme was led locally by those who ran the previous early years centre in Chard. In particular, I mention Jeanette O'Dwyer, the manager of Chard neighbourhood nursery.

61WH
The provision of early years education and child centres depends hugely on the good will and voluntary activities of a large number of people such as Jeanette and her team; without them, such initiatives would not get off the ground. Indeed, without their local support, we would not be able successfully to bind together the many services required to make a success of early years learning and sure start initiatives. They require not only money and good will, but a close co-ordination of various local services.
We need to celebrate the good aspects of Government policy that have resulted in the development of early years learning in my constituency. However, I want to highlight a number of problems.
First is the slow rolling out in Somerset of free places for three and four-year-olds: Somerset was a long way behind the rest of the country. About a year ago, only 44 per cent. of pupils under the age of five were in nursery and early years learning, compared with almost 60 per cent. in the country at large. The county council says that the Government target will be met by January 2004, which is a few months ahead of the Government's target of April 2004. However, I hope that Somerset and other rural counties will not be left out in future initiatives, particularly because a great deal of the deprivation in our rural areas often seems to be hidden.
The second point—it will be recognised not only by those involved in children's centres, but by those in sure start and all early years learning—is that despite the fact that the Government and others increasingly recognise the importance of early years learning, there is a huge gulf between that recognition and a commitment to deliver the funding. Our early years centres are now inspected by Ofsted, and it is right to ensure high standards; but when pre-schools and early years centres ask what financial support they can expect for things such as capital funding for old buildings that are often falling apart, they often have to rely on discretionary funding and money that is raised locally. That seems unsatisfactory in a sector that is so important. Delivering quality in the early years is just as important as delivering quantity, as I am sure the Minister would recognise. We must ensure that the comprehensive cover for three and four-year-olds is of good quality. We must not simply rely on having delivered numbers; we must support it with the substance of what is achieved.
My third complaint relates to the way in which the Government are rolling out and prioritising the sure start and children's centres across the country, particularly the focus on only the 20 per cent. most deprived wards. The press release issued by the Department in December 2002 to announce changes in Government policy in this area was headed, "A sure start for every child". Even the Minister would be forced to accept that although the idea of a sure start for every child is a welcome aspiration, the Government are nowhere near delivering on it. My constituency would be regarded as, if not relatively affluent, fairly average for the whole country, yet the problem of inadequate early years support, particularly in relation
62WH
to sure start, is experienced in almost every primary school, not simply in the pockets of deprivation that are found across virtually the whole of the country. I hope that the Government will consider rolling out more sure start moneys across the country. I hope that the money that has been allocated up to 2006 will only be a start and that we can set up sure start and children's centres right across the country in places such as Somerset, not only in our most deprived urban centres.
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate my hon. Friend both on securing the debate and on what he has said so far. He mentioned the subject earlier, so I am sure that he would agree that one of the problems is that we represent very rural areas. Often children who are deprived both financially and through lack of opportunities for socialisation do not show up in the allocation formulae simply because the overall status of a ward or division is not such that it would attract the funds. Do we not need a basic change in the Government's formulaic approach to identify those children and provide for them?
Mr. Laws: You will not be surprised to hear me say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend is exactly right. He also anticipates my next point. Not only do we need more finance from the Government to ensure that sure start initiatives get to all the children who are living in poverty, but we must look closely at the deprivation we find in different parts of the country. The Minister may be aware that Somerset has been able to pioneer its own information about deprivation that relies not only on the index of multiple deprivation used by the Government but on statistics about domestic violence, youth justice referrals, children out of school, the percentage of social housing in an area, the number of referrals to social services and children on the child protection register.
When that information is used by the county council, it often comes up with a different priority ranking for particular wards from that which would be derived from the index of multiple deprivation. Would the Minister consider allowing local areas that develop statistics that are based on a wider range of information than is available in that index to set their own priorities? It might mean that wards were placed in a different order in the roll-out of sure start services. That would affect a large part of my constituency. Yeovil contains three very deprived wards—Yeovil West, Yeovil East and Yeovil Central—which would come high in the list of the county council's priorities, but which fall outside the 20 per cent. threshold set by the index of multiple deprivation. If the Minister is asked by Somerset county council to contemplate approving plans to allocate money from central Government funds to an area such as Yeovil, even though some of its wards may fall outside the Government's own 20 per cent. threshold on the index of multiple deprivation, can she assure us that she will look sympathetically on any such request, if it is

63WH
based on that local council's information on deprivation in its own community? Surely the Government should be able to rely on the superior knowledge of local communities about deprivation in their areas?
Later this year, I hope that Somerset county council will introduce proposals for a children's centre in Yeovil, despite the fact that some of its wards are outside the 20 per cent. most deprived on the index of multiple deprivation. My point about requests for funding is therefore a relevant one. and I would like an assurance from the Minister that such a request would be considered sympathetically.
We could debate this issue at much greater length, but I suspect that I have exhausted the time that is available to me. I hope that the Government and the Minister will be able to respond to some of the points that I have made. I also hope that they will be able to ensure that the aspiration behind Government policy for every child to have a good start in life can, in time, be delivered.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): What a pleasure it is to be here again in Westminster Hall. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) not only on his good fortune in securing the debate, but on the way in which he made his arguments.
I endorse the hon. Gentleman's congratulation of some local people, many of whom he named, who have contributed to the early years development and child care partnership in his area. He is right to highlight the fact that the Government, and all of us, depend on local people to implement such policies. It is helpful, therefore, when hon. Members give specific support to local people who are doing such work. The Government know that, in dealing with such issues, local people must be strongly involved, so it is good that the hon. Gentleman mentioned those people. I am certain that they will have heard what he said, and will be enthused further by his thanks.
I shall first say a little about the Government's approach to sure start, child care and early years education in general. I was pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman that there is wide-ranging support for those policies on his side of the House. I often find, when discussing such issues, that they receive approval and support from a wide range of people: the sure start programme, in particular, seems to be very popular.
Five years ago the Government launched the first ever national childcare strategy, recognising, perhaps for the first time, the importance of child care to children, families and economic sustainability in some of our poorer communities. We backed it up with financial support for families, and resources for developing services. In parallel with that strategy, we launched the local sure start programme, which was designed to release the creativity of local professionals—the hon. Gentleman mentioned many such people from south Somerset—because we believe that they are the best people to design better local opportunities for children and their families. I cannot do that from Whitehall, and nor can my noble Friend, Baroness Ashton of Upholland.
64WH
We also offered every four-year-old a free part-time nursery education place. I was pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman approved specifically of that policy, although I heard what he said about the speed with which he believed that that had been implemented, and about his regret that that had not happened faster. None the less, by April next year, ahead of schedule, all three-year-olds will also have been offered such a place.
Those are significant achievements, but we want to build on them. Our ambition is to provide the integrated support that families want by bringing together the three strands of the programme. Family support will therefore be provided alongside nursery education, with wrap-around care offered for children. The philosophy will be that which underpins our local sure start programmes, ensuring we involve families and empower them. The programme will be available to local communities to shape, and will not be imposed on them from Whitehall.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is especially interested in children's centres. The idea of children's centres is to join up aspects of education, care, family support and health, and to provide a better all-round service for children, their parents and communities. In essence, each children's centre will offer some sure start local programme services that are linked fully with high-quality early education and full day care. The centres will also have strong links with Jobcentre Plus to enable parents who are working or who want to undergo training to obtain affordable child care.
The Government believe that children's centres are important because we know that investment in high-quality and integrated children's services leads to positive effects for children, families and communities. That is particularly important in the more disadvantaged communities. The hon. Gentleman had something to say about how we define disadvantage. A line always has to be drawn. Whether using the index of multiple deprivation or another method, we must identify the most disadvantaged communities. Setting aside the issue of which areas are most disadvantaged, we know that positive effects can be obtained through such interventions. Educational outcomes for children and for parents are improved, enabling parents to work and study and helping lone parents to access work—often for the first time—or training opportunities. Local crime rates are reduced and health outcomes are improved. All of those effects ultimately reduce child poverty.
Each children's centre will offer a range of services to pre-school children. It will include good-quality early education combined with full day-care provision—by that, I mean a minimum of 10 hours a day, five days a week for 48 weeks a year.
Mr. Laws: I refer to defining the areas of deprivation where children's centres may be established. Does the Minister agree that when counties have collected specific information on deprivation, such as Somerset's own health and social needs analysis, that adds to the Government's statistical database in terms of the indexing of multiple deprivation? It would therefore make sense for the Government to take into account that information and allow local areas to set their own

65WH
priorities for the wards that they consider to be the most deprived. Can the hon. Lady and her officials reflect on that matter and perhaps even write to me about it?
Maria Eagle: I can certainly write to the hon. Gentleman, but I have an answer to his question. Whether he will be satisfied with it remains to be seen. He may have seen the guidance that has been with local authorities. Some of the people to whom he has referred will certainly have seen it. That guidance allows children's centres to be established outside those areas. It does not specify that the centres must be in 20 per cent. of the most disadvantaged wards. There is certainly some room for manoeuvre.
Mr. Laws: I understand that the guidance sensibly gives some latitude, particularly where there are boundaries with problems, such as when an area of deprivation finds itself within an affluent area. There is some flexibility for the local authority to redraw the boundaries. However, the fact that there is not flexibility for the local authorities to use their own measures of deprivation to inform the prioritisation process is a matter on which I want to press the Minister.
Maria Eagle: Given that local authorities have the discretion to decide where they will place the children's centres, there is a little more latitude than the hon. Gentleman may be assuming. In any event, I assure him that I and my ministerial and official colleagues will be prepared to listen to what his local authority has to say on the matter and to react in the most positive way possible. That is commensurate with the fact that he must remember that we have an overall policy aim in mind, which is to focus initially many of the tremendously important services that can be of great value on those who need them in our most deprived communities. We are not for a moment pretending that rural areas do not suffer deprivation. If we did, there would not be any sure starts in rural areas—and, of course, there are. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some cause for at least writing a few letters to me, if not some cause for optimism more generally.
We envisage children's centres acting as a service hub within the communities that they serve and we are sure they will do so. They can be a base for child minder networks, for example, and a link to local neighbourhood nurseries, out-of-school clubs and extended schools. There is no reason why such centres should not become the hub of a lot more than just the basic services and the core offer—as we call it in the horrible jargon—which we intend the centres to offer.
We also expect children's centres to play an important role in training the child care work force, as there is a great need for that. As the hon. Gentleman said, quality as well as quantity is important. We expect children's centres to be able to identify children with special needs and disabilities and to begin to address their needs; to visit families in the area with new babies in the first two months of their life to provide information about available services and support; to provide information and guidance on issues that matter to new mothers, such as nutrition, hygiene, safety and breastfeeding, thus reducing the number of children under the age of three who are admitted to hospital; to provide antenatal care and support for mothers to be and their families in the
66WH
local area; and to encourage the use of libraries, which might not be at the top of the list of what one might expect a children's centre to do.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many children would be reached by children's centres—would it be everyone in the 20 per cent. poorest wards? He will recall from the spending review that we expect to reach at least 650,000 pre-school children in the 20 per cent most disadvantaged wards by March 2006. That is the target. In this context, "reach"—a word that can mean many things—means the number of children who might potentially use health, family support or parental support services provided by, or through, the children's centre. We anticipate that 350,000 of those children will be served by existing sure start local programmes and the other 300,000 will be children who do not currently have access to sure start-type services. That may give the hon. Gentleman more idea of the scope for going beyond what he sees as the restrictions.
I am often asked how a local area, partnership or facility achieves children's centre status. The majority of children's centres will be developed from an existing sure start local programme, an early excellence centre, or a neighbourhood nursery. However, we also expect local authorities to draw on the skills of other providers in the maintained, voluntary and private sectors in order to create children's centres. It is not a requirement that children's centres be newly built for the purpose, although we expect that some will. Equally, it is not essential that children's centre services are coordinated in the same building. For example, that might not be possible in a rural area such as the hon. Gentleman's; a network of existing providers may supply the services, perhaps on a mobile basis. We want to be as flexible as possible.
The strategic responsibility for developing children's centres rests with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman's local authority has the leeway to take its own decisions; it has the guidance. In recent weeks, authorities have been identifying existing provision, which already offers the required services—the core offer—and which could therefore be designated as children's centres at an early stage. We are already receiving proposals from local authorities and assessing them in the sure start unit, and recommendations will be made to my noble Friend Baroness Ashton of Upholland later this month. Local authorities will continue to work over the summer on their strategic plans, which will need to be submitted by 15 October.
It is therefore possible that the Government's vision of every parent being able to access good-quality, affordable provision will reach beyond the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards. We are committed to targeting specific resources on disadvantaged areas but there is no reason why other people and children should not have access to them. We recognise that there are pockets of deprivation in areas of relative affluence to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We will give local authorities the flexibility to locate centres in such areas when there is a case for doing so. We hope that many local authorities will work with local partners to replicate the children's centre model as a means of mainstreaming sure start.
Somerset county council has been notified of its indicative funding allocation of £1,008,600, of which £708,000 is for capital development. With that money it

67WH
has been asked to develop children's centre services to reach almost 2,500 pre-school children within its eight most disadvantaged wards, and to create 105 new child care places. We look forward to seeing its ideas when the returns come in. We hope to ensure that the maximum possible benefit for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and local children and parents is obtained from spending that money. Working together with the people
68WH
to whom the hon. Gentleman referred at the beginning of his speech will make a real difference to those children and parents, and to the whole of his constituency and that of his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Yeovil, but if he wishes to write to me I shall be happy to consider what he has to say.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown)
  In a written statement on 22 May I announced that the Department would publish a first stage report of its review of Employers' Liability Compulsory insurance immediately following recess, on 3 June.

  I am pleased to announce the publication of that report. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library of the House. I understand that the Office of Fair Trading is also announcing today the outcomes of its fact-finding study into the UK Liability Insurance market.

  The Government are well aware that over the past year many businesses have been hit hard by significant price increases in the Employers' Liability insurance market and we are committed to playing our part in helping business in this area. There are, however, no quick or easy solutions to these difficulties and the interim report sets out the key findings of the review on the case for the reform of the Employers' Liability Insurance system and the steps we are now planning to take.

  Over the past months we have worked closely with trade associations, the CBI, the TUC and the insurance industry to improve the outlook for responsible businesses in a difficult insurance market and a number of initiatives are already being developed to assist business.

  The Government will assist in supporting and further developing these initiatives. In particular, Government will be working with interested parties to help develop the basis for more risk-related premiums.

  Government are also committed to working with stakeholders to address the long-term issues. The report identifies four significant areas for further action:
  Government will work with stakeholders to maximise the benefits for EL of current initiatives within the legal system. In parallel, Government will discuss with stakeholders the options for alternative dispute resolution arrangements.
  Government will engage with business, industry and other stakeholders to further evaluate the evidence for separating long-term occupational disease risks from accident risks—more evidence would be needed to assess whether a radical separation is justified.
  Government are committed to make rehabilitation play a more central role in the UK workers compensation system, to improve outcomes for employees and to let compensation reflect this.
  Government will reform the arrangements for enforcement of EL, to tackle the unfairness of competition trading illegally without insurance cover and to better protect employees.
  2WS
  This interim report is an agenda for action. We will move swiftly, in discussion with interested parties, to develop a programme for tackling the long-term issues identified in this report.

  There is more to be done in areas such as rehabilitation, the cost of resolving claims and long-term occupational disease. There also remains further information on the operation of the insurance market, and its impact on the wider business community to be gathered.

  Our considerations will be informed by the findings of the Office of Fair Trading's fact-finding study on the liability insurance market. The particular issue of competition in the liability insurance market is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading. Given the ongoing concerns of the business community about the costs of employers' liability insurance, the Government will closely monitor developments in the market, looking at any new information about the workings of the market for employers' liability insurance that becomes available.

  We will report in autumn on the progress that has been made and any further steps we intend to take.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Directors
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House copies of a consultation document entitled "Rewards for Failure: Directors' Remuneration—Contracts, Performance and Severance".

  The Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002, which I introduced last year, improved disclosure and shareholder accountability in relation to directors' remuneration in quoted companies. As a result, we have seen a welcome increase in the level of shareholder activism on this issue: it is for the shareholders, as the owners of companies, to ensure that remuneration levels and structures provide the appropriate incentives and that directors are held to account for company performance. The new regulations need to be given time to demonstrate their full effect. In the meantime, there remains a justified degree of shareholder and public concern about the level of compensation payments available to directors when they leave a company which has performed poorly. This consultation explores a range of possible best practice and legislative options in the area of directors' contracts, performance and severance payments and the linkage between them. Its purpose is to seek views on to what extent further measures might be required to enable shareholders to ensure that any compensation reflects performance when directors' contracts are terminated. The consultation period ends on 30 September 2003.

  Government Chemist
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I have just received the sixth annual Review of the Government Chemist and I am arranging
  3WS
  for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses plus those of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  British Energy
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  In light of today's publication of British Energy's preliminary results for the financial year 2002–03, I am taking this opportunity to inform the House about two aspects of the restructuring plan: the value of the aid that Her Majesty's Government has agreed to give to the company based on BE's estimates of its liabilities; and the company's plan to dispose of its 50 per cent. stake in Amergen, its joint venture in the US.

  VALUE OF THE AID

  In my statement to the House on 28 November 2002, I said that the Government would contribute significantly to the company's £2.1 billion of historic nuclear fuel liabilities that are managed by BNFL and extend to 2086. In addition I said that the Government would underwrite the fund that will be used to pay for the costs of decommissioning BE's nuclear power stations. These costs, together with BE's uncontracted liabilities, were estimated in the company's statement to the Stock Exchange on 28 November at £1.6 billion. To the extent that BE's payments fall short of the fund's requirements, the Government will make up the difference. I stated that the cost to the Government of meeting these liabilities would average £150 million to £200 million a year for the next 10 years and would fall thereafter. DTI is currently considering how the value of its aid for BE should be reported in its annual accounts for 2002–03, and will be discussing this with the National Audit Office.

  BE today has estimated the total value of the Government's indemnity as £3.6 billion (net present value) in its preliminary annual results for their financial year 2002–03. This figure is simply the difference between its estimate of the total liabilities underwritten by the Government and funds held by the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF). It does not include an estimate of the future contributions by BE to the NLF to fund its own liabilities.

  We expect the European Commission may shortly disclose, as part of the state aids process, a valuation of £3.3billion (net present value) for the aid. This figure was prepared according to EC requirements. It is calculated by discounting the estimated amount of aid that the Government might provide after taking into account an estimate of the amount that the company will contribute to fund its own liabilities.

  This £3.3bn figure includes £0.9bn for the estimated value to BE of a tax disregard provided for in the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the commitment to contribute significantly to the historic nuclear fuel liabilities, and an estimate of Government's contribution to decommissioning and uncontracted liabilities. The tax disregard will not result in any extra cost to the Government. It has been provided to avoid a
  4WS
  large tax charge hitting BE as a result of the aid and thus the need for the aid to be correspondingly higher to achieve the same effect.

  It is important to note that estimates of this kind are subject to a significant degree of uncertainty, particularly when different accounting treatments, assumptions, and discount rates are used in their calculation. The key points are that the Government's underlying commitment remains the same as it was last year and that our estimates of the cost to the Government (£150 million—£200 million a year on average for the next 10 years falling thereafter) is unchanged.

  AMERGEN

  British Energy has been taking steps to realise its 50 per cent. interest in Amergen, in accordance with the restructuring principles agreed with the Government on 28 November 2002.

  The company had planned to be in a position to enter into a sale agreement by 30 June 2003. I understand from BE that although discussions with a number of interested parties are ongoing, this timetable will not now be achieved. British Energy, however, has reaffirmed its intention to dispose of its interest in Amergen as soon as practicable.

  I have confirmed to British Energy that, in view of the progress made to date to sell British Energy's interest in Amergen, I can continue to support the restructuring. However, as I said in my statement to the House on 28 November, the Government remain prepared for administration in the event that, for whatever reason, the restructuring fails.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bellwin Scheme (Runnymede)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Runnymede Borough Council experienced exceptional flooding and consequential damage on the weekend of 1–10 January 2003. Given these circumstances I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified. A scheme will therefore be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to the authority to cover 85 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold, which it has incurred in dealing with the flooding.

  Bellwin Scheme (Scarborough)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Scarborough Borough Council experienced exceptional flooding and consequential damage on the weekend of 1 and 2 and 10 and 11 August 2002. Given these circumstances I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified. A scheme will therefore be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to the authority to cover 85 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold, which it has incurred in dealing with the flooding.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester

WTO: Animal Welfare
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to persuade the World Trade Organisation to include the welfare of animals as a justification for discrimination in trade.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the United Kingdom has been working with the European Union on this issue for a number of years. Animal welfare issues have long been included among the EU's World Trade Organisation negotiating priorities and at Doha the EU successfully ensured that the issue of farm animal welfare was on the agenda for the current Agreement on Agriculture negotiations.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will the Government do their best, and also stimulate our European partners, to try to achieve the result that all people of goodwill want; namely, that we should be able to choose between food which has been humanely produced and that which has been inhumanely produced and that no economic considerations should stand in the way of that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we will do what we can. It is United Kingdom policy wherever possible to try to raise the level of animal welfare internationally through dialogue and through engagement. Unilateral action can often be counterproductive, as I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise. On occasions, it can work against efforts to persuade others. It is important to note that many developing countries view our concerns about animal welfare as trade discrimination. They believe that our concerns are trade restrictions that affect them as developing countries disproportionately. I am sure that the noble Lord understands that it is not so much the issues about finance and costs as the issues about developing countries that we are bearing in the forefront of our minds.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if third world countries, practising in many cases inhumane methods of production, are allowed to import without any control, that could undermine EU producers?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are a number of considerations to bear in mind in
1156
relation to not only third world countries, as the noble Lord puts it, but also a number of other countries bound by the WTO. I hope that I have made it very clear to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that we shall do what we can to pursue animal welfare issues. The WTO rules, agreed by a consensus of all the WTO member states, are designed to provide the framework in which they operate. They do not specifically prevent measures which are aimed at raising animal welfare, but they do regulate it. They regulate it by discriminating about third country imports; about imports and domestically produced goods; and they also regulate it as to measures which are thought to be arbitrary or disguised restrictions on trade.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, rather than have a system whereby one seeks to use anything as a justification for discrimination in trade, it would be far better if we concentrated on obtaining agreed standards of animal welfare and continued to propagate the interests of open, free trade and not seek to have any barriers to that process?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree. It is important to engage with all countries—not just developing countries but others—about animal welfare standards. That we are seeking to do, which is why I laid the great stress I did to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on engaging in a dialogue on these issues. Given that, we believe that it is important to operate within a rules-based organisation like the WTO, so that when there are disagreements about these issues there is a means of resolving them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether in the EU, never mind the world, standards are equal, because our farmers are inclined to believe that the standards in Europe are not as rigorous as they are here?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I can do a little better than that. I can provide the noble Lord with a recent Commission communication, some 41) pages long. I am sure that he would not wish me to rehearse it all here, but it is on animal welfare legislation. It was published by the EU in November last year and is a very helpful over-guide of the Commission's approach to improving animal welfare issues internationally. I shall ensure that I send the noble Lord a copy.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, would not unilateral action actually he very—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the Opposition.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there is rising concern among

1157
the general public about animal welfare standards of meat and other products imported into this country, often at the expense of the British farmer? Have the Government tried to persuade the World Trade Organisation to permit labelling of such food as not meeting UK welfare standards?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, we are very keen to see better labelling of all products that are traded. The noble Lord is quite right. There is rising concern not just about animal welfare, but also about human health and the concerns that individuals have, for example, about genetically modified products. The United Kingdom, in concert with our EU partners, believes that better labelling is an important aspect of our current negotiations in the WTO.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister said that the EU and this country had some success at Doha. Can she say what has happened since in getting the issue of animal welfare on the agenda in a specific form for Cancun?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am afraid, as we shall discuss later in Questions in your Lordships' House, that matters are moving rather slowly in Cancun. I hope that the issues about animal welfare will be taken forward. It was indeed a success to get animal welfare on to the agenda. We must remember that the negotiations do not end with Cancun, although it is a very important staging post. As I said, we shall be discussing this matter later, but I would suggest to the noble Baroness that there are probably greater priorities for most developing countries. We should bear in mind that we are discussing the development round. The developing countries will put some other issues very much more to the forefront of the agenda.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that getting this matter on to the agenda is not just a question of welfare but of the very dignity of being human and of how we treat our fellow creatures, and that the way in which the matter is put across will determine the urgency with which it is treated?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is an important point. It is not just a matter of considering the general rules although those are enormously important as regards animal welfare standards—as I said to your Lordships, this is a matter that the United Kingdom and our colleagues in the EU take very seriously—but also of considering individual aspects of trade in animal products. Your Lordships will have heard recent discussion about cat and dog fur and there is also debate about seal skins and laying hens. A number of different issues arise which concern not just animal welfare but also, as the right reverend Prelate said, the ways in which we as human beings share the planet with our fellow creatures.

Augustine Chihuri
2.44 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to remove Augustine Chihuri, the Commissioner of the Zimbabwe Republic Police, as honorary Vice-President of Interpol.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am happy to say that we have learnt that Zimbabwe's police commissioner announced in a letter to Interpol dated 28th May that he would step aside from the position we are discussing.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we very much welcome the resignation. The appointment was seen as support by Interpol for a repressive police force that yesterday viciously beat and shot at peaceful protestors.
The Prime Minister's statement in Evian expressed strong support for NePAD in which African leaders assume responsibility for democracy, human rights and good governance throughout the continent. May I therefore ask the Minister what has been the reaction of governments in the region to Morgan Tsvangirai's arrest and to the court order banning this week's protests—both issued on affidavits in Chihuri's name?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I very much join the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, in welcoming the resignation. The noble Lord is quite right, the Prime Minister made clear in his speech at Evian that there has been significant progress on NePAD, with many countries within the African continent now agreeing to review mechanisms which lie very much at the heart of the NePAD initiative. It is true that Zimbabwe casts something of a shadow over NePAD. None of us can disguise that. But it is our strong view that we cannot hold an entire continent to ransom on the basis of what is happening in one country.
During the G8 summit President Mbeki of South Africa detailed the continuing efforts of African leaders to start interparty dialogue between ZANUPF and the MDC. However, we have not had any specific feedback on the arrest of Mr Morgan Tsvangirai or, indeed, on the way in which the Zimbabwean courts have outlawed the week of action which is currently under way. We shall have a much clearer view of that over the next couple of days.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, with the ever increasing condemnation of Mr Mugabe and his brutal regime in Zimbabwe is it not time for Her Majesty's Government to put pressure on the United Nations Security Council to initiate a full debate on Zimbabwe?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the United Kingdom Government do not hang back from

1159
wishing to see this matter debated in as authoritative a forum as possible. We wish to see it debated in the EU and in the Commonwealth. We also very much wish to see it debated in the UN. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that not all our partners on the United Nations Security Council take the same view as we do as regards robustly exposing the dreadful shortcomings of the Mugabe regime. There are those who do not wish to have the matter debated with the robustness that the noble Lord and I would like to see.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister initiate an inquiry into the manner in which the Interpol rules provide for the appointment of its vice-presidents so that this kind of thing does not happen again? Is the Minister aware that Mr Chihuri was the subject of a court order two years ago for facilitating the illegal seizure of farms and that the latest exploits of the force to which he belongs include not only the arrest of Mr Tsvangirai but also those of the mayor of Bulawayo and the secretary-general of the MDC, Mr Welshman Ncube? Is the Minister also aware that the police force is accused of beating Mr Edwin Dzivaresekwa MP to within an inch of his life and that he is in intensive care? Does the noble Baroness agree that even if we cannot refer those matters to the Security Council, they should be the subject of a rigorous examination by the High Commissioner for Human Rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord said. As regards the way in which the police commissioner was awarded the honorary vice presidency, Her Majesty's Government were not involved in Interpol's decision. I believe that it was a matter of precedent that those who had been elected in the past were then given an honorary vice presidency, as happened in the case that we are discussing. I agree with the noble Lord that where the situation changes on the ground there should be a mechanism for reviewing exactly that automaticity. The police force in Zimbabwe has become something of an instrument of state terror, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, described in the examples that he cited. As I say, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points that he made and I shall relay them to my right honourable friends.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is it not the case that as well as those who have already been mentioned as having been arrested yesterday, no fewer than four other MPs were arrested, all members of the main opposition party, and that at least one of them is said to have been held without food for 24 hours? Can the noble Baroness tell us a little more about the regime which Mr Chihuri represents and of any other effective action we can take to discourage this kind of atrocious behaviour?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, reports are still coming in as to the full extent of what happened. The noble Lord cites arrests made yesterday. I do not yet have any information about
1160
what has gone on today. The Zimbabwean high court issued a provisional order on 31st May declaring that the MDC and Morgan Tsvangirai were,
"interdicted from holding the mass stay away and public demonstrations scheduled for 2 to 6 June".
The order was given by Justice Hlatshwayo following an application made, as has been pointed out, by Commissioner Chihuri. As we know, Mr Tsvangirai was arrested yesterday morning for contempt of court, in so far as he defied that interim order. He was then released an hour and a half later to attend his treason trial.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the Minister will remember that when this country tried to raise such an issue last year, the African Union voted it down. Have the Government considered asking Mr Mbeki, in his character as chairman of the African Union under President Gaddafi, what it intends to do? At the G8 last year, we were told that good governance was not really in the gift of NePAD, but an issue for the African Union. What have we done to try to use that, and to put the African Union on the stand and ask what it is doing about that situation in an African country where Africans are murdering Africans?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is a difficult question, as I am sure that the noble Baroness understands. It is difficult to ensure that we get the support that we need from African Union countries while still having a robust position ourselves, and to try to avoid putting anyone else in the dock other than those in the Mugabe regime who should be there.
The noble Baroness is quite right: the EU tabled a resolution in the 59th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, and it fell to a no-action motion proposed by South Africa on behalf of the Africa group. We were enormously disappointed by that reaction from the Africa group. On the other hand, Presidents Mbeki, Obasanjo and Muluzi visited Harare from 5th May for meetings with Mr Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai, and we very much welcome their continued engagement in trying to tackle the problems facing Zimbabwe.
We are talking to those in the African continent whom we believe can bring pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime, but there is a delicate balance to strike to ensure their full engagement and that they put pressure on the regime in the way needed.

Money Laundering
2.53 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the restrictions imposed by the Financial Services Authority under the Money Laundering Regulations 1993, requiring firms to obtain and record sufficient evidence of the identity of their clients, and seek to eliminate those

1161
restrictions which obstruct legitimate business without causing any inconvenience to those whose aim is to launder money.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Financial Services Authority has statutory powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to issue rules to counter money laundering. The rules are consistent with the Money Laundering Regulations 1993, and require financial institutions to obtain satisfactory evidence of a client's identity and to keep records for five years. The regulations are not prescriptive about how identification should be made, and nor are FSA rules. In supervising compliance, the FSA tries to ensure that they are applied in a flexible manner that does not interfere with legitimate business.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has followed most admirably the criterion for Answers of adding absolutely nothing to what is already known on the subject? Having said that, does he accept that it is common ground between us that money laundering is a disreputable practice to be discouraged? What ought to be common ground as well is that it is undesirable to gum up legitimate business with silly regulations. Does he accept that an example of that is for banks and others, before they open a simple account with people, to require from the customer, actual or intended, proof in the form of a utility bill that they live at the address to which the bank has just addressed their communication? That verges on the barmy.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I had never conceived of it as being a Minister's job to educate the House, but merely to reply to Questions in the way in which they had been phrased. The rules are not prescriptive. One or two financial institutions have asked for evidence along the lines that the noble Lord suggests, but that is not required by any legislation, including the FSA rules. Guidance is being issued that indicates that, so long as proper identification is established, the means by which that is achieved is for the institution itself to decide.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister see that some advice on the subject goes to, for example, building societies? My recent experience has told me that if I want to open a new account at a building society of which I have already been a customer for many years, it still insists on new identification. It says that that is the law—that in its view it is obliged to do so. When customers ask whether the building society cannot refer to their other account, it says that it is not allowed to do so under the Data Protection Act. It seems that there is great overkill for people who have established accounts. Something should be done to educate such bodies, and perhaps the FSA should do so.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I indicated, the FSA is not responsible for the way in which
1162
building societies interpret their need to establish identity. We should return to the main reason for the requirements and rules. It will be recognised that money laundering is not only a heinous offence but, in this day and age, can be a way to sustain international terrorism. Therefore it is only right that we employ requirements of full rigour with regard to institutions. However, the noble Baroness indicated where building societies might look at the matter again.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that banks and building societies routinely require the procedures already mentioned because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are legal requirements with legal deadlines? No doubt many noble Lords other than myself who have long-standing accounts with banks and other financial institutions have, like me, been required to turn up bearing passports and a utility bill to prove who they are.
Does the noble Lord accept that such box-ticking will frankly be completely useless in dealing with sophisticated money launderers? Does he further accept that it is more important that the FSA issues guidelines about how members of staff of banks and other financial institutions follow due diligence beyond mere box-ticking, to check that people who come through the front door are not potential money launderers?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. The exercise is not meant to a box-ticking one, but to ensure that the identity of the person concerned with opening or transferring moneys between accounts is obtained accurately. I assure him that the Financial Services Authority is all too well aware of the fact that there are areas of some confusion. It, too, is eager to emphasise not box-ticking but efficacy. He is absolutely right to say that the rules are intended to control significant abuse, and we solve that problem not by mindless box-ticking but by an intelligent approach to establishing proper identity.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although it may be perfectly sensible to require people investing £10,000 or £20,000 to produce a certified copy of their passport and a utility bill, it is quite ridiculous to require people investing £500 or £1,000 to go to such trouble and expense? Money launderers do not deal in such small sums.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord may have greater experience of the phenomenon than I have. I am not too sure that we could establish

1163
anything in terms of accounts. Surely we have to establish the identity of the person opening the account.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is not—
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, if there were no checks on identity or addresses, I could easily register an account in perhaps the names of noble Lords of substantial means.
A Noble Lord: The rich ones.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I shall not point in any direction. There may be some on my own side, for all I know.
If by chance a cheque in the name of one of those noble Lords was mistakenly put in my mail box, I could happily collect it. I am sure that they would complain bitterly if I were to assume their identity.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hope that I detected a rather large hypothesis in the noble Lord's contribution. He is right that we need rules and regulations to guard against any form of fraud or money laundering. Noble Lords will be aware that there has been increased sensitivity in recent years because of laundering, which provides international terrorists with opportunities to get their hands on increased amounts of money, and because there have been one or two notorious cases involving substantial movements of money into this country. It was very important indeed that the regulations were in place.

WTO: Cancun Meeting
3.1 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with European Union partners in preparation for the forthcoming World Trade Organisation meeting in Cancun, Mexico.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have regular detailed discussions with European partners at ministerial and official level on issues relating to the current World Trade Organisation trade round. Our current priorities in the run-up to the ministerial meeting in Cancun are agriculture and a settlement of the issue of trade-related intellectual property rights and access to medicines. I am next due to meet my European Union colleagues in Palermo on 6th July.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her helpful Answer. Is she aware that the average European Union cow is subsidised to the extent of 2.4 dollars a day and that that compares with the 2 dollars a day on which more than 3 billion people—more than half the world's population—have to live? In light of that statistic, is it not clear that the main
1164
priority in Cancun—I believe that my noble friend more or less said this—must be to help developing countries to achieve a more competitive position in the world agricultural market, given that they face heavily subsided products from rich countries?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I am very much aware of the appalling statistic that my noble friend rehearsed. The figures vary slightly but I use those statistics myself in trying to persuade my European colleagues that it is monstrous that we do not move from the current position on agricultural subsidies.
I have just come from a meeting this lunchtime of members of the various high commissions of the Commonwealth from around London, where we discussed the WTO. The opening contribution from a developing country was precisely the point raised by my noble friend; that is, that before everything else, the issue involving agriculture is absolutely vital to developing countries.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this is a central issue for the development of policy? A world in which there is such a gross difference between the wealth of different communities is not only immoral but also unsafe. Does she also recognise that it will take great political courage to undertake policies that must in the end involve costs for this country? That courage is greatly needed in governments of any party.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I hope that not only I recognise that but my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my noble friend the Secretary of State at MID recognise that as well. This is a central issue. As the noble Lord said, this is a moral issue and it also involves safety. As we have discussed in your Lordships' House, the increasing levels of poverty in some parts of the world provide fertile territory for those who wish to exploit them for purposes of terrorism and other issues. It is vital that the trade round is a success but I shall not try in any way to undercut the real difficulties that I have foreseen in the trade round. It is already an uphill struggle and there is no indication that it will get any easier in the next few weeks and months.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the issue that we must address as a member of the European Union is only part of the problem? It is good to hear that we are fighting our corner in that regard to get a better trade system. However, the United States must also pull its weight in this regard. Is she satisfied, from what President Bush said at the Evian Summit, that the United States will be prepared to reduce the level of subsidy that, in a different way, is just as damaging to developing countries as to ours?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the United States must pull its weight; I absolutely agree. The farm Bill, which was passed shortly after the Doha declaration and which referred to phasing out farm subsidies, was a great disappointment to many of us. We must be careful in this regard. The fact is that the United States subsidises its agriculture to the extent of about 23 per cent of expenditure but we in the European Union do so by in the region of 35 per cent. I am afraid that we must also look very carefully at our own house. This issue involves not just the United States but also Japan. The failure to reach an agreement on this at Evian is very disappointing. The export subsidies moratorium that was suggested was not agreed at Evian. I hope that we can return to that issue at the ministerial meeting at Cancun.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, to follow the Minister's response to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and in view of Her Majesty's Government's support for the United States in our joint adventure in Iraq, does she accept that this is perhaps the best moment for a decade to extract a quid pro quo from the United States Government in return for our support? I refer in particular to farm subsidies, which, as has been indicated, are particularly damaging to Africa. That does not merely involve farm subsidies; there is also the matter of the steel industry. Noble Lords will be well aware that the United States is in dispute with the World Trade Organisation over potential subsidies. Is this not a moment for the Prime Minister to exercise his muscle with his new-found friend?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the United States is not our new-found friend; it has been our friend for a very long time.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I do not accept the equivalence of the steel dispute and the issue of poverty in developing countries. I am sorry but I believe that they are very different. The sort of equivalence that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, gave them is inappropriate. My argument in relation to the United States involves not a quid pro quo, as the noble Lord put it, but the fact that it is in its interest for the world's prosperity to be more equally divided, in order to create the safer world to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton. referred a moment or two ago. World prosperity is continuing to grow—we should make no mistake about that—although it currently does so somewhat unevenly. If fewer countries are able to access that growing prosperity, and if thereby the gulf between the rich and the poor becomes ever wider, the unsafe world to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred would become even more of a difficulty.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, can the Minister—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are out of time now.

Iraq: Looting
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, given the United Kingdom's responsibility as an occupying power under international law, no steps were taken to protect Basra University from looters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, British forces entered the north of the city of Basra at the beginning of April. Their most immediate priority was to engage and defeat enemy forces. As soon as that had been achieved, units were deployed to secure Basra University. Looters were expelled and some stolen goods were recovered. British forces continued to protect the university, which I understand is now open, until the security situation improved.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that that is—how can I put it?—a rather favourable view of what has happened? Some 2 million books, some of which date back to 1015, are understood to have been burnt at Basra University. The astronomy section was destroyed and a great deal of the university was laid to waste. Does the Minister accept that a month after the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, chided my noble friend Lord Redesdale for having suggested that Basra University could be protected, Human Rights Watch today published a report that shows that there are still daily killings in Basra and that looting is continuing? To use its words, there is no adequate security as yet even in that area after dark. Will the Government take urgent steps to arrange for the appropriate personnel who are police-trained rather than militarily-trained to go into the British area of occupation? That is all the more important, given that Mr Sawers, the Government's civil service representative, has now said that the likelihood is that the occupation coalition authority will be in charge for at least another year, and possibly even 18 months.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that I have given a favourable interpretation, nor that my noble friend Lady Symons in any way chided the noble Lord. Lord Redesdale, at an earlier Question Time. I must repeat the facts. The University of Basra in the north of the city was attacked by the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers on 6th April because it was being defended. A BBC report suggested that the last hideout for the Fedayeen in that city was in the university, where many foreign jihadis had signed up to study in the Koranic studies department. One of the main thrusts of our attack took them through he university as they moved towards the Iraqi naval academy. Much damage was done, alas, to the university—not by looters at that stage, but because of the fighting.

1167
It was necessary to fight to win the war to liberate Iraq and Basra in particular. However, I want to stress that as soon as enemy forces had been defeated and UK forces fell back to secure the area, when they returned looters had been there in the meantime. The British forces expelled between 1,000 and 1,500 looters from the university site and confiscated stolen items. It is a large site of about two square kilometres. One regiment occupied the site for 72 hours before handing over to a squadron of the Queen's Royal Lancers, who continued to protect the site and establish links with lecturers and other university staff. Those are the facts of the situation.
As far as concerns the noble Baroness's general comments about Basra, of course there are still problems at this stage. It would be ridiculous to suggest that any part of Iraq would become a liberal democracy the moment the ruthless dictator fell. In fact, there have been joint patrols by UK military and Iraqi police since 13th April in that city, where we have had responsibilities. Some 800 police are now reported to have returned to work in the area. I am advised that the security situation overall in that city is getting better rather than worse.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the looting that we have seen across Iraq should not detract from the excellent work carried out by British and American forces in liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein? However, would he agree that, despite his very full answer, the looting and violence we have seen is a clear indication that DfID and the MoD comprehensively failed to work together before the conflict on proper contingency planning for how they would manage the peace? In particular, does the Minister agree with the analysis of Clare Short, who said this weekend that because she had been "duped" by the Prime Minister:
"The preparations for post-conflict were poor, and that is why we have got the chaos and suffering that we have now."?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness's question, however kindly she puts it, and I certainly do not agree with what Ms Short had to say.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, has any action been taken by 1 he British, or are the British prompting their American allies, to protect any of the archaeological sites in Iraq, because there is widescale reporting of looting on a massive scale that will make the destruction of the Baghdad museum seem paltry in comparison?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I know the concern of the noble Lord and other noble Lords on that issue. Any looting of such sites is unacceptable. Coalition forces have attempted to stop that where possible. He knows that Resolution 1483 imposes a new prohibition on trade in or transfer of cultural or religious items. We have been informed by the United States authorities that there are guards now at the Baghdad museum and that looting of its artefacts is under control. The
1168
United States has retrieved over 40,000 manuscripts and 400 other artefacts that were stolen from the Baghdad museum. I think that it is established now that many items that were reported missing in those early days had in fact been stored in vaults since the beginning of the military operations. However, I do not dispute that there is still a problem as far as cultural sites are concerned. We and our coalition allies are determined to sort that out.

Communications Bill
3.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 261 [Public service remits of licensed providers]:
Viscount Falklandmoved Amendment No. 189:
Page 232, line 43, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) The public service remit for every regional Channel 3 service is the provision of a wide range of high quality and diverse programming which, in particular, includes a substantial range of high quality original production and satisfies the tastes and interests of the part of the United Kingdom for which that service is licensed.
(2A) The public service remit for every national Channel 3 service is the provision of a wide range of high quality and diverse programming which, in particular, includes a substantial range of high quality original production.
(2B) The public service remit for Channel 5 is the provision of a range of high quality and diverse programming."
The noble Viscount said: The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has asked my noble friend Lord McNally and me to move this amendment for him in his place. At the same time I shall also speak to Amendment No. 190, which is down both in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McNally. Amendment No. 189 concerns the Channel 3 service, which was the subject of some debate in the pre-legislative scrutiny that was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. The amendment expressed the concerns that were evident on that occasion about the public service remit for every regional Channel 3 service. There was a concern, which is the substance of the amendment, that there should be a continued provision of a wide range of high quality and diverse programming.
The amendment provides an opportunity to debate the recommendation of the joint committee that the public service remit for each of the Channel 3 services should require urgently the provision of this range of high quality and diverse programming. That would include a high proportion of high quality original production. In particular it should satisfy the tastes

1169
and the interests of that part of the United Kingdom which that Channel 3 service served. The pressures could be great on the Channel 3 services, as I am sure that noble Lords will realise, with limited sources of advertising and increased strong competition which exists even now before the provisions of the Bill, should they be passed, become an Act.
Amendment No. 190 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McNally deals with other aspects of Channel 3. In the Government's White Paper of December 2000 they promised that Channel 3 would have continuing responsibilities for a similar range of programming to that of the BBC and Channel 4, albeit with targets set at lower levels. The genres of programming are clearly set out in Clause 260, but the degree to which ITV is expected to abide by them depends on its individual remit. That remit is, perhaps alarmingly, exactly the same as that of Channel 5, even though Channel 3 has a universal reach, which Channel 5 does not. At present, Channel 3 has a share of the peak-time audience of around 33 per cent, whereas Channel 5 has a reach of around 6 per cent. Furthermore, the programme budget of Channel 3 is around six times that of Channel 5.
Channel 3 has an historic place in broadcasting ecology as a mixture of commercial and public service provision. It is a successful competitor to BBC 1 and in particular has been a successful provider over a number of years of regional programming. Channel 5 bears lighter obligations because it was intended that it should be a small, niche commercial channel.
We contend that the public service broadcasting ecology I have mentioned would be greatly undermined if ITV's remit freed it from its Tier 3 obligations. This could be further aggravated by the ownership rule changes, allowing ITV to centralise and to he taken over by possibly a large non-British corporation. In such an environment, it is vital within the British ecology that Channel 3 has a strong public service remit which, to put it as mildly as I can, acts as a strong reminder to any aggressive new owner—whether that be a UK owner or, more possibly, an international corporation—and underwrites the commitment to regional programming and to general factual programming. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I want to make some boring, lawyers' points which nevertheless are not unimportant in terms of the construction of the Bill. I am sure that one of the most difficult tasks of the parliamentary draftsman was to try to write into Clauses 260 and 261 the burden of expectation placed upon them by almost all Members who have spoken in favour of the Bill supporting public service standards. My questions in relation to Amendments Nos. 189 and 190 revolve around understanding how Clause 261 fits with Clause 260.
Clause 260 refers in its heading to the "public service remit" for television at large. Nowhere does it make any statement that it is subject to the provisions of Clause 261. The point is that Clause 261, which sets out the public service remit for Channels 3, 4 and 5, is
1170
infinitely narrower in scope than the provisions of Clause 260. Clause 260(4) lists the "purposes of public service television broadcasting" and the clause twice makes reference to "relevant television services".
My question intends to achieve a greater understanding from the Minister. I have given late notice of the questions, for which I apologise, but in the face of such large pieces of legislation one is operating on a just-in-time basis. I would be pleased to know how one construes the fact that the public service remit of Channel 3 and Channel 5 are confined by Clause 261(2) to,
"the provision of a range of high quality and diverse programming".
I compare that with the requirements of Clause 260(4)(d), which refers separately to "content", "quality" and "editorial integrity". My question is whether the absence of any reference in Clause 261 to "content" as opposed to "quality", and absolute omission of reference to "editorial integrity", is supposed to imply that those two requirements do not carry across into the public service remit for the public service channels, 3, 4 and 5, governed, as it would seem, by Clause 261. Put another way, is Clause 260 generally applicable to Channels 3, 4 and 5 or is the effect of Clause 261 to narrow the scope of Clause 260 with regard to Channels 3, 4 and 5 to just those matters dealt with in Clause 261?
I want to raise at this juncture one other point, bearing in mind that we are at the Committee stage and trying to be of help both to the Government and the Committee. When looking at Clause 261(3), which deals with the public service remit for Channel 4, which is more expansive than that provided for Channels 5 and 3 services, I wonder why it appears to go wider than Clause 260. It deals with "innovation, experiment and creativity", which is not part of the many provisions of Clause 260. That clause refers in only one place to originality and that is with regard to programmes for young persons and children. Similarly, Clause 261(3) talks of programming exhibiting a "distinctive character" as being a public service requirement for Channel 4, but there is nothing like it in Clause 260.
I therefore have a double conundrum. In one sense, Clause 261 is much narrower than Clause 260, but in respect of the distinctive character of programming on the one hand and innovation and creativity on the other, Clause 261 appears to step outside the ambit of Clause 260.
I apologise to the Committee for having to put those technical matters in a way which will be difficult to follow and comprehend, but, frankly, I know of no other way of contending with them in the method that is required; that is, on the Floor of the Chamber.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Without wanting to follow on the technicalities of the points that have been raised, it is helpful to the Committee and the Bill that Amendments Nos. 189 and 190 attempt to be more specific about the nature of the public service remit. That is of value.

1171
I am concerned that we might feel some trepidation about being too precise in trying to identify what we feel is realistic in terms of public service remit and in trying to be prescriptive in identifying the qualities necessary in statute for a public service remit to be observed. In that, we have a British concern that we may be trying to over-regulate in statute an issue which should be left to more vague and less clearly identified roles and qualities.
I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a broader point raised in Amendments Nos. 189 and 190. It is the statutory obligation that some of our neighbours and colleagues impose in the public service context on their broadcasters. I think specifically of France and Spain in the European Union and Canada and Australia in the Commonwealth countries. There are very precise statutory obligations ensuring a fair and proportionate broadcast investment contribution to the culture and industry of their respective countries by the broadcasting channels concerned. I am indebted to the former MEP, Carole Tongue, who has produced a useful summary of comparative regulation in various countries within the OECD. If I may just quote briefly from the Australian legislation, it is clear what it expects:
"It is to promote the role of commercial television in developing and reflecting a sense of Australian identity, character and cultural diversity by supporting the community's continued access to television programmes produced under Australian creative control."
It seems to me that if that kind of specific legislation is statutorily embraced within a Commonwealth country—I could go on at much greater length on more specific obligations—then those are some of the issues that we should consider when we look at these amendments.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bernstein of Craigweil: I should like to support the intention behind Amendments Nos. 189 and 190. I speak as a former television executive. ITV was set up very much with the public service remit that established the BBC. Licences were awarded to companies which could demonstrate the ability to produce programmes of a wide range and of high quality. We had a very effective regulator over many years who insisted that that remit was carried through.
By the end of the 1980s the system was creaking. It needed a review. What it did not need was the Broadcasting Act 1990 which was enacted in the full flow of the Conservative Party's belief in market forces. It decided that money, not programmes, should be the arbiter of the licence renewal system. The intention was to auction franchises to the highest bidder. Fortunately, some of the worst effects were mitigated by the Minister of State at the Home Office inserting some last minute amendments to the Bill and by the pragmatism of the Independent Television Commission in awarding the contracts. Nevertheless, the auctions took place. Many companies overpaid, some by tens of millions of pounds. The inevitable result was that the money that should have gone into programmes went into the pocket of the Treasury.
1172
I do not wish to say that the current picture is totally black. Some companies within the ITV system still aim to provide public service broadcasting but things are changing. Satellite television is getting both more powerful and more competitive and the ownership of the ITV companies may well change. This Bill would allow United States owners to acquire ITV and US companies are not particularly known for their sensitivity for home-grown original programme-making.
The intention behind these amendments is correct. I take my noble friend Lady Jay's point that one can be over-prescriptive but I believe that the amendment which includes the phrasing.
"a substantial range of high quality original production'.
is important and should be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Puttnam: I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for moving Amendment No. 289. 1 have two things to add. I have just spent a most informative weekend at Ditchley Park discussing the relationship between the media, politics and the public with a parallel group of 15 Americans. One thing that most distressed the American group was the almost total absence from American broadcasting of documentaries about the rest of the world. They have become as dead as a dodo.
Amendments Nos. 189, 193 and 194 are all of a piece. They are an attempt to hold the licensees' feet to the fire in terms of programme quality. As an example of why this is necessary, it has already been decided that Channel 3 is no longer required to provide programmes of international interest. The obligation to provide documentaries about the rest of the world has been removed from its licence obligations. That is an example of slippage. It was a foolish thing to do. It is unreasonable to expect that entire area of programming to be left to the BBC. We shall have a diminished television environment as a result. That is the reason for Amendment No. 189, and I am sure it will also have a great bearing on why we will pursue Amendments Nos. 193 and 194.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am very grateful for the way in which these amendments have been spoken to. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, should at all apologise for raising the issue of the construction of the Bill because it is indeed complex. If I spend a little time setting out the relationship between Clause 260, which your Lordships' House has already debated, and the following clauses which we are now debating I hope that things will become a little clearer. They did to me when I was trying to work out what they all meant.
Clause 260 sets out the overall remit for all public service broadcasting. To answer the noble Lord's question, that includes Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5. However, it is not an obligation on broadcasters; it is a very detailed set of standards set out for Ofcom. When we debated Clause 260, it was generally accepted that this was the most comprehensive definition of the content of proper

1173
public service broadcasting that we have ever had. If my noble friend Lord Puttnam looks at Clause 260(6)(c) he will see that coverage of international affairs in news and current affairs and in factual programming is covered in the definitions of Clause 260.
The purpose of it being an obligation on Ofcom is that Ofcom should have the responsibility of reviewing the performance of public service broadcasters, of reporting on that review and of enforcement action. That is not in Clause 260. It comes, as we shall see, in later clauses. It is absolutely essential that we should understand straightaway that Clause 260 is not just a set of words but standards that have to be adhered to, and if they are not adhered to Ofcom has a duty to take enforcement action.
Clause 261, instead of setting the overall remit for all public service broadcasting, defines the remit for each licensed public service channel provider. It divides that up into Channel 3 and Channel 5 for whom the criterion is a range of high quality and diverse programming and for Channel 4 where there is more precise wording. The reason for that is that Clause 261 repeats the existing remit for Channel 4 which was in place when Channel 4 began. It has been generally agreed to be an admirable remit for a public service broadcaster with advertising but without private shareholders.
However, that is not the end of it. We have been talking so far about quality obligations under tier 3 and what these amendments seek to introduce into Clause 261 is quantitative standards under tier 2. I suggest to the Committee that that is unnecessary since all of those requirements are set out in later clauses.
In Clause 274, the requirement for original programming for Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5, which is set out in these amendments, is provided on the face of the Bill.
In Clause 282 the requirement for regional programming in a different sense, that is, programmes made in and of particular interest to the relevant part of the United Kingdom, is set out for Channel 3. In Clause 283 the regional remit for Channel 4 is also set out on the face of the Bill. All of the matters introduced into Clause 261 by the amendments are not necessary because they are spelt out in detail in subsequent clauses of the Bill. I found that enormously difficult to understand and I do not blame anyone, including the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for finding it difficult, but it is necessary to do it that way.
However, that is not the end. Amendment No. 189 extends the definition for Channel 3 to cover tier 2 matters which, as I said, are already covered. Amendment No. 190 does the same for Channel 3 and for Channel 5, which is a national channel. Here we have a very detailed description of how public service broadcasting should be defined in terms of all the kinds of good programming required from public service broadcasters. That must cover not just factual and entertainment matters, as specified in Amendment No. 189, but all of the other matters specified in Clause 260 plus the elements set out in Clause 261.
1174
All the points raised are valid and have been taken into account in the drafting of the Bill. I hope that I have shown that our approach is rational and logical and that the Bill's proposals, if not easy to follow immediately, do cover the ground.
Lord Puttnam: For the sake of clarity, the Minister is right in one sense. The words "around the world" are included under programming described as news and current affairs. They have been omitted, or removed, I should say, from,
"programmes that reflect the lives and concerns of different communities and cultural interests and traditions".
I would be completely happy if the words "and from around the world" could be added to paragraph (h); I would be a very content person.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let us think about that. We have already debated Clause 260, but that does not mean that further improvements at the margin are not possible at later stages of the Bill. It is a legitimate point. I do not want to dismiss it without thinking about it.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Do I summarise fairly the Minister's proposition by saying that the provisions of Clause 261 are in addition to the provisions of Clause 260; that is, that where one refers to Channel 3, Channel 4 or Channel 5 services, all of the provisions of Clause 260 will apply to those channels notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 261?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is correct. Clause 260 is the overall remit for all public service broadcasters. Clause 261 defines the remit, deliberately in summarised form, because we do not want to repeat everything for Channels 3, 4 and 5.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Does the Minister concede that Clause 261 summarises what is in Clause 260 and does not repeat everything, the phrase, I think, that was used? I understand what the Minister says. Is there not a danger that others—as I did—will read Clause 261 as being a more specific requirement for Channels 3, 4 and 5, set out separately in Clause 261, and that therefore there could hereafter be deemed to be a clash between the two? Put another way, everything in Clause 261 is in Clause 260 "with knobs on". One therefore wonders what on earth is the point of Clause 261.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The point about Clause 260, as I hope I made clear, is that it is enforceable. It is an obligation on the programmers to put programme policies to Ofcom. It is an obligation on Ofcom to review those programme policies, to report on them and to see that what has been promised is adequate in terms of the detailed requirements of Clause 260 and is carried out.
Clause 260 specifies the difference between Channels 3 and 5. One does not need to repeat everything; one just refers to high quality and diverse programming, which summarises but will not replace

1175
the obligations in Clause 260. However, it has to be distinguished from Channel 4 where we have made a deliberate decision, which I hope is welcome, to repeat the successful remit established when Channel 4 was first set up. Because of the enforcement powers leading from Clause 260 there is no possibility of lower standards driving out higher standards.
Viscount Falkland: I am grateful to the Minister for his full and interesting reply. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for his amplification to the content of the amendment, which I moved in his name. The debate has been lively and fascinating. We have reached a subject central to the changes which are taking place or are envisaged in the Bill. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury who, in his usual articulate way, has analysed a problem. The House will be in his debt and that of the Minister for having to some extent resolved the difficulties of bringing together Clauses 260 and 261.
The remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, with her experience, were apposite. I took seriously what she said. One can be over-prescriptive and over-regulate. It is possible that there is a tendency with our tradition to do that. Nevertheless, I hope that our public service remit, unique as it is, will remain in the way we have envisaged it even though we may not have expressed it in a way entirely suitable for the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
Clause 261 agreed to.
Clause 262 agreed to.
Clause 263 [Changes of programme policy]:
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
Clause 263 agreed to.
Clauses 264 and 265 agreed to.
Clause 266 [Enforcement of public service remits]:
Lord Holme of Cheltenhammoved Amendment No. 192:
Page 237, line 22, at end insert—
( ) Such failure shall include, without exclusion of other public service responsibilities, a failure to provide such coverage of the proceedings of Parliament, and other elected legislatures within the United Kingdom, as is appropriate and necessary for civic understanding of their purpose and practices."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 192 is to ensure that whatever other criteria may be used to define a failure to meet public service requirements, they shall include a failure to ensure proper coverage of Parliament and its proceedings and, indeed, of other democratic parliaments or assemblies within the UK. Put more positively, the aim is to ensure that coverage of Parliament is a core element of public service obligations in broadcasting.
There are some—I include myself—who believe that accountability, transparency and governance of the BBC, which after all is the gold standard of public service broadcasting, would be greatly improved with a clear definition of "public service". I am not in
1176
favour of the British vagueness of which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, spoke so warmly. I am rather in favour on an important issue such as this of precision.
However, the amendment is not about that larger question; it deals with the very specific issue of parliamentary coverage, on the basis that public service in a parliamentary democracy must mean as an irreducible minimum the promotion of proper understanding by the citizens of the way in which they are represented and governed.
I should declare an interest here, as chairman of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government, which coincidentally tonight is launching a report entitled A Tale of Two Houses, which examines how Parliament and parliamentarians are viewed by those who are not traditionally involved in Westminster, drawn in this case from regular viewers of "Big Brother". I can assure the Committee that it makes extremely interesting reading—and very depressing reading in many ways.
It is not the purpose of the amendment to say that much good work is not done by broadcasters. "Yesterday in Parliament" on the radio is a fine example of what can be done. The recent reform of using Central Lobby to get immediacy after debates is a great step forward. But we cannot be entirely confident that the management of broadcasters who have public service obligations will always be sensitive and will always treat this issue with the importance that it deserves. In our society, particularly now that the press relies increasingly on sketches and dramatic political controversy, the broadcasters are one of the main means by which citizens understand what their representatives are doing and why.
No doubt we could do a great deal more on our side of the fence to make the proceedings of Parliament more accessible and comprehensible, as the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons has indicated, and as the former Leader of the House, Robin Cook, also intimated. But I believe that broadcasters have a bottom-line responsibility, and they must not be allowed to evade it.
In 1999 MORI carried out an opinion poll for the Hansard Society which showed that 75 per cent of the general public agreed that it was important to have live extracts from Parliament, showing what MPs actually say. Of those who had seen such live extracts, 85 per cent agreed that it was very important to have that, rather than simply intermediation of political reporting. Interestingly, the public are far more likely to recall live coverage of parliamentarians speaking than they are political commentators reporting on what was said in Parliament.
In particular, I do not think it is desirable for Parliament to be treated wholly and solely as a prop in the adversarial drama of partisan politics. It is a sort of tabloid agenda: very high on stimulating sensation, but very low on creating understanding. The amendment is addressed as much as anything to what we might call the populist tendency, which is represented at very senior levels in the BBC and other broadcasters, and the populist tendency is to believe

1177
that Parliament is simply a subset of politics, and that politics is simply a subset of showbiz. That tendency must be discouraged, which is the intention of the amendment. I hope that it will be taken as encouragement by all those in the BBC—there are many of them—and in the other public service broadcasters, who, often in the face of internal pressures to trivialise, keep the mission of clear communication of Parliament's work alive and kicking.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to support the amendment, to which my name has been added.
As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, the clause seeks to ensure that if Ofcom is of the opinion that a public service channel or teletext provider has not fulfilled its public service remit, Ofcom may exercise its powers under the clause. The amendment ensures that the public service obligation will not be deemed to have been satisfied if there is a failure to provide coverage of the proceedings of Parliament or other elected legislatures. It provides a necessary democratic safeguard by offering members of society the opportunity to remain informed about parliamentary work and procedure. Whilst we appreciate the importance of choice, we believe that providing the freedom to choose can be effected only if the information is supplied by the appropriate institutions.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I rise to speak to my Amendment No. 193, which relates to any failure to meet public service broadcasting obligations. The aim is to ensure that any exemptions are not too easily granted.
Unlike Amendment No. 192, whose subject matter is very interesting, the amendment does not add words to the Bill. Rather, it removes a few, because they do not seem to be necessary. As a result of their deletion, Ofcom would be able, still at its discretion, to take action if and when a channel failed to fulfil its public service broadcasting remit or to make an adequate contribution towards the purposes of public service broadcasting.
The words to be removed are:
"and is not excused by economic or market conditions".
It will be noted that "economic and market conditions" are mentioned in subsection (3)(e), which surely provides sufficient safeguards against any potential injustice.
I have to admit that my intention is not just to save a few words in an over-heavy Bill. It is also to ensure that Ofcom is not encouraged to respond too easily to pleas of poverty without exploring other factors.
Lord Lipsey: I rise to support Amendment No. 192, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, to which I have appended my name.
1178
If we in Parliament do not show that we take the coverage of Parliament seriously, who on earth do we think will? The answer is "No one", and that is why the amendment deserves to be incorporated in the Bill.
Lord Crickhowell: Amendment No. 194 is included in this group, and as my name stands to it I rise to remind the Committee what the Joint Scrutiny Committee said on the subject.
We have heard in the debate so far that we now have a very clear set of definitions of the public service remit, and we have just heard suggestions for tightening things up still further. The public service remit is clearly of the greatest importance. It was the view of the Joint Scrutiny Committee that if the public service remits had to be changed that would call into question the entire framework of public service broadcasting established by the new legislation, and would surely justify Parliament's looking afresh at the entire issue by considering further primary legislation.
The suggestion that the order-making power should reside with Ofcom rather than the Secretary of State acting solely upon a recommendation by Ofcom would make the matter worse, not better, since it would entail one less safeguard for what could in effect be a very significant change. So the Joint Scrutiny Committee said in paragraph 346 of its report:
"We oppose the power to amend the public service remits of licensed public service channels by means of secondary legislation and recommend accordingly that this provision in Clause 188(1)(a) be removed."
The effect of Amendment No. 194 is to do just that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I warmly support Amendment No. 194, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
The trouble, of course, is that much of what goes on in Parliament is profoundly boring and terribly dull. The BBC criterion, in its modern populist mood, is never to show the public, or as far as possible to avoid showing the public, anything which is not entertaining, amusing or shocking. I know that it is a rather broad generalisation, but I still believe that television represents one of the greatest forces with which to influence public opinion. If public service broadcasters do nothing to sustain the importance of Parliament, then Parliament will decline in the public mind.
The amendment is very important. I cannot believe that the Government would allow their evident disrespect, at times, for Parliament to take over altogether. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, will press the amendment today or later. I can assure him of my very enthusiastic support for it.
4 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: It is a faint irony that, two-and-a-quarter centuries ago, John Wilkes, who was not the Member of Parliament for my former constituency but Lord Mayor of London, sought to change the reporting of Parliament from oratio obliqua, which was carried out by people such as Doctor Johnson, who sat in the Gallery and tried to remember afterwards what had been said, to oratio

1179
recta. It is to the credit of Parliament that, two-and-a-quarter centuries later, we are as anxious to see not only that the public have the opportunity to receive public service broadcasting, but that broadcasters are obliged to ensure that it occurs.
Lord McNally: One of the votes during my short-lived tenure at the other end of the corridor of which I am most proud was that I was the "one" in the majority—I always think so—that first carried a vote for the broadcasting of Parliament. The Motion was carried by one vote. There was much concern at that time about the effect on this House and another place of televising Parliament. I also had the leisure time inflicted by the voters of Stockport to watch the first televised broadcast from this House, when Lord Stockton made an electrifying speech about privatisation being akin to selling off the family silver. I remember the great enthusiasm of broadcasters at that time and how heavily we were lobbied to let the cameras in. Then, of course, like children with a toy, they all got bored with us and tried to think of different ways to provide coverage.
The amendment goes to the heart of the matter. When the process started, I told the BBC that it was a wonderful opportunity to win friends by initiating and innovating in its coverage of Parliament and politics. There has not been much fresh thinking on coverage in the past 20 years. Most of the standard flagship programmes are 20 years old or more. The BBC responded with a great internal think, which, so far as I can see, and as my noble friend said, has resulted in a camera in Central Lobby and presenters not wearing ties at weekends. Broadcasters' thinking seems to be overlaid by a great fear that if they try to show an intelligent, thoughtful political programme they will lose audiences, and that that is the be-all and end-all.
I have another fear that, unless we have a watchdog on such coverage, there will be a continuation of the already clear trend of forcing political coverage to the extremes of the schedule, or, even worse, with the new opportunities that digital provides, that political coverage will be ghettoised into a single channel. If that happened, statistics would show that a broadcaster had showed so many hours of political programmes and parliamentary coverage, but all the coverage would be shown on minority digital channels. I want the BBC, in particular, to return to the second and third part of the famous Reithian mantra "to educate and inform".
It cannot be purely accidental that the cynicism and apathy towards our political processes, which we all see as dangerous to our democracy, has coincided with a similar cynicism and apathy in coverage of the political process by all sections of the media. It was pointed out recently that, on reading souvenir editions of newspapers published to mark the Coronation, it is striking how much more adult the coverage of news events was 50 years ago, and how much more time was applied to it. Most of us grew up with the impact of flagship programmes such as "Newsweek" and "Panorama" being shown at peak time to large audiences. There is a grave danger of the ghettoisation
1180
of politics, which would only accelerate the apathy, cynicism and sheer lack of knowledge of the political process that endangers our democracy. I hope that the Government will treat this very important amendment with the respect that it deserves.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Many of the remarks made in this part of the debate echo those already voiced about religious broadcasting in the public service remit and the dangers of marginalisation and moving subjects into ghettos. I have much sympathy with the points being made, not least because I think that there are some allied interests. Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I hope that those aspects will be taken very seriously by the Government. I warm to what is being said.
Lord Puttnam: I wish to speak in favour of this group of amendments and to point out a paradox. During the Committee stage, it must have become evident to all of us how seriously we take the issue of broadcasting and the impact of broadcasters. I beg the Front Bench to look across the range of amendments that we have discussed today. Any one of them alone is not necessarily important. We are possibly urging the Government to be over-prescriptive. It may not be so necessary to push for changes by secondary legislation. Is that on its own a big issue? Is it a very big issue that an individual licensee can claim that its economic situation makes it impossible to conform with the obligations that it agreed to? But taking all the issues across the piece—secondary legislation, relaxation because of economic problems, a lack of prescription of obligations—are we really being serious enough about the medium that we are here to reinforce and, to a degree, to protect? I suggest that the Government look across the piece. Taken singly, the issues are not huge, but, taken together, they begin to look a little lackadaisical.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham and other Members of the Committee who have spoken warmly in favour of Amendment No. 192. I declare an interest as president of the Citizenship Foundation, a charity that I set up 15 years ago precisely because it was quite clear then—as it is even clearer now—that the civic understanding referred to in Amendment No. 192 was simply not present among the majority of young people.
As our deliberations in Parliament year by year grow evermore voluminous and complex, overlaid by a European system of institutions which adds geometrically to the distancing, impersonality and complication of political life generally, it seems as obvious as the nose on one's face that such a clause should be in the Bill. I take the point made by others that we could continue adding and adding to the Bill, but it is already 520 pages long, and the temptation to add a couple of lines is almost irresistible when dealing with a matter of such importance.
It is a pity that the European Union is not mentioned here. The Bill refers only to this Parliament and the legislatures in Scotland and Wales. Whatever

1181
view one takes, linkages with European institutions grow year by year. The public discontent and lack of understanding towards the European institutions is undoubtedly higher than with regard to this place. Perhaps we shall see an amendment to the amendment at the next stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to this issue. If we are honest, we do not do a very good job of making what we do available to the public. A tiny staff deals with public information and press relations. The greater part of what we do in this House is completely unheard and unknown by the wider public. If we intend to thrust upon broadcasters the duties outlined in Amendment No. 192 we should consider more seriously how we may bring home to the people of this country what we purport to do in their name.
I wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 193. We have spent much time and effort over the previous two days in Committee on this part of the Bill. Ultimately, it comes down to an enforcement clause. Clause 266 states in terms that there will be no enforcement unless, first, the failure is serious; and, secondly, it is not excused by economic or market conditions. That is bizarre. It is almost as though the law of theft states that only if the court were of the opinion that the failure of the shoplifter is not serious, and is not excused by hunger or hardship, shall there be a prosecution. It is about the most uncertain note which could be sounded in terms of Ofcom's duty to enforce. Many noble Lords believe that the market conditions, market forces and economic considerations already have too high a profile in this Bill and should not be reinforced in this enforcement provision.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I rise to speak only because the tenor of some noble Lords' remarks has demonstrated that in my infelicitous use perhaps of double negatives it was thought that I was arguing for less prescription in the public service area rather than the prescription proposed in the previous group of amendments. That is certainly not the case.
I support in general terms the group of amendments to which we now speak. I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about the characteristics of the enforcement processes under Ofcom. We raised the issue on the previous day in Committee. I was assured then by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that those enforcement procedures would be regularly enforced and monitored by Ofcom. But I believe that there is an area of concern to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rightly referred.
Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I can go back to the golden days of political programming. I declare an interest. I was both a producer and a presenter of the "Panorama" programme when it was shown at eight o'clock on Monday evenings to an audience of 8 million people. I regret that that is no longer so. However, I am not as convinced as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that that has exclusively to do with the scheduling of the programmes but perhaps more to
1182
greater choice and the diminution of interest in the political or mainstream affairs of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Most of the debate has been about the coverage of Parliament. However, I shall start with the broader issue of enforcement.
The Bill currently 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. The 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.
These powers apply to both the broadcaster's fulfilment of his individual public service remit and to his contribution to the overall purposes of public service broadcasting on which, as we know from previous debates, Ofcom will report at least every five years.
Amendment No. 193 would prevent Ofcom from considering whether a broadcaster's failure in these respects might be excused by economic or market conditions. It would reduce the circumstances in which Ofcom could exempt a broadcaster to those in which the failure was not considered to be serious.
Although we want to ensure, of course, that Ofcom has power to intervene when necessary so that we do maintain quality, I do not believe that it would be either realistic or reasonable for Ofcom to ignore the impact of economic and market conditions on the ability of broadcasters to fulfil their remits. Licensed broadcasters operate in a commercial market and are affected by external economic conditions—for example, those which have an effect on advertising revenue.
In discussing an identical amendment in another place, concern was raised that because "economic and market conditions" are mentioned twice in Clause 263, that might allow economic and market conditions to become Ofcom's overriding consideration when making a judgment about the enforcement of a broadcaster's public service remit. I shall explain briefly why I do not believe that that will happen.
Under subsection (2)(a) Ofcom has to consider whether the failure of the provider is serious and is not excused by economic or market conditions. Under subsection(2)(b) it has also to determine that the situation requires the exercise of its powers having regard to a number of matters, including the general economic and market conditions affecting broadcasters. The reference to general economic and market conditions, therefore, forms part of the judgment which has to be made under subsection (2); but it is only one of a number of matters which Ofcom will have to take into account.

1183
I should also point out that it will be a matter for Ofcom to decide whether the failure is excused by economic or market conditions, although it has to consult the relevant service provider before taking enforcement action.
In short, we 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.
I turn to Amendment No. 192. I have to say at the outset that it is not an amendment that the Government can accept. However, that is not because of any disrespect for Parliament. I was extremely interested in what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about the introduction of television. The televising of this House took place before the televising of another place. Indeed, I think that some people in this House were a little disappointed when another place decided to let the cameras in because it meant that the spotlight was moved from your Lordships' House to the House of Commons. I believe that the motivation behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, is laudable. I share it. However, the Bill currently permits Ofcom to take enforcement action if a licensed broadcaster has either failed to fulfil his individual public service remit or failed to make an adequate contribution towards fulfilling the overall public service broadcasting remit. This amendment would require Ofcom to consider enforcement action in the event of a broadcaster's failure to provide appropriate coverage of Parliament or other relevant legislative assemblies in the UK.
While the Government fully accept that coverage of the democratic process is an important element of public service broadcasting, the amendment would in practice create an inconsistency within the public service broadcasting regime. It would in effect create a sanction for failure to provide a service which is not explicitly required under any part of the public service broadcasting regime as enshrined in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, might believe that it should be, but it is not. Therefore, his amendment does not work technically.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, was a little hard on the BBC. The BBC agreement does include an obligation on the corporation to broadcast a daily account of parliamentary proceedings, which it does. However, so far as the Bill is concerned, there is no direct requirement to provide coverage of Parliament or other legislative bodies, whether in the context of the first tier; the second tier of quantitative obligations for public service broadcasters; or the third tier. On the other hand, a key element of both the second tier quotas and the overall public service remit is the coverage of news and current affairs, which of course encompasses matters relating to politics, the democratic process and, indeed, Parliament.
Our overall approach to the regulation of public service broadcasting is to establish a spectrum of obligations, ranging from the BBC at one end to Channel 5 at the other. Within this framework we do not see a case for imposing a direct—and, indeed, a uniform—obligation in respect of parliamentary
1184
coverage across the whole public service broadcasting sector. Given the absence of such an explicit obligation, it would obviously make no sense whatever to include failure to provide parliamentary coverage as one of the grounds on which Ofcom may initiate enforcement action.
As to Amendment No. 194, under Clause 267 as it stands, the process of modifying the public service remits can take place only within the framework of reports submitted by Ofcom. The Ofcom reports in question may be those prepared under Clause 260, which deal with the fulfilment of the overall public service remit, or those reports prepared under Clause 226, which Ofcom submits in anticipation of a new licensing round.
In the context of the Clause 260 reports, the Secretary of State can exercise her power to modify the remit only where Ofcom had made a specific recommendation to that effect in its most recent report. However, within the Clause 226 reports, the procedure can be slightly different. In the case of the Clause 226 reports—and only in that case— there is a power for the Secretary of State to modify a remit in the absence of a specific recommendation by Ofcom. She can act in this way provided that Ofcom has made a report within the previous 12 months and, in the light of that report, the Secretary of State considers it right to modify a remit, notwithstanding the absence of a specific recommendation to that effect.
The amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power to take such action in relation to an individual remit but not in relation to the general remit. Although I understand the concern that broadcasters' individual remits should not be modified without good reason, it is right that, solely in the context of the end of a licensing period, the Secretary of State should retain the power to modify both the overall and the individual remits even without a direct recommendation by Ofcom.
Such an opportunity would, in the nature of things, arise only very infrequently on those occasions when the licensed broadcasters' licences came up for renewal. Even when Ofcom had not made a direct recommendation, there could be circumstances where the Secretary of State took the view that it was right to modify a licensed broadcaster's individual remit, and we believe that the Bill should give her the flexibility to do so. However, no such modification could be made without prior consultation with Ofcom, with the broadcaster affected and any other relevant interests. I should emphasise that any order modifying a public service remit must be approved by Parliament.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the Committee will agree that the approach to enforcement and modification of public service remits set out in the Bill is the right one and that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I reply exclusively in regard to Amendment No. 192. I regret the rather dusty answer given by the noble Baroness. She will have sensed that a number of senior

1185
parliamentarians—the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Brooke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—support the idea that a public service obligation must include proper coverage of Parliament in a parliamentary democracy.
The Minister may well be right in saying that there is a better of way achieving this—perhaps it should be attached to the black hole of what is public service broadcasting—but when she can say in the same response that parliamentary coverage is an important part of public service broadcasting but, moments later, that it is not an obligation in the definition of public service broadcasting, we have an indication of what the problem is. We do not have an adequate definition of public service broadcasting which includes this vital aspect.
I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who contributed to the debate—my co-signatories to the amendment, my noble friend Lord Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I am not quite sure about the clerical embrace. I am dealing exclusively with the issue of parliamentary coverage. The right reverend Prelate has his own, very understandable, agenda and I am not sure that I fully accept the analogue.
The only dissentient was the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who I had the honour of succeeding at the Broadcasting Standards Commission. I am not absolutely sure that I can do justice to her objection so I shall not even try.
But, with that exception, there seemed to be a very strong feeling that the Government should find a way of addressing this problem rather than simply saying that it will be all right on the night. I shall withdraw the amendment now but it is a subject to which we shall return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Howe of Idlicotemoved Amendment No. 193:
Page 237, line 24, leave out from "serious" to "and" in line 25.
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps I may start by correcting the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, gained from what I said that I was against his amendment. Far from it. I would be totally in support of it. I was merely using the excuse that I was able to withdraw a few words from the Bill rather than having any objection to the interesting proposals outlined. I hope that he will forgive me and accept my apology.
I find what the Minister said about the amendment rather extraordinary. I am not a lawyer—I remain to be corrected later—but, bearing in mind what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, of how this gives an impression of over-dominance of the market, which is absolutely true, I should have thought that removing this repetition, which is exactly what it is, from the Bill would have improved matters.
1186
As I read the Bill, omitting from subsection (2) the words suggested in the amendment would mean that there had to be a serious failure and that Ofcom would have to determine that the situation required the exercise of its powers. In making such a determination—it is yet further qualified—Ofcom would have to take account of all the other matters, including the points that I thought we were busily removing from the Bill.
I am a little unhappy about the Minister's reply. I shall of course go away and read exactly what she said but, at the moment, I am not very content. I wish only temporarily to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The noble Baroness, having spoken to the amendment previously in its place in the group, has now spoken again at some length. I therefore have to ask her to move the amendment so that there can be a further response. The noble Baroness cannot speak to the amendment without moving it.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: In which case, I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I have nothing to add to what I said. The amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 192, which has already been withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: What does the noble Baroness now wish to do?
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I hope that I am doing the correct thing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 267 [Power to amend public service remits]:
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Clause 61 [Must-carry obligations]:
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 195:
Page 62, line 23, at end insert—
"(g) any local digital television service, (h) any access radio service."
The noble Lord said: Clause 61 contains provisions which ensure that services on the must-carry list are carried by networks used by a significant number of end users as their principal means of receiving television. Subsection (3) is the starting list of the services, which can be amended by the Secretary of State following a review under subsection (8). That review must consider the public benefit which any additional service would offer, the spare capacity available to the providers of the electronic communications networks to whom the must-carry obligations apply, and whether the burden of compliance is proportionate to the objective of securing that particular services to be added to the list are made available to the public by this means.

1187
In this amendment we ask for local digital television and access radio to be added to the list in the Bill without having to wait for a review. The Joint Committee said at paragraph 144 of the report that the extension of the must-carry list was,
"a matter of considerable public interest"
and the Government envisaged that the power to amend the list might be used to include,
"further channels which may have a general public service remit, or may offer Government or local information services".
We suggest that adding these services now would encourage rapid growth of local digital TV and access radio all over the UK. The Community Media Association tells us that it regularly receives inquiries from groups, often involved in regeneration projects or community development, who would like to run a local channel on cable but have been unable to interest the cable channels in their proposals. In fact, some existing local and community television stations such as Leicester Channel 7, Cambridge and Birmingham, have closed down as the cable industry has consolidated.
Other countries have must-carry obligations in their rules similar to those in this amendment. In the US, Canada, Germany and Sweden, that has led to the creation of many successful local and community channels. These can provide a unique service of local news, local sport and culture, and offer to local people the possibility of becoming involved in their own programming. In the context of this Bill, Clause 241 already requires that local digital TV brings social and economic benefits to the area. Clause 258 requires that access radio,
"confer significant benefits on the public".
Therefore, the public benefit requirement is already satisfied. It is a question of looking at the network capacity and the proportionality of the burden to the advantages of adding these services to the list. Since this comparison must have been made already in the four countries mentioned, it was concluded that the must-carry obligation should be extended in the manner we suggest here. I hope that the Government can accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 195A and 195B, which are grouped with Amendment No. 195. Basically, they represent level playing field amendments. I hate that analogy but it serves to accelerate matters. It is the level playing field between cable and satellite as regards must-carry. The position at the moment is that cable must-carry carries for nothing. On the whole, satellite carries for quite a lot of money because of the need to buy additional access.
The amendments tackle the problem by asking that regard be had to, not just the sheer cost to cable, and so on, of supplying cable must-carry services, but, more importantly, the opportunity costs. They take up band width on the cable which someone else cannot buy. That should be taken into account and not merely the financial cost.
1188
The amendments further ask that regard be had to the level playing field and the adverse effects on cable relative to satellite if too much is ladled on to cable operators in terms of their must-carry obligations. These are modest amendments. I hope that the Minister can give me either comfort or agree to accept them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are in the curious position of returning to Clause 61, which is what happened in another place as well. It seemed to make sense that we should deal with must-carry together with must-offer and must-provide. That accounts for the order in which we are taking these matters.
The purpose of Clauses 261 and 268 to 272 is to give effect to our policy on must-carry, must-offer, which is to ensure that all public service channels are universally available on all main platforms free to view both before and after switch-over. Clause 61 lists the services which must be carried. The clause also provides that the list cart be amended by the Secretary of State. Any amendments will be subject to an assessment of the impact of an amendment to the list and also consultation with the network operators. I believe it will be understood that we are resistant to making any additions as Amendment No 195 would, without making an assessment of the impact or without consultation with the network operators.
Apart from anything else, the whole of the must-carry regime has been designed to be restricted to television and not extended to radio as Amendment No. 195 seeks. The reason for keeping the process as streamlined as possible and restricting it to all main platforms is very straightforward. We recognise that there are burdens with must-carry with costs and benefits. They have to be assessed. Clearly, local digital television, although admirable, is not in the same category as those described as public service channels which are universally available on main platforms.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 195A and 195B. They would add further factors to the consideration in making a list of must-carry. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has been very clear in setting out that it is not simply a matter of cost, but also of opportunity costs when there is restricted band width. But the principle that we have worked on in Clause 61 is that there should be an opportunity for review and consultation with network operators. It does not require further primary legislation.
I am well aware of the costs for network operators in must-carry and that cable companies are conscious of the burden. For cable companies the burden of carrying must-carry stations is balanced by the opportunity they have of getting more viewers subscribing because they provide a wider choice. That is why we have the provision for review.
Amendment No. 195B aims to ensure that must-carry will not create any discrimination or competitive imbalance between network operators. It is very

1189
difficult to read it in any other way than preventing the implementation of must-carry. Clause 61 applies only to those networks,
"by means of which public electronic communications services are provided that are used by a significant number of end-users as their principal means of receiving television programmes".
Networks that are not used in this way will be unaffected. Therefore, to this extent the imposition of must-carry obligations is bound to lead to some degree of "discrimination" if we are to take that term literally.
I am aware that cable operators feel they are at risk of suffering competitive disadvantages as compared with other network providers, such as satellite operators. I understand their concerns. We will have regard to the competitive status of all the affected markets—the broadcasting market, as well as the market for the provision of broadband services. But we see must-carry as a key means of ensuring the universal availability of public service broadcasting, both before and after switch-over. It is a central component of our broadcasting policy, which we could not jeopardise in the way that Amendment No. 195B does, although no doubt unintentionally.
Turning to government Amendment No. 195D, Clause 271 provides the initial list of must-provide services and gives an order-making power to the Secretary of State to modify that list. In its report on the Communications Bill, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform commented that this was a "significant" power and recommended that either the power should be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure or that the criteria according to which it is to be exercised should be specified. We prefer to specify the criteria because that helps to align it with Clause 61.
Therefore, we set out the criteria for the exercise of the power to amend the list. It cannot be exactly the same as Clause 61 because the two clauses serve different purposes. Clause 61 deals with "must-carry". Clause 271 relates to the "must-offer" provisions in Clause 269 and the "must-provide" provisions in Clause 270. "Must-provide" relates to broadcasters and would place a much more specific obligation on them collectively to make arrangements for persons who cannot otherwise receive digital television to have access to it, free, via satellite.
This amendment provides that, in exercising her power under subsection (2) to amend the list of must-provide services, the Secretary of State must have regard to the public benefit to be secured by the modification, the likely financial effects of the proposed modification on the affected parties and the proportionality of those effects when set against the public benefit secured. I shall seek to move this amendment in its due place.
Lord Avebury: I am sure that all Members of the Committee are aware that neither the cable nor satellite operators have any objection to what is in the must-carry list at the moment. The question is whether there should be any additions to the list at this stage or under what conditions there should be additions later.
1190
Having listened to the explanation given by the noble Lord, I still consider that we know enough about access radio and local digital television to say that we could add those to the list without imposing a substantial burden on the operators. If that is not the case, I am surprised that the Minister is unable to produce figures because they would have had to be produced if such a decision was made following the review of Ofcom. I am certain that within the department there must be some fairly good ideas of what these costs would be and how they would work out. Obviously, we shall not receive a reply on that today.
As regards the first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I understand his point that we should have the level playing field and that there are opportunity costs involved in any additional must-carry obligations that may be imposed on cable operators in the future. I wonder whether, while everyone is happy about the existing list and the cable operators in particular have not raised an objection to it on the grounds of the costs imposed on them, a different burden is imposed owing to opportunities that have to be foregone as a result of this obligation. I am sure that what they have said to everyone—not just to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and myself is that if future obligations are laid on them, this could have an inhibiting effect on certain other policies which they would like to pursue and which the Government would like them to pursue—in particular, the expansion of broadband capacity. There is something to be said for looking differentially between cable and satellite operators in terms of any future additions that may be made to the must-carry list. It would be useful if the Government would agree to that proposition.
As regards government Amendment No. 195D, power of the Secretary of State to add to the list of must-provide services for the purposes of Clause 270 was, as originally drafted, completely unfettered. While it is unlikely that she would ever be tempted to exercise that power unless there was a significant public benefit to be secured, it is logical that paragraph (a) of this amendment mirrors the similar provision in the must-carry obligations in Clause 61. However, thereafter, the amendment departs from Clause 61(10) in that it refers to the costs to be borne, whereas Clause 61(10)(d) refers to the burden.
Does that mean that the drafters had in mind some non-financial penalties that would be imposed on the providers by adding to the must-carry/must-offer lists, but that any arrangements entered into or imposed under Clause 270 are precisely quantifiable?
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have already explained the reason why the wording of Amendment No. 195D departs from the wording of Clause 61. It is dealing with must-provide rather than must-carry. I

1191
had better write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the issue of whether there could be any non-financial penalties. None has occurred to me.
Lord Avebury: I assumed that there probably were not, hut I asked the question to be absolutely certain. I should be most grateful if the Minister would be so kind as to write to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195A and 195E not moved.]
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Conditional access systems and access to digital services]:
Lord Gordon of Strathblanemoved Amendment No. 195C:
Page 72, line 36, at end insert—
"(2A) It shall he the duty of OFCOM to draw up and to issue guidance as to the manner in which access-related conditions set in accordance with subsection (2)(b) (and in particular the first indent to sub-paragraph (b) of Part I to Annex I to the Access Directive) may be satisfied in relation to each protected programme service.
(2B) Such guidance must be issued by OFCOM within twelve months from the commencement of this section.
(2C) Before publishing or revising the guidance OFCOM must consult with every person providing a protected programme service and any other person as they think fit.
(2D) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to carry out regular reviews of the operation of the access related conditions set in accordance with subsection (2)(b) and the guidance in respect of them and to prepare and publish a report on every review in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons who, in their opinion, are likely to be affected by it.
(2E) Every report published by OFCOM under this section must set out OFCOM's findings in carrying out the review, any recommendations made by them and any changes to the guidance as OFCOM consider appropriate."
The noble Lord said: As the Minister pointed out in replying to the previous debate, the issue of the balance between must-carry and must-offer is extremely complicated and varies according to the platform to which we are referring. Equally, we have all been bombarded with propaganda—I give it no other name—from both the BBC and Sky on the issue of conditional access and the appropriate terms for such to the digital platform.
In some ways, the nature of the argument changed with the announcement made by the BBC that it was to go unencrypted from 1st June. However, I would remind Members of the Committee that 1st June has come and gone and the BBC still has not gone unencrypted. To that extent, the issue of due prominence on the electronic programming guide occupied us on the first or second day in Committee. However, we still need to address the issue of conditional access and the terms on which it would be granted. That issue, first, may arise again and, secondly, not all public service broadcasters may be able to go wholly unencrypted. I refer in particular to Channel 3 which has, quite properly, heavier regional obligations than the BBC.
1192
From the point of view of the Government, the history is a question of changing tack several times. I do not complain about that: it is a complicated issue and it is much better to change one's mind if one thinks it is wrong. The Government said that they would introduce in May last year 34 clauses on must-carry, which were published in July but then withdrawn before the Bill went to the House of Commons. In Committee in another place, the Liberal Democrat MP, Nick Harvey, tabled the same clauses as the Government first said they were going to introduce and then withdrew. The Government successfully argued against them.
It is very difficult to sift one's way through the propaganda supplied by the BBC, which feels that Sky is going to relegate it adjacent to the porn channels in the electronic programming guide. Sky say that this issue will lead to war with Ireland because channel 101 is RTE in Ireland and the BBC cannot possibly be there. I am not trying even to fix a price. I am simply suggesting that surely it should be the duty of Ofcom to be transparent in how it will arrive at what is a fair price for conditional access.
Make no mistake, this is an important issue. All the talk about content is of course important but if I were the only printer in Europe, no matter how many authors, I would have a fair amount of power. Sky Subscribers Services Ltd, entirely to its credit, has significant market power in the area of conditional access to the digital platform so we must make sure that we get it right; otherwise, we shall have a body controlling access to the digital airwaves that effectively will not be under proper control.
Significant powers exist under the European Union communications directives, provided that Ofcom declares that Sky has significant market power—which, to my mind, is self-evident. Ahead of that, Mr. Kim Howells, speaking in an Adjournment debate in the other place, mentioned that Ofcom has a much wider arena than Oftel, so can look carefully at the problem and decide a proper and fair charge for carriage.
My amendment does simply that. It asks Ofcom to consult and draw up new binding guidelines within the first 12 months of its existence that set out in detail how a fair price is to be determined for all categories of broadcaster, including public service broadcasters. Ofcom would be required to conduct reviews of a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory regime in light of its functioning and practice. That is simply spelling out to Ofcom what we expect it to do, not trying to do Ofcom's job. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will find that he can accept the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was rather mystified by the way in which the noble Lord moved his amendment but I rise with some trepidation because he knows a great deal more about the subject. I rather suspect that this long amendment would only do what will happen anyway. Does anything in the Bill stop somebody who has access going to Ofcom and saying. "What do these

1193
conditions mean?" If so, with great respect to the noble Lord, the proposed rather tricky exercise—which he daringly described as simple—is a waste of time.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I am fully in sympathy with the noble Lord's objection to redundant clauses—he wanted to delete Clause 3(6) for that reason—but the amendment goes further than the Oftel system, which has proved entirely unsatisfactory even in terms of the time taken to reach a decision. That is why the amendment is necessary.
Baroness Wilcox: We on these Benches do not disagree with the principle behind the amendment. It is important that Ofcom provides guidance where necessary and reviews and reports regularly on its operation. It is crucial that any publication should be preceded by extensive consultation. It is not, however, necessary to be so prescriptive. Even without the amendment, Ofcom will automatically undertake the functions in question as part of its everyday operations.
If the Government accept the amendment, it should be toned down a touch—not imposing on Ofcom such rigid operational requirements as the publication of guidance "within 12 months" and
"regular reviews of the operation of the access-related conditions".
By all means let the regulator provide guidance where it deems that necessary and review the operation of conditions—but at a pace and frequency of its own choosing.
Proposed subsection (2C) would require that before revising the guidance, Ofcom must consult with every person providing a protected programme service and any other person, as it thinks fit. If consultation is to be required, it should explicitly include the providers of conditional access systems as well as the users, so that all relevant views are canvassed.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord wants Ofcom to elaborate on the manner in which the conditions set under Clause 72 are to be satisfied, but as the clause already gives Ofcom a power that corresponds precisely with the wording of the directive, the conditions ought themselves to contain enough information for operators to understand what is required of them.
If that were not so, every other clause that gives Ofcom powers to set conditions—such as Clause 74 dealing with the imposition of privileged supplier conditions—would have to be accompanied by a similar set of criteria to those in the amendment, including regular reviews accompanied by reports. Ofcom will of course consult service providers and consumer interests when drawing up the conditions and conduct periodic reviews of the way in which they are working as part of its normal day-to-day operations. I am not sure that it is necessary to spell out those duties.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have rather more sympathy with my noble friend Lord Gordon than
1194
others who have spoken. It is a difficult issue, as he recognises, and it is not entirely resolved by saying, as we do in Clause 72, that operators of conditional access systems should offer services to all broadcasters on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Aveybury, said, that is the wording of Part 1, Annex 1, of the access directive being implemented by the Bill.
It is a complicated matter and has proved complicated in the past. Oftel has already been giving guidance. I am sorry that my noble friend is not satisfied with it—or with the speed at which it has been given. I hope that when Ofcom takes over those responsibilities and has in addition the responsibility for complying with Part 1, Annex 1, of the directive and the wording of Clause 72, it will provide the guidance that my noble friend seeks without spelling that out in the Bill.
On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Currie, asked us not to add anything that was not absolutely necessary to the obligations placed on Ofcom in statute. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Avebury, have all emphasised that point and I urge it on my noble friend.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: Despite the existence of Oftel, none of your Lordships knows how much Sky charges for conditional access to a whole range of broadcasters. Is that a satisfactory situation? Can we ensure that Ofcom behaves differently? I am sure that it will. I hope it will. If my noble friend the Minister had said the same as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, with the force of a Ministerial statement, I would be considerably more content. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 268 [Must-offer obligations in relation to networks]:
[Amendment No. 195CA not moved.]
Clause 268 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 269 [Must-offer obligations in relation to satellite services]:
Baroness Wilcoxmoved Amendment No. 195CB:
Page 241, line 26, leave out "to be broadcast"
The noble Baroness said: I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 195CC and 195CD. Clause 269 sets out must-offer obligations for public service broadcasters in relation to satellite services.
The principle behind these amendments is to ensure that the clause reflects the openness of the satellite platform and the fact that public service broadcasters do not offer their services to Sky or to any other pay TV service or channel packager but broadcast them themselves using satellite capacity obtained from Astra, as do literally dozens of other free-to-air channels on the platform. The proposed amendments

1195
change the clause to reflect the fact that when a must-provide service is offered as available, it is not offered to an intermediary such as Sky to be "broadcast" but is actually broadcast by the PSB itself.
Concern has been expressed to us that the clause as currently drafted implies that the BBC and other PSB channels can be made available to viewers only by offering as available their channels to, for example, Sky to be "broadcast" on D-Sat. In other words, that as drafted, the wording suggests that there are other intermediary players in the satellite broadcasting process to or through which PSBs must offer their service arid consequently that the digital satellite platform is not an open platform.
This implication results from text that was devised at the stage of the draft Bill that contemplated PSBs offering their channels to satellite packagers. The Government have now rejected the concept of must-carry provisions for satellite packages, recognising that as an open platform any broadcaster, including public service broadcasters, can lease channel capacity from satellite operators such as Astra and Utilstat and offer their services independently of any packager. That is exactly what the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 already do.
I am aware that the Government may argue that the current wording in Clause 269 is intended to reflect the fact that there are technical elements of the broadcasting process on satellite that the PSBs have to ask others to do, such as uplinking and downlinking the signal or making the necessary technical arrangements for the broadcasting of interactive services. It appears to me, however, that the clause is concerned only with defining where the ultimate responsibility lies for making the service available to viewers by satellite and not the various technical arrangements that might need to be entered into with the satellite platform operators. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see fit to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clause 269 is part of the mechanism set out in the Bill to provide quasi universal availability, free to view, of public service broadcasting. I have already explained why I have to refer to quasi universal availability.
I wish to start by setting out the background to the clause. I believe that my understanding of it is the same as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. There was much controversy about the best means of securing the availability of public service channels on satellite. The decision made by the BBC to go unencrypted on satellite—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, said, that was supposed to happen on 1st June but I believe that it did not—might cast some new light on the issue but it does not change it fundamentally. We do not know whether all the technical issues have been solved or whether other broadcasters will follow suit. There is still scope for various models of satellite broadcasting. While some broadcasters will do all the work themselves, others will use a satellite service operator. At the moment, it is in the shared interests of broadcasters, cable operators and satellite providers to
1196
see PSBs continue to be available on all platforms. But we have to be prepared for a time when that consensus might change, but where, in order to deliver our public policy goals, we still need to see PSBs carried across those platforms, including satellite and cable. The widespread availability of public service channels via satellite, in particular, is an important element of our policy of maintaining universal free access to those channels up to and beyond digital switchover, the must-provide provisions of Clause 270 arc also important here.
I should like to stress that all digital platforms are different, and that, therefore, the way in which the Bill deals with them is different. Different rules apply because there are different kinds of system, but the outcome is the same. The satellite platform is "open" in the sense that any broadcaster, including a public service broadcaster, can approach the operator of a satellite and negotiate facilities for the transmission of the service. That is what happens at present with all the public service channels. At present, the broadcasters also buy conditional access and electronic programme guide services from Sky in the UK, enabling their services to be targeted at the right regional audience, for example, and avoiding problems with broadcasts spilling over into countries where the broadcasters do not own the rights to transmit the material in their programmes. In doing so, they operate under the provisions of the Access Directive, which requires—as we have already discussed—that they be offered access on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. But they may not need such services: as we are aware, the BBC is planning to broadcast "in clear".
Turning to the amendments themselves, I understand that the promoters of these amendments are concerned that the clause wrongly implies that PSB channels can be made available to viewers only by offering their channels to, for example, Sky to broadcast on satellite. But this clause is less concerned with the means by which the channels are made available as the result that the clause delivers, which is the availability to satellite viewers of public service channels. Under subsection (2) it is up to Ofcom to impose the conditions it considers appropriate to secure that the licensed public service channels are at all times offered as available to be broadcast by means of every satellite television service that is used by a significant number of the persons by whom the broadcasts are received in intelligible form as their principal means of receiving television programmes.
The first objective aims to secure that the channel provider does not refuse to provide his channel to the provider of a satellite service, if they can agree terms. It is, therefore, quite different from the second objective which requires the channel provider to ensure that its service will be made available to satellite viewers, and to ensure that as many people as practicable can receive the service. The second objective does not mean that an intermediary is required: the second objective might be secured that way, but it need not be, as the "satellite television service" might he provided by the broadcaster itself.

1197
While we are pursuing those three objectives, Ofcom might not need to impose conditions to secure all three of them. So, as things stand, the second objective might suffice, but if the situation changes, the other objectives could be brought into play to ensure universal availability. It might also be the case that, because a public service broadcaster is broadcasting its channels itself, the third objective is superfluous, as public service broadcasters are already required to make their services available for free; otherwise, it serves the purpose that the provider of a satellite television service cannot charge for reception of the public service broadcaster alongside the pay channels. The clause gives Ofcom the tools to achieve the policy aim which I believe we all share.
Whether public service broadcasters choose to use an intermediary provider is a commercial decision for them but the results of the end user must be the same— availability of their public service channels free to view.
Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for his comments. The fact that the BBC did not go encrypted on 1st June means that we are off to rather a poor start. I believe that all Members of the Committee are aware how nervous everyone is about this enormous Bill and about the fact that the words "might" and "may" occur so often. We shall try hard to obtain the reassurance we seek on the Bill. However, having listened to the Minister's comments, I see no point in pursuing the amendment at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195CC to 195CE not moved.]
Clause 269 agreed to.
Clause 270 [Securing reception of must-provide services in certain areas]:
Baroness Wilcoxmoved Amendment No. 195CF:
Page 243, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
"( ) that all persons providing must-provide services contribute such proportion of the cost of making that facility available as is determined by OFCOM as appropriate;"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 195CF, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 195CG and 195CH. The effect of these amendments is to give Ofcom maximum discretion to decide who should pay the costs associated with Clause 270, and in what proportions. Clause 270, furthermore, should not be activated until six months prior to the commencement of the digital switchover process at the earliest.
The purpose of Clause 270 itself is to ensure that as far as is practicable, all UK viewers will continue to be able to receive the public service channels free at the point of consumption once the terrestrial analogue television signal is turned off. More specifically, it would mean that anyone who was obliged to adopt satellite technology in order to receive the free-to-air channels post-switchover was not required to pay for the necessary card to decode the signal and receive the
1198
channels. That card is commonly known as the solus card, and the Bill proposes that once Clause 266 is activated, it shall become the shared responsibility of the public service channels—Channels 3, 4 and 5 and the BBC—to meet that cost.
Clause 270 is a safety net that the Government quite sensibly seek to put in place to protect viewers who are unable to receive the digital terrestrial signal post-switchover. The rationale behind passing the cost of the solus card on to the public service broadcasters is based on an assumption that if they fail to build the digital terrestrial network out so that its coverage replicates that of the current analogue network, it should be their responsibility to pick up the solus card costs for those viewers forced to rely on satellite technology.
However, given that it is government and not public service broadcasters that will be the chief beneficiary of digital switchover in terms of spectrum release, I wonder whether it is right that broadcasters should be required to meet the costs in their entirety. As the Minister in Committee in another place pointed out during the debate on "must carry, must offer":
"The decision to turn off the analogue signals but to ensure universal access to PSB channels has been taken by the Government and its cost should not be borne by private companies".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 21/1/03; col. 656.]
It also seems premature to be committing the public service broadcasters to what are, at present, unquantified costs. Several questions will remain unanswered until we have a more detailed spectrum plan for switchover. For example, how many people will be entitled to solus cards? How is the cost of the cards to be set? Will the obligation be to provide one card per household or for each TV set? Clause 270(3) merely speaks of viewers being provided with a "facility" for receiving digital TV. What does that mean exactly? Perhaps the Minister will tell me.
I am aware that detailed work is already under way within the digital TV action plan, and that the intention is to produce a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis for switchover in the next few weeks followed by a spectrum plan by the end of the year. It is at that point that it may be appropriate to decide who should bear the costs of the obligations arising from Clause 270. I therefore favour wording the Bill in a way that gives Ofcom discretion to make the final decision. That is what the first of our amendments is designed to provide.
Irrespective of who pays for the solus cards and how many are needed, it is clear that the Government's rationale can sensibly apply only at switchover, at which point the currently universally available analogue services will cease to broadcast. Our second amendment seeks to clarify the position by specifying that fact in the Bill.
I understand that officials have privately reassured the broadcasters that the clause will not be activated in advance of switchover, and my colleague in another place, Mr John Greenway, has received similar assurances from the Minister in written

1199
correspondence. I hope that further clarification can be given by accepting the amendment. 1 beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clause 270 requires Ofcom to include in the licences for the must-provide services conditions which secure free satellite reception of those services for people who cannot receive them by other means. Nearly everyone will continue, after switchover, to be able to receive their television services through their terrestrial aerial, but a number of households will have to get their digital signals through a satellite dish and a satellite receiver. Like everybody else, they will have to get their digital equipment and pay their licence fee.
As the public service channels have to be encrypted on satellite, however, those households might also need a smart card, software, or some other system allowing them to decrypt the signals and watch the services. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said, the current technology is a solus card, but there could be other technologies in future. Those who cannot get their digital public service channels by other means and who have the relevant equipment—the box and the dish—will get the solus card or equivalent system free of charge.
The cost will be shared by the public service broadcasters, including the BBC, and in the event of a dispute Ofcom will determine what each of them has to pay. Although it was not clear to me from what the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 195CF seems to require Ofcom to set the proportion of the cost that each broadcaster will have to pay a priori, even before any dispute has arisen. That is not how we see regulation. We should let broadcasters discuss together and try to come to an agreement, and only if they fail to do so should Ofcom intervene.
Clause 270 also includes a provision, in subsection (11), to ensure a period of at least six months between the making of a commencement order under Clause 103 and the date on which the clause comes into force. That is to allow time for the licensees of any affected services to apply for a review of the financial terms of their licences under Clause 223, which allows for new terms to be set should those obligations come into force. Amendment No. 195CG would keep the safeguard for the broadcaster, but would prevent commencement from occurring more than six months before digital switchover, which Amendment No. 195CH seeks to define.
I understand the purpose of the amendments, but cannot agree with them. We are working on our plans to implement digital switchover, and we believe that we might need between three to four years to switch off signal access across the whole country. That is because, for technical and logistical reasons, we will not be able to convert all the networks at the same time. The timing that would be imposed by the two amendments might prove totally unrealistic.
1200
We want as many people as possible to be ready for switchover before it actually happens. We might need to commence the clause in advance of switchover, to ensure that people who will have to rely on satellite can, once they have bought the equipment, get the solus card and other facilities that they need before the analogue signals in their region are switched off. I hope that that explains why we have to resist the amendments.
Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for that very helpful answer. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I would be interested to know whether he could answer the question about the solus cards. Perhaps he cannot at this stage, but it would be interesting to know whether one card will be provided for a household or for each TV set. Can he give us that information?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The idea is that it will be free for everyone, but the technology will change. I do not expect that solus cards will be restricted to individual sets rather than to households, and 1 am sure that they will be replaced by other forms of software in due course. If I can add anything to that, I shall gladly write to the noble Baroness. I think the issue is temporary, and we do not want to enshrine an answer to it in the Bill.
Baroness Wilcox: I can understand that. I was just testing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 195CG and 195CH not moved.]
Clause 270 agreed to.
Clause 271 [Must-provide services for the purposes of s. 270]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 195D:
Page 244, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) In determining whether it is appropriate, by an order under subsection (2), to add a service to the list of must-provide services or to remove a service from that list, the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to—

(a) the public benefit to be secured by the addition of the service to the list, or by its retention in the list:

(b) the likely effect of the proposed modification as respects the costs to be borne, under arrangements entered into or imposed under section 270, by the persons who, after the coming into force of the modification, would have to be parties to those arrangements: and

(c) the extent to which that effect is proportionate to the benefit mentioned in paragraph (a)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 271, as amended, agreed to. Clause 272 agreed to.
Clause 273 [Programming quotas for independent productions]:
[Amendments Nos. 196 to 199 not moved.]
Lord Crickhowellmoved Amendment No. 199ZA:
Page 246, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to carry out regular reviews of the operation of the provisions of any order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2), and the first such review must be carried out no more than 12 months after the commencement of this section and subsequent reviews must be carried out at such intervals as OFCOM may determine.
( ) OFCOM must send a report of every review to the Secretary of State and publish such report in such manner as they consider appropriate, and the report on a review must set out OFCOM's recommendations, in consequence of their conclusions on the review, for the exercise by the Secretary of State of his power to make an order under subsection (2) describing the programmes that are to be independent productions for the purposes of this section."
The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is to ensure that Ofcom is required to consider whether ITV regional companies should be accorded the status of independent producers in relation to companies where there is no ownership link.
I have two preliminary observations to make. The first is to take as a text paragraph 192 from the recent ITC review. It states:
"Proposals from Granada and others to reclassify ITV regional centres so that they qualify for the quota are potentially attractive from a regional perspective, but require a more detailed cost benefit appraisal before any changes can be made on this area".
That is a very interesting comment. It makes clear that the issue is by no means settled and that more work needs to be done.
My second observation is that I am reviving an earlier debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Alli, contributed. We did not entirely agree on this subject during the course of that debate. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, is one of the big, strong, fierce cats of the independent sector. He roams in the big cities of London and Manchester. I am speaking on behalf of the smaller animals out in the countries and the regions, far away from those great places. It is with the position of those regional broadcasters that I am concerned.
There are three other brief points that should be made at the outset. First, the independent production sector is rightly promoted in the Bill and I acknowledge that. Secondly, the quality of programme ideas is the basis on which the commissions should be made by broadcasters. Thirdly, the independent production quota should be regarded as a floor and not as a ceiling.
A number of contributions in earlier debates emphasised the importance of regionality and regional production. The Bill places great emphasis on out-of-London production and on a range of production centres. We will debate later amendments that deal with production centres beyond the M25—far beyond it. The interests of the nations and regions are recognised within the structure of Ofcom, but despite the Government's best intentions, the future economic and cultural contribution of ITV regional companies is being constrained in practice.
Surely the role of the ITV companies should not be confined to their regional licence obligations. ITV regional companies are a means of delivering
1202
programmes that reflect the diversity of the nations and regions on UK networks. One cannot isolate the ITV regional companies and divorce them from the rest of the creative community in which they operate. There is an interdependency which contributes to the general health of the regional production market.
The ITC report on television in the nations and regions, to which I have already referred and which was published last year, stated:
"Television production is also part of the expanding knowledge economy, and can help support and build high quality employment across the UK. Combined with other creative and technical sectors, it can contribute growth to areas under economic pressure, and can help the UK achieve a more balanced economic development across the country".
As a former Secretary of State for Wales, and in the presence of another former Welsh Minister, I can say that we both have great experience of exactly that happening in the Principality during the time that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and I had responsibility for such matters.
The key to the debate can be found in the paragraph that I have already quoted, paragraph 192, and in paragraph 47 of the review. Paragraph 47 states:
"We therefore suggest that the current rules should remain unchanged unless a full and detailed economic cost benefit analysis shows that there are clear net benefits associated with this proposal. If the definition of qualifying independence were to change, proposals for raising the quota itself might well need to be considered".
The review is therefore saying that although there are obvious benefits to be gained from something of that kind, the possible negative effect on other independent producers has not yet been adequately measured for a final decision to be taken.
However, the ITC review identified concerns about the,
"health of the programme supply market in the Nations and Regions",
adding that,
"economic pressures are creating new challenges for the sustainability of production outside London".
The downturn in advertising revenue is well documented and therefore it is imperative that ITV regional companies are given the opportunity to exploit other potential revenue streams in the programme supply market. The only reason that independent producers would be fearful of competition from ITV companies is if they lack confidence in the quality of their own ideas. After all, the more successful the ITV regional companies are, the better able they will be to continue to support the independent companies in their area. That they do support those companies, I can vouch from my experience as chairman of HTV in the past.
The ITC review had a public interest objective,
"to seek effective measures which will support a vibrant and sustainable production sector throughout the UK".
A review of the disqualification is part of seeking those effective measures, particularly as the report also acknowledges that,
"producers in the Nations and Regions of the UK face increasing economic challenges".

1203
This is not an issue that can be finally settled by debate across the Chamber. Whether or not I could win the argument with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, were he here, I doubt. It is an argument that depends on further analysis, further information and further review. It is therefore just the kind of argument that Ofcom is being established to settle. It is for Ofcom to decide what role the ITV companies can play in the UK programme supply market over and above their regional licence obligations. It is for that reason that I have tabled an amendment to ensure that it holds a prompt review, and further ones if necessary, so that it can settle a matter which is of great importance for broadcasters in the nations and regions. The strength of feeling on both sides of the debate is a testament to the fact that a review within 12 months is necessary to make a proper assessment of the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Bragg: I support the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I agree with many of the points that he made with such eloquence and in such detail, so I shall be brief.
The current definition of an independent production under the order excludes regional ITV companies from qualification when they are producing for other broadcast networks. That is the nub of it. Perversely, Endemol, which is a large, London-based independent producer, part-owned by an EU broadcaster, continues to qualify. It is partly owned by Spanish interests. What is sauce, or Madeira, for Spain should also be sauce for Newcastle and Carlisle.
The current arrangement undermines Parliament's declared objective of sustaining strong, regional production business around the UK. Like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I would welcome an obligation being placed on Ofcom to review that matter early in its existence.
The regions have absolutely no guarantee of contributing to the ITV network. I do not know whether that is widely known. They have to fight for their place against tough competition from the big boys from London. If they do not gain access to the ITV network, they can have no sales anywhere else. We should seek to redress that state of affairs. Nearly 90 per cent of all independent production is in London, yet time and again people say how much we should succour—look after and help—the regions. Here is a chance to do so.
Many noble Lords bring far greater experience to the Bill in different ways but I have worked in two of the regions: for Border Television as a producer and later as chairman with Tyne Tees Television in Newcastle. These issues are very important to those communities. They get a high skills base; a feeling of confidence inside a community is generated; and there is employment. The ramifications involve broadcasting and the cultural presence of the place. Children and young people can say, "This is a way in". Many people who have done extremely well in British broadcasting and world broadcasting got their start in such companies when they were flourishing. I cannot
1204
emphasise enough how much they bring to those communities. This is a chance to do something to help them to build again from a base that has been undermined, partly by the diminution of advertising.
Everything that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said about cultural and economic importance can be fully endorsed by myself, those who work there and everyone who has lived in the regions and properly examined what is going on. I support the proposal strongly. It is just the sort of issue in relation to which Ofcom should test itself as early as possible.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I, too, support my noble friend's amendment. In doing so, I draw the attention of noble Lords to the positive contribution of one ITV company that my noble friend knows very well; namely, HTV. It has made a remarkable contribution as an independent supplier of Welsh-language programmes for the Welsh channel S4C. I contrast that position with the company's disqualified status as an independent producer in the English language.
Since 1958, when I was a founder staff member of Television Wales and West, TWW, the ITV contractor for Wales and the west of England has made an outstanding contribution to the provision of quality programmes in the Welsh language. That long and honourable tradition has been continued by HTV since the late 1960s. Before the establishment of S4C, HTV was responsible for making and transmitting Welsh-language programmes on ITV. When S4C came on air in 1982, HTV became a major commercial supplier of programmes for the new fourth channel. As of today, HTV Wales is commissioned to make 110 hours of programmes a year for S4C, including its long-running current affairs programme, "Y Byd ar Bedwar"—"The World on Four"—and one of its most popular rural series.
HTV is considered to be part of the Welsh language independent production sector and is a member of TAC, the Wales independent producers' association. The ability of HTV Wales to bid for commissions on the same terms as other independent companies has stimulated competition and diversity in the Welsh language programme supply market. The relative strength of that market was highlighted in Committee on 22nd May. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, said:
"We acknowledge not only the authority's linguistic and cultural contribution but the important role it plays in supporting creative industries in Wales…Such industries are doing tremendously well and are, in many ways, making the Welsh economy much stronger than that of its neighbours".—[Official Report, 22/5/03; col. 982.]
HTV Wales, as a supplier to S4C, played its part in the development of that economy. It demonstrates the contribution that ITV regional companies can make to the creative industries over and above their licence obligations. To disqualify HTV Wales from replicating the contribution that it makes to Welsh-language television in the English language is totally inconsistent. I strongly believe that that

1205
disqualification has hampered the ability of English-language programme makers in Wales to make programmes for the UK market. The contribution is underdeveloped, reflected in the relative lack of Welsh-made programmes on UK networks. That is a very serious issue.
Having commended the role that S4C plays in Wales and its positive impact on the creative industries, I ask the Government why other UK television channels should not be able to make use of the ideas and talent of programme makers working within ITV regional companies on an equal basis with other suppliers. Surely, the competition that the Government are so keen to encourage in the UK programme supply market would be given further stimulus by lifting the disqualification on ITV companies as independent producers.
I am all in favour of the independent producer and I supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in Committee. However, on reflection, I am sure that it is a grave error to handicap regional ITV companies in producing locally programmes that may well have a wider—national or even international—appeal. I cannot forbear from saying that I once had the great pleasure of producing a programme called "This World of Wales" with the late Richard Burton. I am glad to say that it was even seen coast to coast in America.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The automatic disqualification of ITV regional companies acting as independent producers should be removed but I agree that that should be left to Ofcom.
I was intrigued when the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said that a precedent had been set with Wales and the Welsh channel. The important point is that this is an opportunity to amortise the capital costs of running a small regional ITV operation. I refer not only to the capital costs but also to the human costs. One is able to retain good staff if there is an outlet for people's talents outwith the station. I recognise that in giving them that outlet, they may well end up cutting the umbilical cord and moving off on their own. One hopes that they will not do so outwith the area, although I regret that most of them will probably be on the high road to London and that all the best attempts to stop the inner-M25 region growing out of all proportion will fail.
There should be no automatic prohibition on an ITV regional company being regarded as an independent unless it is clear that it is acting not as an independent but as part of a concert party. That involves saying, "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", and a contractual relationship with another ITV company. Ofcom is perfectly capable of seeing through that concert party arrangement. That should not be automatic; it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I support the noble Lord.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I rise to my feet again with great trepidation because I am, so far, in a minority of one. I see that the noble Baroness nods in assent—I
1206
always look forward to that; it gives me great pleasure. The four noble Lords who have spoken so far are extremely expert in this subject—much more so than I am. Those noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Crickhowell—I stand in great awe of him—have taken root and are part of the Bill's family, if that is not too disgraceful a thing to be. They were nurtured in the Select Committee and came here already very knowledgeable. The noble Lord has other sources of information.
All I am trying to say, in my lame way, is that I differ from those noble Lords only with the utmost diffidence and doubt, and I must face the virtual certainty that I may well be wrong. That is because the Bill, as far as I am aware, does not for one moment allow for the possibility of Ofcom not being aware of its responsibilities to the regions. I am astonished to note that my noble friend, who knows so much more about the Bill than I do, should wish to increase its volume by adding the amendments, which I regard as unnecessary.
I find myself in the difficult position of disagreeing with those with whom I normally agree. It is not always that I have the pleasure of agreeing, as I apparently do, with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on the Front Bench. That is a privilege that I rarely enjoy with some discretion. Nevertheless, I enjoy that very much on this occasion. I hope that she will correct me if I am wrong, but the Bill as it stands does not allow for the possibility of Ofcom ignoring its duties to the regions. My knowledge of the regions ever since I have been in Parliament suggests that if Ofcom were to dare to disregard the interests of the regions, Wales and Scotland, the possibility of Ofcom not becoming a serious, if not fatal, casualty of the battle that ensued would be remote. I cannot believe that the Government would welcome the amendment.
Lord Lipsey: The noble Lord unnecessarily disparages himself. He is so knowledgeable about the matter that he even knows the answer that my noble friend the Minister will give before she has given it. Some might say that the noble Lord does not fully appreciate that the clause is aimed at an extremely specific question—that is, the regional production capacity of ITV companies—and not at the general duties of Ofcom with regard to the "indies".
When is an indy not an indy? We found out recently and quite dramatically when it turned out that Endemol, which was previously an indy, on being taken over by a Spanish television company, ceased to be an indy. As a result the BBC missed its quota targets for last year. The Government were helpful to the BBC in that regard and have rushed to change the definition so that being owned by a Spanish television company is not a disqualification from being an indy. I certainly do not wish to dispute that decision.
Also I do not necessarily want to argue that all ITV companies should be regarded as indies. There are strong regional arguments where they should be, but there are no doubt strong arguments on the other side. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, which I strongly support, does not

1207
say that they should or they should not be regarded as independents. It says that Ofcom should look at that. With the changing definition, and the difficulty of definition, that seems to be no more than common sense. I hope that the Minister will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but please the great majority of noble Lords who have spoken in the debate by giving the amendment a sympathetic reception.
Viscount Astor: I support my noble friend's amendment. It cleverly covers the arguments that were put against making ITV part of the independent sector during the early stages of the Committee. Noble Lords who were against such an amendment at that stage were concerned that the large ITV companies would simply be able to call themselves independent, and that it would not help the small regional companies, such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg—Border. The great advantage of the amendment moved by my noble friend is that the decision will now be left to Ofcom. It can make that decision and give us the best of both worlds, because it will not only encourage the independent sector, but will allow those within the ITV network—particularly the smaller players—to be considered by Ofcom as to whether they can be part of that independent production sector. The amendment is sound because it covers all the arguments that were put against that process at an earlier stage.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I rise to intervene very briefly on hearing the unexpected words from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that he might be mistaken in his views on the matter. I suggest that in this case he is unusually mistaken. The truth of the matter about production in that field is that the development of independent production—one of the major developments in British television broadcasting over the last decade or so—was itself very healthy. However, it was a highly centralised development despite all the efforts that were made at various times by various regulators. It was the great Wen of the M25 that was the fatal attraction for independent producers. There has been deprivation of opportunity for television production in smaller regions of the country. That needs positive and vigilant action by Ofcom when it takes on fully its responsibilities. It is production centres such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, of Border or Grampian that I used to see much of in Scotland, and other small regional television areas, where having a special place in the independent sector would be a necessary countervailing force to the way the independent operation of television has worked.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: When we debated these matters on 29th April in those halcyon days at the beginning of the Committee stage, I was an ally of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in opposition to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and my noble friend on the Front Bench who had moved the relevant amendments about the regional producers. However, I feel appreciation and gratitude to my noble friend
1208
Lord Crickhowell for moving the amendment. When the Minister wound up in the last minutes of that hour-long debate on 29th April she alluded to the ITC UK programme supply review and said that the ITC had noted that they did not think that there was a case at present for changes in qualification criteria. The words were "at present" and she went on to claim for Clause 273 that it aimed to ensure that independent producers:
"would continue to make a significant contribution to the programme supply market in the UK as well as allowing the Government the flexibility to make some changes as circumstances dictate".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. 686.]
As I said in that debate, I was impressed by the representations made by the independent producers when I was the relevant Minister 10 years ago. However, it seems that the regional companies also need their day in court. The virtue of my noble friend's amendment is that it confers a procedure under which those days in court could occur.
Lord McNally: I supported the absent noble Lord, Lord Alli, when he moved his various amendments in favour of the independent producers. I could well imagine his concern at the tenor of this debate because those who were on the pre-legislative committee remember that it was the persuasive advocacy of PACT and the other independent producers that made us call so strongly for an examination of the case for more help to the independent producers.
That produced rapid action from the Government and the ITC against a background where the feeling was that the approach to independent production by the big battalions had been one of ceilings rather than floors in terms of encouragement. I can well imagine that the independent producers, having made the breakthrough with the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and the ITC, and seeing those new opportunities opening up before them, suddenly saw them being closed just as rapidly by the perhaps newly consolidated ITV companies who used that consolidation to appear as champions of regionality while simply underpinning their own power bases. I am trying to guess at what fear might be expressed. I accept the advocacy of the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Bragg, in such matters and have a gut feeling that there is a case to be examined.
As has been hinted at, not all the independent producers are the barefoot boys and girls waiting for crumbs dropping out of the limousines of ITV and BBC moguls. There are a variety of power bases. My guess is that there is scope for greater encouragement for the independent production sector. Several Members of the Committee also expressed the realisation that by getting production out into the regions and supporting the creative industries, we do a great deal both for the local economies and the self-esteem of those regions. There is a danger of concentration.
As my adopted county is Hertfordshire and around St Albans there are support services for television and film production, I can say to the independent producers that they can come up north to St Albans

1209
and be outside the M25 and avoid all the strictures that are made in that regard. In relation to regional and independent production, there have been accusations that the BBC and large ITV companies, rather than approach the matter with generosity of spirit and attempt to get production out into the independent companies and the regions, sit down and think, "How can we get around these regulations?".
There is a case for further study. The amendment is sensible and modest because many of the arguments the noble Lord, Lord Alli, put forward at an earlier stage remain valid. Furthermore, the ability to help regional production and the smaller ITV companies needs careful study and Ofcom is well suited to carry out that study. We support the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. I had drafted an extensive note setting out the reason for that support, but it would be otiose of me even to attempt to repeat the words of my noble friend and others who have spoken in support of the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: I believe that the debate will conclude with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and me against everyone else! Therefore, I am grateful for a little support from him. I, too, do not believe the amendment is necessary, at least in part for the reasons he gave.
I am also puzzled because I can see little in the amendment which relates to our debates on regional output. Indeed, there is nothing in it. I shall be strict and stick, as we should in Committee, to the amendment. I shall not go over old ground that we discussed during our debates on independent production earlier in Committee. I hope that Members will accept that I am not being unfair but am merely trying to stick to a sensible procedure.
I support the intention behind the amendment, but it is unnecessary because of the amendments made in another place following the ITC's UK programme supply review. Among other things, the amendments have given Ofcom the duty to undertake a review of the programming quota for independent productions as part of their annual factual and statistical reports. So, just as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, said, we are already requiring Ofcom to take on this responsibility.
Under Clause 351(3)(e), Ofcom must consider what it is appropriate to achieve by conditions and duties under Clause 273 in relation to Channels 3,4 and 5 and paragraphs I and 7 of Schedule 12 in relation to the BBC and the Welsh authority and the effectiveness for that purpose of the conditions and duties for the time being in force. In subsection (3)(f), Ofcom must consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend to the Secretary of State that he exercises any of his powers under that clause or those paragraphs.
These subsections give Ofcom a duty to consider all aspects of the programming quota for independent productions, including the definitions that the
1210
Secretary of State has made by order under Clause 273 and Schedule 12 to define qualifying programmes and independent production and, furthermore, to make recommendations that he exercise any of his powers under those provisions if appropriate. Moreover, under Clause 351 Ofcom will also be required to publish the report, which is exactly in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is proposing.
I therefore believe that Ofcom will have all the powers necessary to undertake exactly the duties that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, set out in his amendment and I therefore hope that he will withdraw it.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to the nine Members of the Committee on all sides who supported my amendment. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if in the interests of time I do not name them all. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for breaching a long-standing alliance. I must confess that I felt like President George W Bush must have felt when President Chirac launched into him during recent months. It was a sad moment.
My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy made an important point which needed making in the light of some of the comments made in earlier debates, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. The impression was given that if the ITV companies in the regions were given the right to enter the field, they would somehow crush the independent companies. The reality of what happened with Welsh language broadcasting is extremely interesting in this regard. My noble friend is right that before the arrival of S4C, we in HTV had a large share of that Welsh language programming. With the arrival of S4C, we quickly found ourselves losing a large share of it and having to compete like fury to retain an important sector of our output. As the independents came out in competition with us, so they grew in strength and numbers. The effect of that has been to create a vibrant Welsh language broadcasting sector.
As my noble friend said, that has not however been the case in the English language sector. If my noble friend Lord Peyton wondered why this matter needed highlighting, I can give him one good reason. It was as recently as last July that the ITC, now part of Ofcom, produced its report and reached a negative conclusion. I acknowledge what the Minister said about the past and I am pleased that she said it. However, I suspect that now, instead of Ofcom saying, "We looked at that. The ITC looked at it last year. That need not be a priority for us. We have an awful lot to do in the next few years and we can kick that one into touch for a long time to come", it will know that the Minister has drawn attention to its various duties and tasks. It will also know that nine Members of the Committee—a substantial majority of those who spoke—have supported the case for re-opening the issue.
The issue is important now because of the difficulties faced by the ITV sector at this time as a consequence of the recent loss of advertising revenue. So this is an urgent question and although I shall withdraw my amendment, I do so in the knowledge

1211
that we have perhaps emphasised to Ofcom that this is an important matter. We need action within a very short time. This is not a matter to be kicked into touch.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 273 agreed to.
Clause 274 [Programming quotas for original productions]:
Viscount Falklandmoved Amendment No. 199A:
Page 247, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) In determining appropriate proportions for the purposes of subsections ( I ) and (2), OFCOM shall have regard to the number of viewers of the public service channel in question."
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 199A which is, in fact, Amendment No. 201 that has been re-tabled. I also speak to Amendments Nos. 215, 224 and 234. I apologise to the Committee for an error that has crept into Amendment No. 224 where there is a reference to subsection (1). It should be subsection (3). I hope the committee will indulge me in nevertheless allowing me to refer to this amendment.
Amendments Nos. 199A, 215, 224 and 234 should be viewed as complementary amendments to achieve a single purpose. To give the regulator the ability—not the obligation—to review at any time whether the public service requirements on Channel 5 as shown by its audience share, are proportionate to its role in the mainstream television market. The key amendments are Amendments Nos. 199A—formerly 201—and 224. However, in order to apply the principle fairly across the market, Amendments Nos. 215 and 234 are also required. They would give the regulator a similar ability to consider the audience shares of Channels 3 and 4 when applying tier 2 quotas.
As I have said on previous amendments, Channel 5 was originally envisaged as a small commercial niche channel with relatively light public service requirements. It would not be expected to threaten the Channel 3 or 4 market. Government policy, as expressed in this Bill, positively encourages investment in the channel in order to drive up audience share. Were Channel 5 to raise its audience share by three or four percentage points, it would indeed have a comparable audience to Channel 4 and BBC2. In reality, of course, it would not be comparable. Its very light public service obligations would give it a distinct competitive advantage over those two other channels which would both inevitably struggle to fulfil the high levels of public service in both tiers 2 and 3. The regulator would have no power to correct this imbalance as the Bill currently provides Ofcom with the ability to impose quantitative quotas under tier 2 for original and regional production only in the event of a change of ownership of Channel 5.
What is at stake is the fulfilment of those protections of citizens' interests which the Government have repeatedly said they wish to uphold. The four dominant channels, in return for their market privileges, are rightly expected to provide the citizen with high levels of original and regionally based programming, tailored to their needs and interests. A competitive drive against them by a channel without such obligations will produce a downward trend or
1212
even a spiral of quality in their public service output. In introducing a sliding scale of public service obligations with the BBC at the top end and Channel 5 at the bottom end, the Government must put in place regulation to take account of movements up and down this scale. We believe they must continue to apply these principles to Channel 5, regardless of any changes to media ownership. If the Government's proposed changes to those rules remain intact, there is an overwhelming case for these amendments.
Respected media analysts and academics, which include Professor Steven Barnett of the University of Westminster, noted in a recent letter to the Financial Times that, in the event of Channel 5 being owned by News International—that company is the obvious example, although it may not be interested in Channel 5—it would not be unrealistic to expect that Channel 5 would drive its audiences up to a level which would compete and go beyond those of BBC2 and Channel 4. It could even rival Channel 3 with 16 per cent of market share. Professor Barnett has written in a briefing paper:
"Through heavy cross-promotion from its newspapers and satellite TV platform, through negative coverage of competitor channels and by exploiting its ability to buy key sports and movie rights across pay and free-to-air platforms, News International could potentially transform Channel 5 into the United Kingdom's highest rating television station".
Under these circumstances, a large part of the programming thus being transferred and cross-promoted would probably be imported from outside the United Kingdom. In this scenario, the regulator must have the ability to act to protect original and regionally-produced programming in our mainstream television market beyond the point at which the change of ownership took place. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Each time a clause and a line of this Bill comes up, some noble Lords want to give Ofcom yet more things to do. Ofcom will already be very heavily loaded with duties and simply to add to them may give satisfaction to those noble Lords who propose it, but it will be back-breaking for a new organisation. I do not have the pleasure of knowing the noble Lord, Lord Currie, but I have never yet heard in your Lordships' House any suggestion that the noble Lord is not very well suited to the job. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Currie, is all that is claimed by those who know him better than I do, it is high time someone said that he deserves to be trusted with what is already a very difficult job without being given a load of complicated advice, some of which, together with some of the tasks imposed on him, he could not possibly fail to perform. As for the noble Lord, Lord Currie, being told to take account of numbers, they are an all-important part of the game.
Lord Puttnam: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 200. I am a little puzzled at the need for the amendment as this is an area in which I felt that the Joint Scrutiny Committee and the Government were to a very great extent ad idem. The purpose of the amendment is literally to try to place on the face of the Bill some of the duties which the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and Ofcom will fulfil, and the timings.

1213
By far the most important purpose is to ensure that Ofcom is able to review production commitments, including regional programme-making commitments of the public service channels and Channel 3 in response to any significant change in the revenue or audience share of the relevant channel. It is important to allow a level of flexibility so that if the market-place, audience shares or revenues, change dramatically, Ofcom has the ability to review that situation and act accordingly rather than be boxed into specific time periods.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 233A in this group. I tabled the amendment only yesterday, and therefore appreciate that it is not included in the sixth Marshalled List, although it has been printed and I have it in my hand. In case Members of the Committee have not had time to study the amendment carefully, perhaps I may remind them what it contains.
The amendment suggests that a new clause should be inserted after Clause 282, which will be headed,
"Variation of Public Service Obligations of Channel 5".
Subsection (1) suggests that,
"In the event that the share of audience or share of revenue of Channel 5 for any twelve month period is in excess of 15 per cent, as measured by OFCOM in their review under section 351, the Secretary of State may, by order, require OFCOM to review the conditions placed upon Channel 5 under sections 274 and 281".
The first of those sections deals with the amount of original programming and the second with regional programmes.
Subsection (2) of the new clause suggests that:
"Such a review shall be required to increase the proportions of original and regional programmes to those most recently produced by Channel 3".
Finally, subsection (3) contains a caveat that,
"In the event that Channel 3, in the same period, had a share of audience or share of revenue below 15 per cent, the proportions of original and regional programmes should be equivalent to those levels produced by Channel 3 when its share of audience was at 15 per cent or above".
I carry on the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. However, I suggest a rather starker and perhaps simpler solution than that proposed in their amendments. Their amendments rely on such words as,
"OFCOM shall have regard to the number of viewers of the public service channel in question",
whether that be Channel 3 or Channel 5.
It is extremely difficult, necessarily, for any outsider, anyone who may have an eye on trying to get control of Channel 5, to know just what those words mean. Surely it would be better to be much more precise in that context and to set a numerical yardstick by which it is clear that if that yardstick is met, if Channel 5 were to have a 15 per cent share of audience as measured by Ofcom at that stage, it would have to match the obligations of Channel 3 in relation to both regional and original programming.
1214
I hope that I may even persuade my noble friend of many years, Lord Peyton, to follow me in this. I do not suggest a new duty, a new thought for Ofcom, something else which it has to consider. I suggest specifically that under these circumstances,
"the Secretary of State may, by order, require OFCOM to review the conditions placed upon Channel 5".
I believe that that emphasis is important. Either later tonight or Thursday we shall move into the area of cross-media ownership. If it is on Thursday I very much regret that due to other commitments I shall not be here. However, it is necessary that anyone who considers taking over, trying to gain ownership, of Channel 5 should have in advance a very clear view of what are likely to be the public service conditions laid upon him and his company. It would not be right to leave it to a vague way of thinking, "If I do get the audience share up to 15 per cent or 20 cent I shall have to argue with Ofcom about it and I shall lobby Ofcom to see whether I can twist its arm and persuade it that for any reason, whatever it is, precisely the same condition should not be put on me as on Channel 3". It would be a very great mistake to leave that kind of open gap at this time. It would be much better to put this on the face of the Bill.s
That is why—this was considered in the pre-legislative committee of which I was not a member it would be more sensible to insert into the Bill a clause such as I mention at this early stage. Whether the appropriate figure is 15 per cent, 10 per cent or 20 cent would be a matter for further consideration and decision by Members of the Committee. But it would be a starker and, perhaps for that reason, more uncomplicated solution than that suggested by other noble Lords, of simply saying to Ofcom, "If this happens, you must have another look at it and one of the things you should think about is the number of people in the audience".
I believe that Members of the Committee would agree that it is interesting that we are having this debate on the day after the Federal Communications Committee in the United States agreed on substantial further deregulation there, allowing media companies greatly to increase their ownership of either television or radio stations. That caused considerable furore in the United States, as is reported in today's press. Many people in the United States believe that that is a movement in the wrong direction. At this stage of the Bill and in the debates we are shortly to have, we shall have the same considerations before us.
As regards the public service obligations of Channels 3 and 5, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for quoting remarks made by Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, in today's business section of the Guardian.
"Ms Jowell suggested the Bill had been misrepresented, insisting again that it is 'proprietor neutral'. She said the change in the Five ownership rules would be matched by the most draconian programme regulation in history. If Five changed hands or substantially increased its audience share"—
these are the key words,
"the new media regulator, Ofcom, would review its public service responsibilities with a view to toughening them".

1215
That is just what we should not allow. We should be much more specific; hence the clause I propose to the Committee.
The Culture Secretary ends her interview with the rather touching words that she wholeheartedly believed in the Bill. She stated:
"I've spent a huge amount of my life over the past two years on this; I think it's good legislation and I have confidence in it".
I spent two years on the Broadcasting Bill between 1987 and 1989 when I was Minister of State to Douglas Hurd, the Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. We spent a great deal of time trying to ensure the future independence and continuation in existence of the 14 regional ITV companies. We had no idea of the degree to which satellite would dominate television in this country, satellite that is increasingly owned and dominated by one very substantial newspaper proprietor.
Perhaps I may say to the Culture Secretary that I very much hope that she will not be as disillusioned by the next 10 years of developments in the television and radio world as I have been by the past 10 years after working hard for two years on the Broadcasting Bill of 1990.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has won another friend and influenced another Minister by his contribution to this debate, which has enabled me to reduce the length of my reply. That is because we entirely accept his contention that the main thrust of our response to the amendments is that we already have within the Bill the necessary obligations upon Ofcom for it to do its job, which is to safeguard the very objectives defined by the amendments. that we broadly share them, and that therefore it is not necessary to be as specific as the amendments would indicate.
I shall address myself to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in the context of its grouping and the issues that it raises on the question of increasing potential audience share. He will forgive me if I do not join him in a major debate on the potential change of ownership of Channel 5. We are scheduled to have that debate either in the wee small hours of tomorrow morning or, more likely, on Thursday. I regret that he will not be present then, but that is when the big issues are to be discussed, and that is when we shall have that more wide-ranging debate. However, I shall, I hope, do him the courtesy of responding to his amendment.
Of course, the Government recognise the importance of a strong programme production sector to the health not only of the broadcasting industry, but of our creative economy as a whole. I was pleased to note from the recently published Independent Television Commission annual report that Channel 3, Channel 4 and Channel 5 are all meeting their licence requirements for original and regional production—and in some cases meeting them comfortably. That said, I can of course understand the view of noble Lords that requirements for independent, original and regional production should reflect audience size and
1216
the changing revenues and audience share of particular channels, which has been the burden of several of the main representations on these amendments.
Those are certainly factors that Ofcom may want to take into account in setting and maintaining production and programme-making targets, but they are not the only ones. Ofcom may also wish to consider, for example, the existing levels of original or regional production achieved and the broader requirements of the public service remit for the channel in question. The Bill already gives Ofcom a range of tools to enable it to set and maintain targets at the right level, and I am not therefore persuaded—any more than the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was—that that new powers are needed.
I must also confess to some concern that the amendments as drafted might actually prove counter-productive in operation. There are three main concerns.
First, in setting the targets, Ofcom will have its discretion circumscribed if it must in all circumstances give weight to the number of viewers of the channel in question.
Secondly, it is entirely possible under the new clause in Amendment No. 200 that Ofcom's review would lead to decreases in the various requirements on public service channels in response to falling revenues and audience shares, rather than to increases. This could be the case for only one public service channel if, say, Channel 3 lost market share to Channel 5, but all the public service channels could find themselves in weaker market positions as multi-channel viewing gained ground. In such a situation, Ofcom could come under pressure to reduce the production and programme-making requirements for all the public service channels, leading to a net loss for the viewer. That cannot be right.
Thirdly, if, on the other hand, revenues and audience shares for the public service channels—or some of them—increase, and the requirements are increased, as proposed by Amendment No. 233A of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that will amount to a penalty for success. What incentive would there be for a young channel such as Channel 5 to grow if the result is an automatic increase in its public service commitments, without any consideration being given to the other factors I mentioned earlier as being relevant in the round in setting targets? Far better, a shrewd channel owner might conclude, to manage revenues and audience share at a point where such new obligations do not cut in. That surely cannot be right, either.
Aside from those concerns, I believe that the Bill already provides sufficient protection for programme production and sufficient powers for Ofcom to ensure that targets are set and maintained at the right levels. In the case of the original production quota, that means an appropriate level for ensuring that the relevant channel is consistently of a high quality, and in the case of the regional programme-making quotas it means an appropriate level for ensuring that a suitable proportion of the channel's programmes are

1217
made in the UK outside the M25 area—and, one hopes, in a number of cases further north than St. Alban's, although I have nothing against that town and for the licensed public service channels that a suitable proportion of their expenditure relates to a range of production centres outside that area.
Ofcom is already required to carry out, as soon possible after the end of the first 12-month period beginning with the commencement of Clause 260, and thereafter at least every five years, a review of the extent to which the public service broadcasters have provided television services which, as a whole, fulfil the purposes of public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom. Ofcom must prepare a report on its findings, with a view to maintaining and strengthening the quality of public service broadcasting.
Ofcom is also required to publish an annual factual and statistical report. The report will follow a review by Ofcom of the provision of television and radio services in the United Kingdom during the relevant period, and will include consideration of the financial condition of the market and any trends appearing or operating in the size of the audience, which is a substantial burden of the amendments. The review will also focus in particular on the operation and effectiveness of the arrangements currently in place in relation to independent productions.
In addition, we have strengthened Ofcom's power to amend licence conditions on a change of control of a Channel 3 licence holder, and given it similar powers in relation to Channel 5. When it is notified of a relevant change of control, Ofcom must review the effect on various programming and production requirements, including original and regional production, and may vary the licence to ensure that the new owner cannot cut back on what the old owner actually delivered. The aim is to ensure that the change of control does not in itself lead to a reduction in the quality of the service.
These strengthened provisions were introduced in response to the ITC's review of the UK programme supply market, which in turn followed concerns in this area raised by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, to which he referred this evening, and by his colleagues on the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the draft Bill. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the Government have changed their position in the light of the committee's work and the Bill's progress in the other place.
The ITC's excellent report was published towards the end of last year, and the Government announced shortly afterwards that they had accepted practically all of the ITC's recommendations. As a result, over 60 amendments were made to the Bill in another place. I hope that the Committee will agree that this substantial body of amendments has vastly improved the Bill. They also indicate that the Government have kept an open mind about improvements to the original draft measure.
As well as the specific powers I have mentioned, the Bill preserves for Ofcom a general right under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to vary a licence, having given
1218
the holder a reasonable opportunity to make representations. So Ofcom may at any time alter the original and regional production requirements, following consultation with the licence holder. The level of the independent production quota is set by the Secretary of State by order, so Ofcom does not have the power to alter this; nor would it be able to do so under the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 200, unless there were further changes.
I hope that I have reassured the Committee that we take production and programme-making very seriously and have made provision in the Bill to ensure that the broadcasters deliver. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, we must now trust Ofcom to do its job, to set the right targets for regional and original projects, to review them as appropriate and to take action where necessary. Ofcom has the tools to do that and to ensure that the UK has a healthy programme production market able to deliver a wide range of high-quality programmes to the home audience and better able to compete in the global market.
The Bill already contains more than 400 clauses. It is so long because it is a comprehensive measure set out through consultation and through the benefit of work by many noble Lords in the past few months to produce the right structure for the industry. I hope, therefore, that it will be recognised that the amendments are not necessary and that those who moved them will feel able to withdraw them.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McNally: I am growing increasingly worried about the love affair between the Government Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Since the Government Whip is interested in speeding up passage of the Bill, would it not be an idea to invite the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, down to the Front Bench?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: What a suggestion, and from what a source. Indeed, how should you spell source? The noble Lord has excelled himself. I am in an opposite camp to the noble Lord, as he reminds me. The noble Lord tends to favour pumping up already large Bills to make them even more obese and gross. I am thoroughly against him in that regard. It is a very respectable point of view. If the noble Lord, Lord McNally, makes a point of rebuking me, I shall hand back those rebukes with interest.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Before the amendment is withdrawn, I intervene extremely briefly. I shall not talk about ownership, as the Minister advised us in relation to Thursday or possibly the small hours of this morning. My noble friend Lord Wakeham, who chaired the relevant Cabinet committee in 1993–94, will recall that, as the Minister, in making propositions I was in exactly the same position as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in having only one ally in the forum in which we discussed matters. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was not on the committee. Had he been, no doubt he would have been my ally.

1219
My noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry will not be present on Thursday. I was, in some senses, the godparent of Channel 5 in that, as is probably reasonably well known, there was what I shall neutrally call a debate between the DTI and what was then the DNH on whether Channel 5 ought to be brought into existence in line with the pledge that the party had previously given. It was determined that it should be brought into being. Much credit should go to my then special adviser, who now runs a venture capital company in the media field. As the godparent, I have a great deal of sympathy with the thoughts that underlie the relevant parts of the amendments proposed by my noble friend.
Viscount Falkland: We all love the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, no less than the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I agree in general terms with what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said. But we are all human beings, and, human nature being as it is, we all favour our own amendments. We hope—vainly, often—to have our proposals included in the Bill. It would be unnatural of me not to think that the Bill should specifically improve the prospect of Ofcom's job being simpler, not more complicated.
I understand from the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that there are already provisions in the Bill to deal with the very particular points about Channel 5 and the prospect of an increase in audience share. I am sure that, if I had riot raised those points in my amendment, I would have been viewed as very remiss by the executives of Channel 3 and Channel 4, to name but two broadcasters. There are distinct fears that a situation such as the one that I described will introduce great problems and complications to the television industry. After all, radical concepts have been introduced by the Government in this Bill—for example, widening ownership opportunities. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has introduced a very interesting, practical idea. I share with him the view that there may he a need to include in the Bill an indication to potential purchasers of such channels the public service obligations that they will face in certain circumstances.
Having said that, it has been a very interesting debate. I thank all those who have taken part. I suspect that several of the points made will stimulate interest outside the Committee. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 274 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Clause 275 agreed to.
Clause 276 [Appointed news providers for Channel 3]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 202:
Page 249, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 203 to 206 and to the Question that Clause 343 stand part of the Bill. As many Members of the Committee are aware, Clauses 276 and 277 deal with establishment of the system requiring Channel 3
1220
to appoint a nominated news provider. Clause 343 proposes ownership restrictions on that nominated supplier. The combined effect of the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and myself would be to amend the current system requiring the Channel 3 news supplier to be selected only from those companies granted nominated status by the ITC and to do away with ownership restrictions on the Channel 3 news supplier.
Like the Government, we recognise the importance of a high-quality news supplier on Channel 3 that is able to compete with the BBC and Sky. That is why we support retention of the content aspects of Clause 276. Amendment Nos. 202, 203 and 206 leave in place the obligation on Channel 3 to supply a national news service that can compete with those of other national operators. They also retain the obligation on the individual ITV companies to come together to appoint a single supplier. In addition, we accept the new requirements contained in the Bill that give Ofcom the power to ensure that the Channel 3 news supplier is properly resourced to fulfil its functions and to give it the final right of approval of the terms of any contract. Taken together with Clause 275, those are powerful conditions designed to maintain quality and competition in news supply on the UK's terrestrial broadcasters, and we support them.
The introduction of new powers in Clause 276(3)(d) giving Ofcom final approval of the Channel 3 news contract obviates the need for the regulator to grant nominated news status to bidders. Under the current system, suppliers seek nominated status prior to bidding, and the regulator is able to check their financial bona fides at that point. However, they have no say over whether the terms of the final contract are likely to deliver the quality of service that Parliament expects of Channel 3. The shortcomings of the system were exploited to the full in the previous Channel 3 news bidding round by a competitor consortium to ITN, which consisted of Sky News, UTV, CBS and Bloomberg. That competitor consortium, having been granted nominated status by the ITC, bid very low for the contract. As a result ITN was forced to bid very low and the price of the contract was considerably reduced. The ITC had no final say over the terms of the contract.
However, the Government have now introduced measures in the Bill which will prevent that situation recurring. Ofcom will issue guidance on what it believes to be appropriate terms for the contract and will have final approval of the contract. As such, retention of the requirements on Ofcom to consider applications for nominated status is unnecessary.
At the time of the next bidding round, Ofcom could find itself considering applications for nominated status from three or four consortia. What is the point of obliging it to go through the painstaking progress of examining whether or not to award nominated status to each one, including ITN, when Parliament has granted it the power to examine and approve the terms of any contract struck between Channel 3 and its chosen supplier? This, we believe, is a pointless,

1221
regulatory burden for a regulator that already faces an in-tray of epic proportions. Our amendments would sensibly do away with it.
Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 propose that the Secretary of State should not only have the power to repeal Clause 276 by order but also to modify it. At present, the Bill proposes that the Secretary of State may repeal Clause 276 in its entirety. This seems to us to be something of a nuclear option. As I pointed out, there are content elements of the clause that Ofcom may wish to retain for some time.
I turn now to the main issue: the question of ownership of Channel 3 news supplier and our opposition to Clause 343 standing part of the Bill. This amendment would remove the Government's current proposal to limit any company's shareholding in ITN to 40 per cent. We oppose this clause because we believe that its effect is to inflict significant damage on ITN and in particular its ability to secure investment. It is also in complete contradiction of the Government's general policy, which we on these Benches support, of liberalising ownership where possible and where there are strong content rules and a strong competition law regime in place.
There are detailed provisions in the Bill which safeguard the quality of ITV's news output, whoever owns its supplier. These rules are so extensive that even the joint scrutiny committee, not generally a friend of much of the Government's ownership liberalisation, concluded that,
"we are not convinced that the retention of the nominated news provider provisions for Channel 3 provides a safeguard for the quality and impartiality of news on ITV that could not be provided by licensing and networking arrangements".
The committee went on to recommend an early review by Ofcom of the ownership aspects of this issue.
I know that for many of Members of the Committee this may seem something of an esoteric issue, but for ITN and its employees it is one with hard edged and very real consequences. The imposition of a fragmented ownership structure makes it more difficult to secure shareholder agreement and investment. Perhaps this can be best illustrated by reference to the example of the ITV News Channel. This 24-hour news channel was originally named the ITN News Channel. It was set up by ITN shareholders as a competitor service to Sky News and BBC News 24. However, as noble Lords may imagine, the 24-hour news market is not a very profitable one and after a relatively short period of time a number of the news channel's shareholders wanted the service to close down. However, Carlton and Granada, the main shareholders in ITV and ITN's biggest client, could see a real value in keeping the service on air. So they increased their shareholding in the channel to keep it afloat.
In the wake of the recent war, the wisdom of this decision has been borne out. ITN has been able to maximise the value of its coverage of the war by screening full 24-hour coverage on the ITV News Channel. This has been good for its staff and correspondents who have had increased opportunities
1222
to get their material on air. It has been good for viewers who have had greater access to exclusive ITN reporting and a wider choice of 24-hour news channels; and it has been good for the quality of news in the United Kingdom in general as it has increased competition with Sky News and BBC News 24.
As this example demonstrates, allowing businesses the freedom to alter their shareholdings in order to maximise investment can be the difference between success and failure. In an increasingly competitive media market, the Government's proposal to limit the maximum shareholding in ITN of any single company to 40 per cent is likely to be to the company's detriment. That is clearly the view of ITN, whose chairman, Mark Wood, wrote in a recent Westminster media forum publication that the ownership cap,
"could undermine ITN's future commercial development, hampering the company's ability to forge new partnerships and closing off the potential that all other commercial media companies have to merge with other companies or for shareholders to increase their stake".
If the Government are prepared to rely elsewhere on content rules as the safeguard for liberalisation of media ownership, there is no reason why they should treat this area any differently, especially as the content rules on Channel 3 news in this Bill are more explicit and tougher than those currently in place.
On these Benches we share the Government's commitment to retaining competition in the news supply market in the UK but disagree profoundly with the way in which they propose to achieve it. Restricting ITN with burdensome ownership rules that will hamper its ability to secure investment will weaken competition in the news supply market and ultimately be to the detriment of viewers and democracy as a whole.
In another place, the Minister, Dr Howells, intimated that the Government would be relaxed about Ofcom reviewing this matter as an early priority. Indeed, the Government have introduced a sunset clause at Clause 277 which would allow repeal of the current system. However, given the extremely heavy workload that Ofcom already faces, I urge Ministers not to pass the buck for this one but to have the courage of their convictions on media ownership and support change now. I commend these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: We on these Benches are very supportive of the amendments and the way in which the noble Baroness put them forward. As she emphasised, they are positively "Peytonite" in their intent. Although the noble Lord is not in his place, I am sure that he hears the praise. I feel him with us now.
I make two brief points. First, without a doubt, when ITV was brought in in the mid-1950s its two greatest achievements were its regional reach and ITN. ITN transformed the way in which television news was presented. In particular, "News at Ten" became the great, popular flagship news programme for almost 20 years. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, indicated mea culpa about the 1990 Act. One of its

1223
most disastrous effects was the change of ownership of ITN and the way that ITN related to ITV. I cannot understand why the Government do not follow through the logic that a single ITV would nurture its own news programmes just as Sky nurtures Sky News and the BBC nurtures BBC News. To insert these fiddling restrictions is beyond comprehension.
To have BBC with its 24-hour news channel support, Sky with its 24-hour news channel support and ITN with its 24-hour news channel support would give us good, competitive programming. But, as it is now structured, ITN will be at a permanent disadvantage. As the noble Baroness indicated, at the time of the Iraq war, when the owners injected more money into the service, it demonstrated again that the basic spirit of ITN is still there. I believe that if the Government were to accept the amendments and to allow ITN freely to link up with ITV in a productive way, ITN would quickly recapture all its old glories. We strongly support the amendments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Despite the noble Lord's inability to recognise my presence just now, I should like to repay him in a most generous way by saying that I entirely agree with everything he said—that I supported my noble friend's amendment—which I heard.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I, too, support the amendment. For the life of me I cannot understand where is the public interest in removing control of ITN from the ITV companies. After all, ITV founded ITN—for the first 35 years it wholly owned it--and it was one of the least satisfactory aspects of the 1990 Act that removed the control of ITN from ITV. If you trust people to run a franchise, surely you will also trust them to produce what is obviously their flagship programme—that is, their news programme.
In any event, they will already be producing their local news programmes. Do you trust them to do that? Or should we get in a nominated news provider—with no one holding more than 20 per cent or 40 per cent of that—for local news? The whole thing is daft.
As it is a relic of the 1990 Act, I honestly cannot understand why the Government do not go the whole hog and, instead of saying, "We look to Ofcom to consider the matter in the near future", get rid of it now. Let us get back to the good old days when ITV ran ITN, and ran it very well.
Two red herrings have been brought in. One of them, introduced by the ITC, is that somehow there is a danger of foreign ownership. Let us be quite clear, the only people in favour of foreign ownership are on the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench. No one else in the House will vote for it. When it comes to a vote—as it will at Report stage—I am confident that the Government will be defeated. I shall be very proud to be one of those who defeat them on the issue of foreign ownership. It is the Government who are raising the horror of foreign ownership, not the rest of the Committee.
1224
In any event, the ITC that is now raising that as a spectre, as the noble Baroness pointed out, is the selfsame ITC that approved a bid from a consortium which was predominantly foreign owned. How hypocritical can you get?
The only issue that genuinely worries me concerns Channel 4. It is true that Channel 4 is an extremely important news outlet for ITN. It is ITN's flagship programme. It is probably the best broadcast news programme—possibly because of its duration of close to a full hour. It is in ITN's own interest to ensure that "Channel 4 News" remains in that pre-eminent position.
Perhaps I may quote a vested interest in reverse. Like all other radio companies, most of my companies subscribe to IRN. In my day, we handed over our Independent Radio News international news gathering to ITN because we had so much confidence in it. I do not believe that there is any danger of it deliberately withholding any news in order to advantage a television company against a radio company or Channel 3 against Channel 4. That is beyond comprehension. I invite the Government to accept the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Amendment No. 293 is grouped with these amendments and is very similar to the amendment moved by my noble friend.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, reminded the Committee, the 1990 Act introduced the concept of a nominated news provider for Channel 3 and imposed the restriction on its ownership that no company could own more than 20 per cent. Interestingly, these rules were not designed to prevent the ITV companies—all 15 of them at the time—from owning ITN in its entirety but to ensure plurality of ownership at a time when spectrum scarcity created a high barrier to entry into the television market. As we know, consolidation within ITV has meant that the ITV companies themselves are no longer able to own, under the current rules, the majority of ITN.
The concept of a nominated news provider, with strict rules governing its ownership, is outdated. It deters investment in ITN and should be scrapped. It undermines the prospects for the maintenance of a strong independent third force in the supply of news in this country alongside the BBC and Sky. Unless it is changed, we run the risk that ITN may lose the Channel 3 news contract. This would be the death knell for the company. As my noble friend said, in the last round Sky and Bloomberg bid for that contract. Allowing ITV to own its own news provider would be far more likely to secure the future of a third force in this country's news supply.
There are clear obligations on Channel 3 to provide national and international news of high quality in peak time, and on Ofcom to guarantee its quality and to ensure that that news supply will occur in this country. ITV would have an incentive to maximise the efficiency of its news operation by continuing existing news contracts with other broadcasters such as Channel 4.

1225
We should also note that under the Government's proposals the Bill would grant Ofcom a new power to approve the terms of any new ITV news contract to ensure that the ITV news supplier is adequately resourced to meet all the legislative requirements and any guidelines. This is a power that the regulators have never had in the past. In almost every other country the main commercial broadcasters—for example, CBS, NBC and ABC in America, Channel 9 in Australia and TF1 in France—are allowed to own their own news provider. Single ownership would provide certainty for ITN and help to guarantee investment going forward.
I have read very carefully the debates on the Bill in another place. In all those debates, the Minister singularly failed to offer an adequate reason why the ITV companies should not be able to own their nominated news provider.
Lord Bragg: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. Some of the arguments made in regard to the ownership of ITN bear repeating. As has been said by many noble Lords—it should be repeated in Hansard as often as possible—ITV is the only broadcaster prevented from owning its own news provider. BBC News is at the heart of the BBC and Sky News is at the heart of Sky. I have no idea what ITV has done to be so unjustly and unfairly penalised. It has not been brought to my attention in any argument offered by the Government why it is being so uniquely penalised.
Its record in news is a good one. It showed its true colours—it needs stabilisation in the evening, which is coming to fulfilment—in its coverage of the Iraq war, as has been said and deserves re-saying. At the time of the biggest advertising recession in history, another £6 million was put into its news. It was broadcast at nine o'clock and sometimes attracted 10 million viewers. As has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and others, when the 24-hours news coverage looked as though it was going down the tubes, ITV bought it. Granada and Carlton put more money into it and increased its audiences by 180 per cent. That is evidence of good intent, good management and good news gathering.
If ITN ownership should revert to ITV—we have heard the mea culpa of how it slipped out of the grasp of ITV, which should also be a part of the argument—there will be a huge opportunity to allow ITV's regional news teams to work more closely with the ITN team in a £100 million news machine. The current ownership rules make this very difficult. The semidetached status of ITN makes it more difficult for good regional news reporters and producers to migrate from the regions to national news and for there to be cross-play between regional and national news.
The ownership cap was responsible for a bidding process that has allowed Sky to push down ITN's budget. The proposed 40 per cent cap on ownership—which I cannot understand—is counter-productive.
1226
Far from projecting a third news force it allows Sky to take control of more of ITN than any individual ITV company.
We need an ITN which is a big public service news gatherer and broadcaster, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. That is in sight if we accept these amendments and slim the Bill. Very rightly, the Bill is careful of many of the BBC's public service interests and Sky's interests. ITV's public service interests sometimes seem far less well protected and yet it is a big public service provider which gives massive private investment to public service projects and is watched by a great number of people in this country. I have no doubt that if the amendments were accepted it would strengthen ITV, it would strengthen ITN and it would strengthen public service news. I urge the Government to take them on.
7 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I am in the happy position of agreeing with almost everything that has been said. Certainly I agree with the speech that has just been made. My noble friend Lady Buscombe will be delighted to hear that I agree also with everything said in her admirable speech. She will be less happy to hear that I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, but that takes us to matters that we shall be debating later.
As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who spoke in such dogmatic terms, I wondered why we in the Joint Committee took such a cautious view. Whatever the reasons, the world has moved on. ITN's performance during the war in Iraq, of which it provided admirable coverage, showed the quality of its production. That and the state of the market the importance of not handicapping companies with ridiculous rules about sources of capital—together provide compelling reasons for the change that my noble friend proposes.
Lord Lipsey: My noble friend Lord Bragg said that the arguments in favour of the amendment bear repeating. Nevertheless, I shall forbear from repeating them and say one word: viewers. If the Government had brought before your Lordships or the other place a convincing rationale for believing that viewers get a better news service as a result of the existing arrangement, I would stand behind them. There are compelling reasons to think otherwise. Why should companies put a lot of money into something when they can own only a maximum of 40 per cent of it between them?
The integration of regional news with national news is by far the biggest weakness of bulletins at the moment. It can partly be tackled under existing structures but not properly. Some of us favour the amendment because we want better competition in news for viewers—not to please the companies, which are mere instruments, but to please the people we ultimately service. The Government have got to be

1227
much better at producing a rationale for ignoring what, on the face of it, seems to be in their overwhelming interests.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I have listened with great interest to what has been said and agree with every single word. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, questioned why the pre-legislative committee had been a little cautious. Perhaps the answer is that we have had time to reflect. Certainly everything that I have heard and read has more and more convinced me that the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, are the right way to go.
It is constantly leaked about the place that the Government are not going to give way on anything in the Bill. I hope that they recognise the strength of feeling in the Committee and have had time to think more carefully.
Lord Bernstein of Craigweil: As someone who works in ITV, it seems to me totally bizarre that it should be the only major television channel in the world that cannot own its own news service. My experience of working within a consortium in the broadcasting industry is not a happy one. To persuade all shareholders to agree a policy, to change and sometimes to take a risk is extremely difficult. I am sure that the Government's proposed structure for ITN will put it at a disadvantage in competing with other news services.
Baroness Blackstone: It is not true—as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe—that the Government are resisting everything. They have made a number of concessions and will be making more later today.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blackstone: So the noble Baroness should withdraw that remark.
There is obviously strong feeling in the Committee on this particular group of amendments. I must disappoint noble Lords because this is not one that the Government will concede.
If Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 were agreed, there would be no nomination system for news. ITV would be free to appoint any news provider that it chose but it would have to meet the same quality and funding requirements that the current system sets out. Amendment No. 204 would allow the modification rather than the repeal of the requirement in Clause 276. We do not accept that all the changes suggested are appropriate at present, although we acknowledge that there may come a time when part or all of what some Members of the Committee are advocating will become appropriate and be acceptable.
We are already loosening the ownership restrictions, moving from a 20 per cent to a 40 per cent limit to encourage more investment and more dynamic management. The new limit means that instead of a minimum of five owners, ITN can have three.
1228
As to our arguments for retaining the other restrictions at this stage, TV is a vital source of information and opinion. Viewers think of TV news as trustworthy and impartial. We want to make sure that viewers continue having a choice of high-quality, editorially independent national news from free-to-air television. The nominated news provider system ensures that ITV News, as the main competitor to the BBC, will play a major role in contributing to that choice.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I do not believe that any Member of the Committee has suggested anything different. Surely the Minister is not suggesting—if she is, she is sadly wrong—that ITN was anything other than that prior to 1990, when it was wholly owned by ITV.
Baroness Blackstone: No, I am not. ITN has always been an extremely good and reliable news service, watched by a great many people. That does not mean that I should accept entirely my noble friend's arguments.
Licence obligations and other content rules in the Bill can go a considerable way to maintaining high standards but the news provider requirement for Channel 3 provides an additional safeguard in securing a news service that is independent from ITV and the commercial pressures that it may sometimes face.
The Joint Committee agreed that we were right to include the nominated news provision. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, accepts that is so and that I do not need to quote the Joint Committee.
As to Amendment No. 293, the Bill already proposes to relax the ownership limit from the current 20 per cent ceiling. We recognise that the limit is inhibitive to investment and management. The newly relaxed limit will provide ITN's ownership and decision-making structure with a greater degree of flexibility and dynamism. Ownership limits are still necessary. A 40 per cent limit on Channel 3 licences, whether alone or in combination, will ensure that the service is independent of the licensees but it will not force any of the existing shareholders to disinvest. The limit merely reflects the current position, which is that five owners hold 20 per cent each. Two of those owners are ITV companies. At the same time, the 40 per cent figure is a good balance between the push for good regulation and securing independence in the news provider.
On Amendments Nos. 205 and 206, we are not suggesting that the current arrangements will remain in place for ever. On the contrary, as the TV market develops that should ensure that the BBC has sufficient competition and the need for ITV to have a separately-owned news provider will be removed.
The Bill already gives the Secretary of State power to repeal the nominated news provider system altogether or to change the limits on ownership of the provider. That means that we will be able to change the restrictions on ownership of a nominated news

1229
provider as the environment changes. To this end, Clause 384 requires Ofcom to review a number of provisions including those relating to the nominated news provider, and then report the conclusions to the Secretary of State. That report must set out Ofcom's recommendations as to how the Secretary of State should exercise her powers to amend the provisions in the Bill relating to news provision.
The first review must be carried out within three years of Clause 384 coming into effect— in other words, quite soon—but there is nothing to prevent Ofcom conducting a review sooner than that. If it were persuaded in the course of a review that an alternative system of ownership structure would safeguard the quality, impartiality and investment in news on ITV, changes may be made sooner rather than later. The Joint Committee also recommended an early review and we believe that that is a very sensible recommendation. No doubt Ofcom will consider it carefully.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that I do not believe, as he claimed, that the world has changed so dramatically in the past six or nine months since the committee, of which he was a member, reported. In line with that thinking and after listening to the arguments which have been put this evening, we will look into the possibility of increasing flexibility for the future. One possible avenue is, as Members of the Committee have said, to separate the nomination process and ownership provisions from those aimed at maintaining high quality and competition in news provision and of securing the adequacy of the resources of the news provider. If that proved to be appropriate, that would keep open for the future the option of removing part of the news provider system that requires the nomination of news providers without needing to sweep away altogether the other protections built into the system. I make one concession and that is that we will consider this matter further and bring forward amendments at Report.
To conclude, we acknowledge that the nominated news provider system may require changing in the future, but we do not believe that we have quite reached that point. ITV is going to face very considerable changes with the removal of the ownership rules which currently prevent a single ITV. We want to wait for Ofcom to be able to assess properly the new environment when there may be a single ITV, and make recommendations that are based on Ofcom's research and expertise. For the time being we believe that the system and the ownership limits associated with it will serve to buttress the quality and the independence of the ITV news service, which I believe everyone in this House wishes to see. We believe that that is particularly important at this time as we reposition our media against the newly deregulated backdrop.
Lord Bragg: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question and make an observation with regard to her response as to why the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, might have modified his position.
1230
The Minister asked what had changed so dramatically in the world in the past six or nine months. A great deal has changed, including ITN's ability to show its true colours in providing news at the highest possible level in the public service fashion.
Sadly, I did not hear an answer to the question as to why ITV is so uniquely penalised in being prevented from owning its own news provider unlike any other major company in the world. It means that ITV is shackled; the ITV regional news is in a straitjacket and ITN is hobbled. I still do not understand why it should be so uniquely penalised. It is a very straightforward question and I would love an answer.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not accept that ITV is hobbled, shackled and uniquely disadvantaged, as my noble friend suggests.
Lord Bragg: With the greatest respect to my noble friend—
Baroness Blackstone: May I finish my answer? I want to be as responsive as I can to my noble friend. I believe that he is using purple prose. I know that he feels very strongly about this matter. What I have said, and made absolutely clear, is that the Government are ready to look at change here. The only matter which divides us is when we do it. Some who have spoken in the debate want change immediately despite the fact that there are likely to be rather sweeping changes as far as ITV is concerned, as opposed to those who believe that we should hold on for a short period, look at the impact of that change, allow Ofcom, with all its expertise, to undertake a review, and then make a change. That seems a sensible and cautious way forward and exactly what the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, Lord Puttnam and other members of the Joint Scrutiny Committee proposed only a few months ago.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: The Minister's response to this group of amendments is enormously disappointing and unsatisfactory. She has given a huge hostage to the future because in effect she said that ownership of ITN affects the regulation by Ofcom of the nominated news provider. In effect, she has linked ownership with regulation. It seems to me, as in many other parts of the Bill, that the Government have sought to separate those two things. She has implied that ownership, whether 20 per cent, 40 per cent, 80 per cent or 100 per cent, will somehow affect the regulation of the nominated news provider.
I believe all Members of the Committee who have spoken reject that argument. The Minister has provided no evidence. She has failed to provide any evidence as to why the Government's position is either in the public interest or the viewers' interest: it is simply not there.
It leads one to wonder why the Government are being so stubborn on this issue. The Minister said that the matter might be considered in the future. That begs

1231
the question as to whether the Government have some political reason that we do not know about and whether they might have some kind of lever. I hope that is not the case. Unless the Government rethink this matter they will get into very serious trouble because their defence seems to be contrary to all the other principles that we have argued throughout the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her very full response. The Minister is right in saying that there is strong feeling in the House. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell had the support of nine Members of the Committee in an earlier amendment. I also have the support of nine Members who have spoken eloquently in favour of these very important amendments.
The Minister said that these changes are not appropriate at present. We believe that that says it all. It shows that it is not a principle at stake, but a question of timing. We simply cannot understand what is wrong with making these entirely sensible and appropriate changes now. What are the Government afraid of?
My noble friend Lord Astor spoke of a lever. I have my own thoughts about arm-twisting. There is no clarity to the Minister's argument. There are powers in the Bill to repeal restrictions on ownership rules, but why not now?
Perhaps I may repeat very quickly some of the words of Members of the Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, a single ITV would nurture its own news programme. That is what we are looking for. As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, said, the current set-up is daft. I entirely accept what he said as regards Channel 4. In our view there is nothing for Channel 4 or others to be afraid of in these proposals.
As my noble friend Lord Astor said, single ownership would provide certainty for ITN. That is what we are looking for. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, asked again: why should ITN be so uniquely penalised? I do not believe that the Minister gave an adequate reply. The ownership cap on ITN is not in the best interests of the company. In an increasingly competitive news market, ITN needs the flexibility of ownership that will allow it to attract investment so that it can develop and provide robust competition to other news providers.
As Members of the Committee have said, ownership restrictions act as a disincentive to the company's shareholders to invest in the long-term future of the company, making strategic decision making difficult. It also prevents ITN being able to exploit the potential of mergers and acquisitions. I could go on. We believe that the thinking of the Government is entirely inconsistent with their policy on liberalisation of ownership, coupled with strong content rules and a strong competition law regime in place.
I am grateful to the Minister for her reference to having further thought with regard to aspects of these amendments. I look forward to seeing the government amendments that will be tabled on Report. However,
1232
I must say that the strength of feeling from all side of this Committee confirms to me that this is an issue on which we shall most probably divide, and win, at Report stage. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Clause 276 agreed to.
Clause 277 [Power to repeal Channel 3 news provider provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 not moved.]
Clause 277 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Clauses 278 to 280 agreed to.
Clause 281 [Regional programme-making for Channels 3 and 5]:
Lord Puttnammoved Amendment No. 207:
Page 253, line 1, leave out "suitable" and insert "substantial"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 207, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 212, 216 and 221, and so provide a real opportunity to crack on. The Joint Scrutiny Committee was unanimous in its view that "substantial" is a more suitable word than "suitable" because "suitable", we felt, was not sufficiently "substantial".
Why did we come to that belief? At the time we were trying not to be timorous. What has surprised us a great deal is the response from the Government to what we thought was a very sensible suggestion. Page 38, paragraph 117, of the Government's response states that,
"we do not consider that amendment to the draft Bill is necessary. There is no reason why a 'suitable' amount cannot be a 'substantial' amount, and, indeed, we would expect it to be so. However, the current wording provides for flexibility so that targets can be maintained at appropriate levels".
The reason for the amendment was to ensure that appropriate levels were substantial. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: On these Benches, we support what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has just said. The word "suitable" is extremely sloppy, weak and subjective. Should a club decide that it wants a certain standard of dress or behaviour, it refers to "suitable" behaviour. Who knows what the behaviour will be? The wording needs to be stronger and "substantial" seems to be the appropriate word in this case. I cannot see anything wrong with it; it seems to be utterly appropriate.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted that these amendments have been moved so, what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would call, telegraphically. The amendments are about words, not policy. The clauses have been strengthened as a result of the ITC review. They now clearly show our intent that the preservation of regional programming and programming for the regions should be a high priority.
I ask two questions of my noble friend Lord Puttnam because I do not think we are disagreeing about the importance of the issue. Why cannot

1233
"suitable" or "sufficient" be substantial? There is no reason why they cannot. Is there not a risk that "substantial" or "significant"—the words proposed by the amendment—would be unsuitable or insufficient? It would be very undesirable to have something which could be unsuitable or insufficient. There is no risk in the Bill, as drafted. There is risk in the amendments.
Lord Puttnam: I honestly think that the answer was in previous conversations in Committee when we were talking about the difference between floors and ceilings in respect of quotas. The whole point of the word "substantial" is to ensure that there is a sense of reaching for something entirely worthwhile. The word "suitable" is de minimis and can easily end up in avoidance. Frankly, I think that the Government are being silly. Here was a slamdunk for them to win a great deal of goodwill and move matters along. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 208 to 224 not moved]
Clause 281 agreed to.
Clause 282 [Regional programmes on Channel 3]:
[Amendments Nos. 225 to 233 not moved]
Clause 282 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233A not moved.]
Clause 283 [Regional programme-making for Channel 4]:
[Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
Clause 283 agreed to.
Clauses 284 to 289 agreed to.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 290 to 294 agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Committee stage begin again not before 8.28 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Europol (EUC Report)
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmondrose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the report of the European Union Committee on Europol's Role in Fighting Crime (5th Report, HL Paper 43), what steps they are taking within the European Union to ensure that the Europol Convention is amended to ensure that Europol has the tools to operate effectively and is properly accountable, particularly to national parliaments.
1234
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should first declare my interest as a former member of the Police Negotiating Board and of the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad.
I am very glad to have the opportunity to open this rather short debate, not only to draw attention to my sub-committee's recent report, Europol's role in fighting crime, but to highlight the role of Europol more generally. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and the noble Lord. Lord Wright of Richmond, two extremely valuable members of the EU sub-committee which I chair, who will be contributing to the debate.
Europol is playing an increasingly important role in the EU in supporting the member states in combating a number of forms of cross-border crime, especially serious organised crime and terrorism. Its work deserves to be more widely recognised and understood. It needs to have the tools to enable it to do its job effectively while, at the same time, being properly accountable for its activities.
The focus of our inquiry was a proposal made last year by the Danish presidency for a protocol to the Europol convention designed to extend Europol's remit and streamline its methods of working. As this is a short debate, I shall not describe our conclusions and recommendations in detail. On many of the issues we support the line that the Government have taken and we are grateful for the detailed and positive response from the Government to our report.
There are, however, one or two areas where we would have preferred the Government to have maintained their original stance. I shall give just one example which relates to the role of national units. At present, the national unit in each member state is the sole channel of communication with Europol. The United Kingdom's national unit is the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and it is generally regarded as fulfilling that role very effectively. The Danish presidency's original proposals would have allowed exchange of data directly between Europol and a wide range of national law enforcement agencies in addition to the national units. Initially, the Government were totally opposed to that proposal for reasons which the committee found persuasive. They were, however. unable to negotiate its complete withdrawal. Instead they secured the introduction of a number of safeguards, including, for example, a requirement that any communication between Europol and other law enforcement agencies must be sent simultaneously to the national unit. We recognise that compromises have to be made in negotiation and we understand why the Government have shifted their position on this point. Nevertheless, we remain of the view that the existing system is clear and effective and represents the best safeguard for the protection of personal data.
In the time available to me I should like to concentrate on three areas: protection of data exchanged with third countries; the accountability of Europol; and possible future developments,

1235
particularly the implications of provisions in the draft constitutional treaty currently being prepared by the Convention on the Future of Europe.
First, I turn to data protection. For Europol, like any intelligence-based organisation, information is its lifeblood. Much of this information will necessarily be data about individuals. It is important that Europol should have the ability to handle those data and exchange them with other authorised agencies. But, given the scale and nature of the data involved, it is vital that they should be subject to stringent data protection safeguards. We took the opportunity in our report to comment on the recent agreement between Europol and the United States of America on the transmission of personal data. We scrutinised that agreement in some depth at the end of last year and identified a number of serious shortcomings. Those included: the breadth of the purposes for which data may he exchanged, which goes further than Europol's own remit; the wide range of US authorities entitled to receive Europol data, which include local as well as state and federal authorities; and the lack of information provided about US data protection systems.
That was an extremely frustrating exercise as we exchanged no fewer than nine letters with the Government but secured no change in the agreement, the text of which—it was clear—had been settled before it had been submitted to us for scrutiny. The eventual outcome was that the Government overrode the scrutiny reserve of both Houses. That is clearly not the right way to ensure adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the transfer of data on British and other European citizens to foreign institutions. I hope that lessons have been learnt from that experience and are being applied to the handling of the EU/US extradition treaty, which is currently under scrutiny by Sub-Committee E.
Europol is now negotiating a series of agreements for the exchange of personal data with other countries, primarily the incoming member states, but also others further afield. I am very pleased to say that these are being handled in a much more deliberate and satisfactory way with proper attention to the scrutiny process that allows an opportunity to suggest changes before the agreements are set in concrete. The role of the Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) is absolutely crucial here. The JSB is composed of senior data protection regulators from each member state. It examines any proposals that have a data protection element and delivers an opinion on them. We were critical of the readiness with which the JSB endorsed the Europol/ USA agreement despite what appeared to us obvious flaws, but in general it performs a crucial role. It has made a number of valuable proposals in relation to other agreements and, particularly relevant to this debate, to the data protection provisions of the proposals that we are considering today.
Secondly, I turn to accountability. The more powers that Europol is given and the wider its role, the greater is the need for effective oversight of its activities. The Danish presidency originally proposed far-reaching provisions for oversight of Europol's activities by the
1236
European Parliament. Those have been somewhat watered down but still represent a useful step forward. Our concern has been that there should be equivalent oversight by national parliaments, which in our view would be particularly appropriate for an essentially intergovernmental institution. We were therefore disappointed that a proposal for a joint committee to oversee the work of Europol, consisting of members of national parliaments and of the European Parliament, was withdrawn. The Government have explained that the reason for that is that such a provision could not be incorporated directly in the Europol convention hut would require a basis in the treaties. We have been reassured to see that the draft constitutional treaty makes provision for the scrutiny of Europol's activities,
"by the European Parliament, together with the national parliaments".
I urge the Government to endorse that proposal and ensure that it is retained in the treaty as the draft is revised.
Finally, I turn to the future and particularly to the impact that the constitutional treaty is likely to have on Europol. As it stands at present the draft contains both good and bad elements. On the plus side, given the difficulty of amending the convention, it makes sense to leave the definition of Europol's structure, operation, field of action and tasks to secondary legislation; and, as I have said, we welcome the provision about scrutiny by national parliaments. But the very broad remit—in effect "serious" rather than "serious organised crime"—would undo much that has been achieved in the current negotiations on the draft protocol.
The other big issue for the future is whether Europol should become "operational"—a European FBI, as some have argued. We did not express a view on that in our report it was outside our remit but we were concerned that any change of that kind should come about only as a result of an informed debate and not as a consequence of a succession of in themselves relatively small extensions to its remit. One recent step in that direction has been the decision enabling Europol to participate in joint investigation teams. The Government are clear that that should not happen and I hope that they will be vigilant in ensuring that Europol does not acquire operational powers in that way.
There is much more that I could say on this fascinating subject but I look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords and the response of the Minister to the Question.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, in so far as Europol is involved in helping to reduce counterfeiting of the euro, I must first declare an interest as a consultant to Declared, one of the companies that prints euros for other members of the European Union and is much involved in helping to devise ways to reduce the risks of counterfeiting.

1237
I shall be very brief. I share the hope of our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, that the report of our sub-committee, on which I had the honour to serve, will have highlighted the role of Europol. It may nevertheless be worth emphasising again that, as she said, our report does not call for a major new operational role for Europol, at least not before there has been further informed debate. We welcome the Government's assurance in their response that none of the amendments suggested in the Danish presidency's proposals will have the effect of changing Europol's fundamental role as it exists today.
As the noble Baroness said, information for Europol, as for any intelligence-based organisation, is its life blood. Our committee noted with approval that the British Government have been widely commended for their greater readiness to provide Europol with intelligence than any other member state. Several of our witnesses, both during the inquiry and at previous meetings of the sub-committee, drew attention to that. Needless to say, that readiness to share intelligence, particularly on individuals, carries with it the absolute need to observe the most stringent requirements of data protection.
Within those constraints, I hope that the Government can continue to encourage our European partners, and our applicant partners in the future, to keep Europol adequately supplied with the information that it needs if it is to fulfil its role effectively.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this important report. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, said how important it was that Europol should be widely recognised and understood. I endorse that. I suggest that the number of people who have heard of Europol is not great, and that the number who have any idea what it does, who is in charge of it, what information it holds on any of us, and what powers it has, is even smaller. So I am glad that our sub-committee found the time, with so many competing demands, to carry out a study of Europol's work and role. If it is of high quality—I think that it is—we owe that mainly to our excellent Clerk and his staff.
In my view, it is more important than ever that matters such as Europol are taken up by the European Union Committee. Europol is a law enforcement agency. The powers of such agencies have increased, as has their capacity to work together and share information since terrorism became a global issue. We have seen many changes in policy on law enforcement, and the bodies charged with ensuring accountability—our committee is one—are few and under considerable pressure.
Law enforcement agencies need to be able to operate and to catch suspects, but unless there is a balance between law enforcement, accountability and individual rights and protections we shall have lost our
1238
hard-won fundamental freedoms and will be no more secure than we were before. In that context, I echo the appreciation of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for the Government's positive response in many of the areas that we raised. I am glad that they share our concerns.
In this short debate, I want to concentrate on data transfer and data protection, and add a few words on the remit of Europol. One area that preoccupied us in the committee was the agreement between Europol and the United States on the transmission of personal data. We worked from the point of view of acceptance of the need for international police co-operation, but not at the expense of,
"adequate protection of personal data",
which, as the report says, is,
"one of the fundamental common values of the EU member states".
The noble Baroness mentioned the shortcomings of the agreement and the frustrating exchange of letters. I would like to examine in more depth the cause of our concern about that agreement with the United States, and the importance of ensuring "stringent data protection safeguards".
That concern was reflected in the evidence given to the committee by Statewatch and Justice. The debate on the US-Europol agreement has continued since our report. We hope that it has contributed to the informed nature of that debate. In its report, The Balance between Freedom and Security in the Response by the European Union and its Member States to the Terrorist Threats, submitted on 31st March this year, the EU network of independent experts in fundamental rights said that,
"the absence of an independent supervisory authority competent for controlling transmission of data by Europol and the treatment of that data by the United States authorities gives grounds for particular concern".
The essence of the matter is the protection of sensitive personal data, how far they can be disseminated and what they can be used for, and whether they can even be sold for commercial purposes. All countries in Europe—the 45 countries that are members of the Council of Europe, which includes the 15 members of the European Union—are bound by privacy and data protection standards as expressed in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in the 1981 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. Article 6 of that convention covers special categories of data. It states that,
"personal data revealing racial origin, political opinions or religious or other beliefs, as well as personal data concerning health or sexual life, may not be processed automatically unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards. The same shall apply to personal data relating to criminal convictions".
The United States is not a party to any of the conventions and is not bound by those requirements. It operates in an entirely different cultural climate as concerns personal privacy. Should anyone doubt that, they should look at the website of—I take but one example—the Florida Department of Corrections.

1239
There are five databases on the website. Some of them are about people actually in prison, so it could be argued they are not entitled to much privacy, although I would not argue that myself.
I shall take another database—the released inmates database—at random. It is about people who have left prison. I suggest that noble Lords type in "John Smith" to the database. There are 40 John Smiths. Choose one at random, as I did this afternoon. I chose the one whose hair colour was said to be strawberry. I could then find out all his personal details, such as height, weight, birthday, aliases, tattoos—he has a sun tattooed on his right upper arm—criminal record and prison history. He is now living in Orlando, and there is a photograph. I feel uncomfortable even talking about the matter in the House, but the website is there for all to see. It indicates a totally different approach to personal information from that of countries operating within the European framework.
We recommend in our report that Europol should continue to communicate with only the national units, rather than having direct communication with individual police forces and other agencies. It is good to note that the Government agreed initially with that view. However, I understand that the US-Europol agreement contains no such restriction and the data may be shared with law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. I also understand, although the Minister may well be able to correct me on this, that private companies are employed by some US states to purge voter lists of ex-prisoners who have forfeited their right to vote by having been in prison. Thus personal data may spread even more widely. So there is a need for safeguards to be written into the agreements that Europol makes with other countries outside the European framework.
Was our committee happy with the safeguards that currently operate? The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, mentioned the Joint Supervisory Body, which is concerned with protecting the data that Europol receives. Our committee looked at the report made by the Joint Supervisory Body on which the United Kingdom representative is our Information Commissioner. The opinion of the Joint Supervisory Body on the draft agreement between Europol and the United States indicates that it, too, felt some of the concerns that our committee raised. It suggested that the implementation of the agreement should be monitored,
"in view of the law and regulation in the United States of America in relation to the protection of personal data".
It also stressed the importance of compliance with the five principles of purpose: finality; sensitive data; transmission only to competent federal, state and local authorities; deletion of data; and independent supervision. Our committee was not totally convinced by the decision of the Joint Supervisory Body and wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on 11th December stating that,
"the Committee is concerned that the Joint Supervisory Body does not appear to have exercised a sufficiently independent judgement of the important data protection issues involved".
1240
In answer to my own question, the committee was not happy with the safeguards in operation dealing with the agreement.
We say in our report that Europol has a crucial role in supporting national law enforcement authorities. That is its proper role. It is not an actor but a supporter of actors. Some of our witnesses suspected that there was pressure for Europol to become more operational in its own right. We do not favour a move to a more operational role without a major debate across the EU.
However, I note that the Europol annual report for 2002, which has just been published, states that Europol has a goal of reaching a situation in which two-thirds of its activities are operational. Can the Minister therefore comment on the lessons that have been learnt from the signing of the agreement with the United States and on the idea of a Europol that is two-thirds operational?
7.53 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Motion rightly highlights three related aspects of the report. The first is the steps that are being taken to amend the Europol convention, following the changes proposed during the Danish presidency.
The report refers to discussions that have been going on in the Europol working group. We hope that the Minister will update us on progress within the group, and possibly beyond, at ministerial level. The noble Lord might also indicate the way ahead, especially in the context of the draft constitution.
This is an appropriate point at which to commend the report and all those who contributed to it. I for one found myself very much in agreement with most of its conclusions and recommendations and I do not think that the Government will dissent from many of them either, but we shall see.
The second thrust of the Motion has to do with the effective operation of Europol itself. That this is important goes without saying in these days when we are all acutely aware of the transnational dimensions of a wide range of serious organised crime. The definition of Europol's scope in terms of the crime it covers is clearly causing a problem. However, the committee is surely right to suggest that the answer lies in a reference to the definition provided by the UN convention.
The problem of Europol's remit is rather more complex in that I suspect that not all the subscribing countries have effective national bodies or units like our own National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and the National Crime Squad (NCS). It is not surprising therefore that there is a proposal to extend the remit of Europol beyond its present remit of intelligence gathering, analysis and dissemination to a more operational, investigative role and to extend its reach to subsidiary authorities.
There is—rightly, in my view—a general reluctance in the UK to go down that path, for very good reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, indicated. Such an enlargement of functions would inevitably lead to a

1241
diminution of concentration on criminal intelligence gathering, which is a vital weapon in the fight against crime. All of the evidence before the committee indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the national structure that we now have in place for dealing with Europol matters. There was no desire to put it at risk by allowing direct access to subsidiary authorities, which might well lead to duplication, confusion and inefficiency.
The issue of data protection is clearly all important to us, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Stern, pointed out. I do not see how any authority that has data on the individual citizen can properly carry out its duty to safeguard such data if it does not know where, to whom and why such data have been transferred. The problem is particularly acute with data that are given to third countries, including the United States, and the committee is right to advise caution. The system and the transfer of data are too open to abuse; I am sure of that. I tend to doubt whether the Joint Supervisory Body—good as it may be—is adequate to the task.
With regard to the accountability of Europol, that is inevitably related to its financing. As I understand it, the UK contributes about one-fifth of the organisation's costs; the money comes from the Home Office via NCIS. There is therefore a legitimate parliamentary interest in Europol's activities. The same principle would clearly apply to other national parliaments that contribute to Europol's finances.
Is there a similar financial justification for the European Parliament to have oversight of Europol? Funding from the Community has been suggested but, so far as I am aware, it has not yet materialised. Europol remains an intergovernmental rather than a Community institution. Of course, financial involvement is not the only possible justification for parliamentary interest but a financial contribution does carry a duty to ensure that taxpayers' money is well spent. It is up to Parliament to ensure that.
My personal view is that there should be an interparliamentary committee that corresponds to the Europol management board. The board comprises representatives of each member state and the parliamentary committee should be similarly constituted. However, it is difficult to see how many of the issues raised in the report can be resolved until the new constitution of Europe is finalised and the European dimension of policing and the judicial system are settled. I hope that the Minister will be able to throw some light on the Government's view of that European dimension.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for securing this opportunity to have a short debate on an important report and providing us with the opportunity to discuss the role of Europol and the current proposals to amend its legal base. This is an issue of great significance to the Government's delivery agenda for policing organised crime and is of great importance to the security and freedom of
1242
European Union citizens. The Government recognise and greatly appreciate the thorough and very useful work of Sub-Committee F of the European Union Committee in conducting its enquiry on these matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, all served on that committee and made useful and valuable contributions. They have reflected those in their observations during this debate.
Nowadays there are no boundaries for organised criminal groups. Ever-increasing global economic integration and the enormous capabilities of modern technology in transport and communications have enabled criminal groups to extend their illegal activities world-wide. A single country can no longer deal effectively with serious cross-border crimes by acting in isolation. The Government recognise that an effective system of co-operation with our partners across Europe is absolutely essential in the fight against trans-national crimes such as terrorism, drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the trafficking of people. Europol has a key role to play in our efforts to protect the safety and security of all EU citizens.
It was established to facilitate the rapid and secure exchange of intelligence on organised crime between all EU member states and to provide sophisticated analysis of its intelligence to add real value to member states' own law-enforcement investigations. Those are the origins of Europol's efforts to tackle international drug smuggling. Our Government are fully committed to Europol. Since commencing its full activities in 1999 Europol has developed considerably in its role as the EU's criminal intelligence agency. Its progress, as noble Lords who have contributed to the debate have said, has been well supported and strongly influenced by the United Kingdom, in particular through our Europol national unit based at the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
As well as the UK's major financial contribution to Europol, which this year stands at some £6 million, we have been at the forefront among member states in terms of sharing with it relevant intelligence and expertise. The director of Europol has singled out the UK on a number of occasions publicly to praise our engagement with that agency. Our law enforcement agencies have also been among the most effective in utilising Europol's capabilities, and the scale of Europol's support to UK investigations continues to increase. More than 500 UK investigations were supported by Europol in 2002, the highest total among all the member states for the second successive year. Recent major successes have been achieved in operations dealing with Internet paedophilia, illegal immigration networks and drug trafficking.
Europol plays a key role in the Government's strategy for preventing and combating the serious cross-border crimes that threaten the safety and security of the people of this country. The Government will continue to play their full part in making sure that Europol lives up to our highest expectations and to its fullest potential.

1243
I turn to some of the major issues that were raised during the debate and look at some of the thinking and the purpose behind amendments which are proposed over the way Europol works and the Government's own role in negotiations. As part of our commitment to ensuring that our agencies have the tools they need to fight organised crime, we want to see Europol provide an outstanding service in support of their efforts. For that reason we have supported the overall purpose of the current proposals to amend the Europol Convention that are aimed at improving the effectiveness and service delivery of Europol, and strengthening both its openness and accountability.
As the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Stern, said, criminal intelligence is the lifeblood of Europol. Together with our partners we have comprehensively reviewed its procedures for the collection, processing, analysis and transmission of operational data to ensure that the organisation can operate effectively. The proposed amendments to the convention will: streamline Europol's arrangements for providing member states with analytical support; improve the flow of valuable information between states and also appropriate third countries and bodies; and enable it to react with greater speed and efficiency in responding to the needs of national law enforcement agencies.
While offering broad support to the Danish presidency during the course of negotiations, the UK has worked hard on a number of specific points to ensure that we get the amendments right. We have been particularly concerned to ensure that the right balance is found between improving the organisation's flexibility and ensuring that adequate data protection safeguards are in place to protect the storage, processing and use of personal data.
Separate amendments to the Europol Convention, agreed by Ministers at the Justice and Home Affairs Council last November, will enable it to participate in joint investigation teams in a support capacity. The UK played a prominent role in pushing forwards the conclusions of those amendments, to ensure that the benefits of Europol participating in joint investigation teams could be realised as soon as possible. By allowing Europol to support joint investigation we will be ensuring that those teams have quicker and better access to information essential to their investigations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, referred to the question of accountability. We fully recognise the need for Europol to be accountable for its important work. However, first and foremost it must remain accountable to the member states of the European Union through the Europol management board and the Justice and Home Affairs Council. It is our strong view that Europol must focus on delivering real results in the areas of crime that most threaten the member states, and avoid spreading its resources too thinly over an overly ambitious range of tasks. There was certainly consensus within Sub-Committee F on that point.
1244
In the interests of accountability and delivery, the Government pressed hard in negotiations for the convention to be amended so that Europol will be obliged to implement and report on the priority activities identified by its management board and agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council.
Our success in pressing this case will ensure that Europol is more accountable to member states for its performance in meeting its top priorities in the fight against organised crime. The Government also recognise the more important role of parliamentary oversight of Europol's work, particularly by national parliaments.
National parliamentary scrutiny is important because it provides an opportunity for dialogue and is a source of independent external advice. These are two areas where this is particularly important. Perhaps I should make reference to those. The first is Europol's core work as the EU's criminal intelligence agency. It is critical that there is exchange and analysis of personal data and also that there is adequate protection of personal data. That must be one of the fundamental common values of the EU member states. Here national parliaments have a key role to play in ensuring that due care is taken to protect the rights of EU citizens in the treatment of personal data. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, gave effective reflection to that point.
The second and important significant contribution that the UK makes to Europol's budget is well recognised. Here Parliament has a major role on overseeing Europol's work to ensure that the organisation is delivering adequate value for money and that the Government's spend is justified.
Through the process of domestic parliamentary scrutiny of EU business, the UK Parliament is fully involved in scrutinising legislative proposals on Europol's work, as demonstrated by today's debate. The Government genuinely value the work of the scrutiny committees in both Houses and have found it to be most useful as part of the process in the formulation of policy on co-operation with our EU colleagues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, raised an important issue about the relationship between national units and Europol and the importance of the existing arrangements. What is the Government's view on the provisions in the proposed amendments which might allow competent authorities to seek a route around national units and liaise directly with Europol?
Following intense discussion between the presidency and member states on the role of national units, a consensus was reached in support of the current proposals. These will allow each member state to decide for itself whether to permit its authorities to liaise directly with Europol, subject to the prior involvement of the national unit concerned. It is important that member states and Europol can cooperate effectively and quickly and this new provision will provide extra flexibility and efficiency in certain cases.

1245
We fully recognise the need for adequate protection of personal data exchanges. The UK successfully pressed for additional safeguards to be put in place, requiring that member states allow direct contact only with designated competent authorities and that information exchanged directly must be copied simultaneously to the national unit.
We are satisfied that these safeguards will ensure that national units retain their full co-ordinating role and enable them to maintain an up-to-date overview of the information flowing to and from Europol.
We also laid great store on ensuring that data protection, particularly personal data protection, measures are in place. We want to ensure that the importance of these protective measures are recognised and valued. It has been necessary to revise some of the procedures governing the storage, processing and transmission of personal data by Europol in order to allow it to operate more effectively and efficiently. But the UK Government have pressed the case throughout the negotiations that these changes should not be at the expense of adequate data protection safeguards—a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, made most forcefully and was well supported in that by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern.
We place particular importance on the role of the joint supervisory body of Europol in providing independent and expert advice on the data protection implications of Europol's activities. For that reason, we pressed the presidency to obtain a further opinion from the joint supervisory body on the revised draft of the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked about the Government's position on the current provisions on Europol in terms of the draft EU constitution. He was asking what changes the Government believe that might bring. At the end of last year, the UK was actively engaged in the convention's working group on freedom, security and justice. The group's conclusions made clear that a new EU constitution should provide a clear, precise legal base for Europol in order to strengthen and clarify its role.
The convention's current draft articles on justice and home affairs include a specific article on Europol. This is a significant improvement when compared to the current treaty. The article goes some way towards the aims of placing Europol at the centre of EU law enforcement co-operation.
However, in our view, the draft article is at present a little open ended. The UK would prefer it to be made clearer in the article that Europol should focus on crime, which is cross border and affects two or more EU member states. We pressed for this in the most recent convention plenary discussion at the JHA and we will continue to do so.
Finally and importantly, current drafts of the article on Europol highlight the role both of the EP and national parliaments in overseeing its work. The
1246
Government support the inclusion of this and the need for enhanced democratic accountability with regard to Europol's work.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, was assiduous as ever in budgetary matters and raised the issue of funding. The Government believe that there should be clarity as to Europol's funding. But we are not opposed to the principle of Europol being financed by the Community budget, a principle provided for in the Treaty on European Union. We are clear about avoiding a mixed model of funding, where cash would come from member states as well as from the Community budget. In our view, that would lead to duplication of lines of accountability, which would be unhelpful for the strategic management of Europol.
This has been a very valuable opportunity to discuss Europol. We are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for her work and the work of the committee. The Government are working hard to remove the remaining obstacles to effective EU police co-operation and the proposed amendments to the Europol Convention support those efforts. We welcome the good progress they are making in improving the accountability and delivery of Europol. The Government will continue to pursue our vision for Europol to develop into a centre for excellence for international co-operation in the sharing and analysis of criminal intelligence.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.28 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.16 to 8.28 p.m. ]

Communications Bill
House again in Committee.
Viscount Falklandmoved Amendment No. 235:
After Clause 294, insert the following new clause—
"EXCLUSION OF LICENSED BETTING OFFICES FROM FREE PUBLIC SHOWING OR PLAYING OF BROADCAST OR CABLE PROGRAMME

(1) Section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (free public showing or playing of broadcast or cable programme) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

"(c) if that place is a licensed betting office."

(3) After subsection (4), there is inserted—

"(5) In this section, "licensed betting office" means premises in respect of which a betting office licence, within the meaning of section 9 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (c. 2) (betting office licences and betting agency permits), is for the time being in force.""
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 235 inserts a new clause after Clause 294. This is a rather narrow interest but is a matter which has caused concern among broadcasters for some time.
The new clause would allow owners of broadcasting rights to charge for the use of their material when it is broadcast within a licensed betting office, otherwise known as a betting shop. At present free-to-air

1247
broadcasts can be used by bookmakers in betting shops for commercial gain without any financial return to the rights holders. This mainly affects horse racing, obviously, but it also has an impact on other televised sports.
The new clause is intended to allow owners of television rights to sports events to realise the full value of their assets in circumstances in which those rights are exploited for commercial gain by betting offices.
The best example of how the law puts a sport at a disadvantage is in the case of racing. Currently, approximately 11 per cent of races each year are broadcast via the BBC or Channel 4. These races can be shown in betting shops, as well as pubs and bars, as long as they do not charge for admission, without any payment either to the racecourses or to the broadcasters.
This free service is of some considerable value to betting shops. The televising of racing in this way has helped drive up betting office turnover by an estimated 30 per cent in recent years, which represents considerable money.
Since the introduction of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, television broadcasting in the United Kingdom has been transformed by the introduction of pay television in the form of either satellite or cable broadcasting. This has led to increased competition in the acquisition of broadcasting rights to live sporting events and accordingly increased the costs associated with those rights—many members of the Committee will remember the great deal of publicity given to the matter in recent times—making it imperative for broadcasters to be able to maximise the exploitation of the rights acquired.
An anomaly has arisen in that, under the current legislation, Sky and cable are able to charge, because their channels are encrypted, but free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters are not. This encourages rights owners not to allow sporting events to be shown on a free-to-air basis. This has to be contrary to the public interest, as I suspect the Government, as well as the Committee, will agree.
The history of this anomaly goes back some years—in fact, back to the middle 1950s. At that time, with the creation of the new broadcast right, hoteliers in particular were keen to ensure that they would not have to pay a fee to enable television broadcasts to be viewed by members of the public at a hotel or guesthouse. The eventual enactment of provisions to exempt broadcasts to an audience where no fee was paid was seen as a vindication of the rights of what became known as the "Scarborough landlady". This phrase was used by politicians at the time to describe the type of person who might have a television lounge in her premises and who would not wish to pay for the ability to show broadcasts to residents.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, finds this humorous. It is humorous, of course. We find ourselves in a ludicrous position, and I hope that the
1248
Minister, who said that she would be making some concessions, will make a concession on this matter.
In other words, the Government recognised and wanted to protect exploitation that by its very nature was incidental and inconsequential.
But the situation for racing cannot be described as inconsequential. It is estimated that for horseracing alone the value of the rights is a minimum of £3,250,000 per annum across the industry. Indeed, certain races—the Epsom Derby, which will be at the end of this week, and the Aintree Grand National, being two of the main ones—are clearly viewed to be of such national importance that they are listed events, and therefore virtually mandated to be broadcast on terrestrial television.
Annual betting turnover on the Grand National alone is in the region of £100 million. Betting shops may show the picture of the race free of charge whereas if the race were sold to a pay-TV operator they would have to pay a realistic market price for the right to make a commercial profit out of the pictures. That is surely unreasonably prejudicial to the legitimate interests of Aintree racecourse, for example. The same applies to the other 800-odd terrestrially televised races, which are high-profile, quality events generating significantly higher levels of betting turnover than lesser races and likely to contribute higher levels of profit to the bookmakers as a result.
It is fair to say that, as one would expect, there is no settled agreement between horseracing, bookmakers or broadcasters. In recent times, the whole area has been fraught with many problems, which have caused a great deal of dissent. I do not think there is any particular feeling by bookmakers that it is unjust to correct the anomaly addressed in the amendment. We suggest that there are good arguments for the Government to re-examine seriously the situation. Clearly, we have arrived at neither a logical nor a fair position.
There is unlikely to be another opportunity for the anomaly to be addressed in legislation in the foreseeable future. Therefore, as an alternative. the Government could offer to table their own amendment to allow the changes to be made at a future date, by order, perhaps, and with the agreement of all concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment, which, as we understand it, means that if a horserace is shown on television in a betting shop the owner will have to pay for that privilege. That seems to make sense. The copyright in a horserace belongs to someone; it can be owned. We can think of no reason why someone who runs a betting shop should have the right to take something owned by someone else simply because nobody is charged for admission to the betting shop. The fact that there is no charge for admission is irrelevant because the punter pays one way or another, but not by paying to get in. Bookies are making money out of punters and I can see no sensible reason why they should not pay for the privilege of showing a

1249
horse race in order to encourage more punters to come in. Bookies are not a special case. We should clarify the clause to make it clear that they are not entitled to disregard the ownership rights of those to whom the copyright belongs.
I hasten to add that I do not make any moral judgment; nor do I seek to prejudice bookmakers in favour of copyright owners. But a balance must be struck somewhere. There seems no reason why bookmakers should not pay the owners of copyrights for using copyright materials. It is as simple as that.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment. While having some sympathy with the case that he puts concerning what he regards as an anomaly, I do not regard the situation as an anomaly. He says it is an anomaly that, if a broadcast is made by Sky or a cable broadcaster, the racing fraternity can reach an arrangement on that broadcast and get paid for it, but, if it is free to air on the BBC or independent television, they cannot. That is not an anomaly; the same case applies to ordinary members of the public when watching television in their own homes. When the public enter a different place from their own home, such as a betting shop, they watch television on the basis of a licence fee having been paid and there is free access to television.
Why should betting shops fit into a particular provision? The noble Viscount says that it is because of an anomaly and that we should deal with it on the basis of the change to copyright royalty. But he will recognise that our reason for having copyright legislation is to protect intellectual property, and it is right that we should do so. If the investment in its creation is protected by copyright restrictions, it means that broadcasters can, for example, obtain royalties from making and selling videos of programmes and granting re-broadcasting rights.s
However, it is not the broadcasters who are lobbying for this amendment. We have not had representations from broadcasters. The noble Viscount indicated that pressure comes from a particular interest; namely, those concerned with horse racing. I am not in any way, shape or form against the horse racing fraternity seeking to increase resources to enhance its sport. But I suggest that it is an inappropriate way to try to tackle the issue of additional resources. It is suggested that there should be change to copyright. That is not the issue; nor have the broadcasters ever thought that it was.
If I may be so bold, I am prepared to give the noble Viscount a hint as to where progress may be made. If the broadcasters were concerned, they could make representations on the matter. We have received none thus far. They could do so not by getting in touch with the DCMS but with the Department of Trade and Industry, the department concerned with copyright law. We have seen no reason why, within the framework of this Bill involving issues of broadcasting, we should address ourselves to that matter. We recognise that so far as concerns the
1250
industry there is a case. At this stage we are by no means convinced that it is an issue about copyright law. That case needs to be established.
I welcome the airing of the issue. I can only say at present that we do not regard our present proposals as producing an anomaly within the law. The important issue of free broadcasting is a cardinal point. I hope that the noble Viscount will recognise, therefore, why I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Falkland: I thank the Minister for replying so carefully and courteously, as he normally does. The noble Lord did not address the important point about the anomaly that Sky and cable television are able to charge because their channels are encrypted but that the free-to-air terrestrial ones are not, encouraging rights owners to avoid showing sporting events on a free-to-air basis. That is a direct result of that anomalous situation. It is clearly not in the public interest. The noble Lord and I recognise that as much high-class sport as possible should be available on free-to-air to those who pay the licence fee. That situation does not allow such freedom.
I intend to withdraw the amendment. Over dinner, the joke was made that should I be successful in gaining any concession my long-standing friendship with the bookmakers would be over. My long-term relationship with the bookmakers now continues; and, I hope, with the British Horseracing Board which has urged me to put forward these views. Perhaps we may revisit the issue on another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 295 to 297 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 298 [Code relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired]:
Lord Ashley of Stokemoved Amendment No. 236:
Page 264, line 36, leave out "from time to time" and insert "at least once every three years"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 247, 248 and 249. With all those amendments, it sounds like a big debate ahead but the issue is important rather than big.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the code relating to the understanding and enjoyment of television by deaf and visually impaired people is kept up-to-date. We want the code to be reviewed every three years instead of the ridiculous concept of "from time to time". That could mean anything. It could mean "from decade to decade" or "from each half century onwards". We all agree that the pace of change of technology in the broadcasting industry is phenomenal and that the number of cable and satellite channels is growing rapidly. We should like the code to be kept up to date and regularly reviewed. A review every three years would ensure that it does not lag behind the latest developments.

1251
Amendment No. 239 seeks to ensure that Ofcom takes an active role in raising awareness about subtitles and other services. I find it absolutely remarkable that many deaf people are unaware of the availability of subtitles, which could solve many of their problems in relation to television. They simply do not know about them.
This is illustrated by the fact that a little while ago a noble Lord approached me and asked how his wife could receive subtitles. I said, "With analogue, it is very simple. You press the text button, 888, and there they are. You are guaranteed them nearly all the time at peak hours. It is even easier on digital television". A little while later he came back to me and said, "It is miraculous. My wife's life is transformed. She can now watch television and understand it, which she could not do without subtitles". It is a simple thing but, before that conversation, this man's wife was unable to watch television and enjoy it. That was last year in 2002.
Equally remarkable is that there is virtually no publicity about which satellite programmes are subtitled. On all five analogue channels it is indicated very clearly which programmes are subtitled. That is not the case with digital television. So the many millions of people who rely on subtitles have to wait for the broadcast and switch on to see whether the programme is subtitled. If it is not, they simply lack comprehension of what it is all about. That is not good enough. People are entitled to know which programmes are subtitled and which are not to enable them to choose in good time.
The RNID estimates that nearly half a million elderly deaf and hard-of-hearing people are missing out on the benefits of subtitles—an astonishing figure. Undoubtedly Ofcom should take an active role in raising awareness. I hope that the amendment will be acceptable to the Government.
The proposal in the Bill to extend the requirements for subtitling, signing and audio description are welcome and marvellous as far as they go, but in the small print there is the absurd provision that the companies should be allowed 10 years to introduce them. Ten years? We can start a war and finish it in a couple of months. I hope that the Committee will find 10 years totally unacceptable.
Amendment No. 240 seeks to reduce this period to five years. I believe that we are being far too modest—five years is also an exorbitant and outrageously long period—but because we are reasonable and try all the time to accommodate the Government we have suggested five years.
I appreciate that the "relevant date" referred to in the clause is not necessarily the date on which the Bill will become operative, but it could be an earlier date. For example, for Channel 5 the date is 1st January 1998. Five years on, it is 1st January 2003. But Channel 5 is already subtitling 54 per cent of its output. In view of the remarkable developments in subtitle production, it would certainly be possible for Channel 5 to reach a figure of 80 per cent by the conclusion of the Bill.
1252
The amendments' main targets are digital and satellite channels, which should never have been excluded from the Broadcasting Act 1996. It would be indefensible to give them a further 10 years before they are required to provide a comprehensive service to deaf and visually impaired viewers.
I suspect, although I have no proof, that cable and satellite lobbyists have been hard at work on department officials. That is just my own sense of what might have happened. Officials talk to Ministers and the word goes around I can image the lobbyists pleading poverty, saying "Our profits will be damaged. Profits will be slashed if we have to subtitle programs. We will have to sell our grannies' jewellery. Even worse, we will have to send our wives out to work. That would be a disaster. Please don't insist on subtitling for all our programmes."
I hope that Ministers will see through those nonsensical claims of poverty and expense. The costs are relatively small—typically less than £400 for one hour of television, which is peanuts. Millions of pounds are spent on programmes, so £400 an hour is nothing.
Subtitling costs have fallen in recent years and are set to fall even further. Subtitling companies are using new software that significantly increases staff productivity, which is vital to bringing costs down and making it easier for companies. I saw voice recognition technology demonstrated five years ago. It worked then and it certainly works now. It is developing quickly and is already being used by some subtitling companies and the BBC.
Subtitling has become an intensely competitive business, so companies have been forced to reduce their charges to broadcasters. I was amused the other week to receive a letter from a subtitling company executive asking me to help him to find new markets. He wrote, "The reduction in subtitling charges has been brutal". Maybe brutal to him but I warmly welcome that cut. If I could, I would make it even more brutal.
Films are routinely subtitled at the time of their cinema release. Broadcasters can merely acquire the subtitling file so that the film can be shown with subtitles on television.
Those factors are all important and, in aggregate, they make providing subtitles a very easy option. I hope that Ministers will set their faces firmly against the lobbying and arguments made by company representatives.
Cable and satellite companies have greatly exaggerated the costs. If they want to maximise the audience for their programmes, why not use subtitles? By refusing to subtitle adequately, they are excluding deaf viewers. The pathetic subtitling currently offered discourages many deaf people. There are 8 million deaf and hard-of-hearing people. Not all of them use subtitling but many have an interest in it and should he catered for.
The BBC is committed to 100 per cent subtitling by 2008. The Federal Communications Commission in the US has stated that all English-language

1253
programmes first shown in 1998 onwards must be subtitled by 2006. Why should deaf and sight-impaired British viewers be the poor relations? It would be outrageous if the provision of full and adequate subtitling had to wait until 2013. It can and should be done earlier. I look to Ministers to accept what is a modest and reasonable amendment.
Amendment No. 241 seeks to buttress the two previous amendments and to ensure that more people know how to access subtitles on both analogue and digital television and should know in advance which programmes are subtitled. Amendment No. 244 seeks to reduce the number of exemptions for subtitling or signing or audio description by ensuring that a large broadcasting company is prevented from obtaining too many exemptions for some of its channels.
This is a complicated issue. Like the subtitling amendment, the amendment on exemptions is of profound importance to us. These are the two key amendments and I hope that the Government will be willing to accept them because they will be pursued at all stages of the Bill. The amendment seeks to try to stop Ofcom providing too many exemptions. Often, when people subscribe to digital, cable and satellite television, they have to buy a package of channels. It is therefore wrong and misleading for broadcasters to be able to plead that it is technically very difficult and that they cannot afford subtitling, signing or audio descriptions of one of their specific channels.
It is really a concern that the Government are considering exempting a large number of channels. They should think again because if exemption were granted to all channels with an audience share of below 0.05 per cent it is estimated that fewer than half, that is, 66 of the total 150 channels, would be faced with the requirements. I believe that such a high figure is unacceptable. The case for very few exemptions is strengthened by the low cost of subtitling, which I mentioned a moment ago.
I am glad that Kim Howells in another place said that he sympathised with the spirit of the amendment. But we do not want sympathy for the spirit; we want support for the content. He argued that it would be at best burdensome and impossible in many cases for Ofcom to investigate the details of each establishment and the funding arrangements to determine whether exclusion was appropriate. Of course, it is not impossible. And it is hardly burdensome. Every commercial broadcaster has financial accounts and other information which is publicly available. It is impossible to accept the Government's excuses to exempt these channels. It would be burdensome on deaf and hard of hearing people if they do so. I hope that they will think again. The amendments are of profound importance.
Amendment No. 245 seeks to ensure that information which Ofcom already collects is placed in the public domain. The Bill will extend subtitling, signing and audio description requirements to some 150 channels, digital, cable and satellite. With so many it is likely that Ofcom will have to take on trust a great deal of information provided by the broadcasters. It
1254
will have to do that because there is no way round taking the matter on trust. Allowing this information to be publicly inspected would ensure that the public knew about it and would ensure full compliance with the legislation.
Finally, I refer to Amendments Nos. 247, 248 and 249. They deal with the omission of people who are deaf and blind from the provision for Ofcom to review the code giving guidance to deaf, blind and partially sighted people. Having one of these sensory disabilities inevitably creates problems. I know from personal experience how devastating total deafness can be. But total deafness and blindness to some measure must be unbelievably difficult. For those who are totally deaf and totally blind, clearly television has little to offer.
But many deaf blind people have the use of one of these faculties, which they should be able to maximise. It is for them that these amendments are intended. The amendments are put forward in good faith. If they are brushed aside by the Government a great number of people will suffer. If accepted by the Government, especially the amendments about subtitling and exemptions, millions of deaf, hard of hearing and sight-impaired people will be helped. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, in general and Amendment No. 236 in particular. I am amazed at the audacity of the civil servants that they have put this classic, this old chestnut, this out of "Yes Minister" wording of "from time to time" when referring to the frequency that Ofcom should review the code on the provisions for the deaf and visually impaired. That is surely too loose.
In such a rapidly changing industry, would it not be sensible to have a maximum period of time between reviews to ensure that the code does not fall out of date? As we have heard, as new technology becomes available, it is important that the code is regularly altered to reflect the situation on the ground. The cost of failing to alter the wording of the Bill in this way may well be that as Ofcom is stretched in different directions, it begins to interpret "from time to time" as "whenever it suits us" or "very rarely indeed" to the detriment of the disabled consumers who have much to gain from new technology, if only they were able to take advantage of it.
Lord Addington: This is a group of amendments to which I have been waiting to speak for a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has done a magnificent job of going through them all individually and explaining what is behind them. He has actually touched on a series of subjects which we in the disability lobby have all been talking around for a long time. The fact is that we should try to enact what we can on this issue and do it now.
The points about audio-description and subtitling are based on, shall we say, what we are capable of doing. What is the technology there for? The primary point of a 10-year wait is that it is a long term project,

1255
but it will not be dealt with or even thought about until it is a medium term project. Finally, it is panicked about in the short term and done badly. That tends to be my experience of these matters. However, we can do it now for under £400 per hour. That figure has been constantly quoted to me for the past three years. In real terms, the cost is falling.
That is a tiny percentage of the cost for virtually any television programme. On the issue of exemptions, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for tabling this amendment and for allowing me to add my name to it. This issue has been a bugbear of mine for a while. Within a huge package of channels designed for the age of multi-channels—effectively anorak TV—those who are hard of hearing should be allowed to indulge their passion for, say, programmes about World War II produced from old newsreels and using a voice over. They are cheap to make with possibly a very low audience. The same programmes are repeated again and again. giving hours of broadcasting, and they could be dealt with easily by one small package of subtitles.
What runs through this series of amendments is that they are all technically achievable now. If the Government reject the amendments, not only will they be picking a fight, but they will be saying that they will not do what is easily achievable.
I shall now do the reverse of common parliamentary practice by congratulating the department on including a clause in the Bill relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired. But you cannot go to this party without taking more than one bottle with you; you must be there for the long haul. We must get the matter right now or we shall have to return to it again and again.
As regards the first amendment in the group, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, hit the matter squarely on the head—the code must be reviewed regularly. Perhaps the expression "from time to time" has a wonderful legal precedent of which we have never heard which means that the code will be reviewed every two years and three months. But unless the expression means precisely that, the suggestion of a review every three years seems a valid one.
We are not talking about the cutting edge of technology. We know what we can achieve with the technology that is available. I hope that the Government will be prepared to take the amendment on board. They do not have to adopt its wording. I do not care who is carrying the standard so long as we win the battle. We want to get the provision into the Bill so that we do not waste time returning again and again to half measures. We can do it now. Let us do so and then forget about the matter and turn to something else. I support the comments made about the deaf-blind.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: We on these Benches always listen with the greatest respect to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, makes. He spoke eloquently and movingly on behalf of the profoundly deaf, the hard of hearing and the blind. He also emphasised the other needs of the disabled which
1256
this part of the Bill appears to misunderstand. I join the support given to the amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I hope very much that the Minister will respond not only with sympathy but also with practical suggestions.
Lord Puttnam: I hope that I may refer to a slightly unusual angle in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I have spent the past six years visiting schools, particularly primary schools, looking at the way in which technology, when used well and with determination, can transform the lives of people who up until now have been excluded completely from society. The notion that for commercial reasons technology that is available is not being used to change people's lives is a very worrying comment on our society.
Baroness Wilkins: I support this set of amendments. When 5 million people regularly use subtitles and it appears from NOP research of January this year that another half a million deaf and hard of hearing elderly people could use them if they knew how to access them, the case for this set of amendments seems very strong. Cable and satellite channels have already been given three years' notice of the 80 per cent subtitling target, making the 10-year lead-in time appear excessive. As we have already heard, the cost of subtitling is cheap. It is getting cheaper and easier all the time so the case for exemptions seems unnecessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so ably said, it is possible to adopt the provision now. Let us do it. I beg the Government to support the amendments.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support this group of amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, not only on the way in which he presented the amendments but also on the way in which he has conducted his own life and, indeed, on the way in which he has done so much for the disabled generally.
I agree entirely with the comments that have been made. It is a far too modest suggestion that we reduce from 10 to five years the time for digital, cable and satellite channels to reach the subtitling target. We have heard mention of Channel 5 which I believe has managed voluntarily to reach a figure of 54 per cent in five years. Sky News has made a successful attempt in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, pointed out that the costs are reducing. They seem fairly low already. The price continues to fall due to significant advances in subtitling technology.
I got to grips the other day with DVDs. I was given for Christmas—that is probably the way to get me to get to grips with something—a collection of Audrey Hepburn films. I put my favourite, "Breakfast at Tiffany's", into the slot. Immediately appeared not only the title, but the possibility of seeing and hearing the film in about 20 different languages. It was amazing. If that is possible, it is clearly more than possible that the same will happen as subtitling technology speeds up.

1257
Quite apart from the amendments helping the Government's "inclusive" agenda, there are surely bottom-line advantages to communications companies in attracting wider audiences. We have heard already the figure of 5 million regular users of subtitling. That is a considerable potential audience to attract to channels. An even more significant figure from NOP research this year is that the use of subtitling does not, as one would surely expect, increase with age.
As most Members of the Committee know, those with hearing impediments are already the largest group of disabled in the UK. As we are all living longer, and some deafness will almost inevitably appear the older one gets, those overall numbers will clearly grow. There is a potential market to be exploited.
It is sensible to ask that Ofcom's duties include ensuring that likely users of subtitling services, both analogue and digital, have adequate information promoted by all channels, that the services exist and—at least as important—how to find and access them. That is somewhat more difficult for the elderly, given the complex systems we all now try to grapple with, than for the younger generation.
To help ensure that we know how the policy is progressing, I suggest that Amendment No. 245, which proposes that Ofcom collate and publish information on subtitling on a yearly basis, makes sense. Even if I have made the case for the amendment mainly on economic grounds, it is of course a primary duty of all governments to ensure that we all have equal access to the everyday means of gaining information, education and entertainment. The RNID estimates that there are as many as 500,000 elderly people who are deaf and hard of hearing, and there are the visually impaired as well. They all miss out on the benefits of subtitling. As the RNID states:
"This represents a huge number of people who are experiencing a reduced quality of life—missing out on news, documentaries, sport and all the other information and enjoyment that television can bring".
I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept what I think are, in a way, far too modest proposed changes, and reassure many who fear that that group of disadvantaged citizens will continue to be sidelined.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke knows how much I sympathise with him and the issues that he has raised. I shall start with Amendment No. 236 and work through each amendment, as they are all rather different.
We would expect Ofcom to review and revise the code regularly, particularly as technical developments in the area can sometimes move quite fast. I would like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that her attack on civil servants was completely inappropriate. However, the decisions as to the frequency of any reviews and revisions should ultimately be left to
1258
Ofcom, which will have the experience and expertise to judge when such reviews and revisions might be necessary. Giving Ofcom a duty to review and revise the code at least once every three years could put an unnecessary burden on it and I doubt that it would lead to a substantially different result. We should trust Ofcom. I believe that it will be committed to carrying out regular reviews in that area.
I turn to Amendment No. 239. The current duty is to give guidance as to the means by which the services should be promoted. I cannot see that the word "extensively" adds much to Ofcom's requirement. There is already a substantive obligation in Clause 298(1)(a) for Ofcom to provide guidance on the extent to which relevant services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes in their service. The amendment would undermine it.
We have considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 241. It is in the service provider's best interests actively to promote the services they offer to hearing impaired and visually impaired people as these groups make up an important part of their audience over 10.5 million people. However, I am aware that that does not always happen and that large numbers of sensory-impaired people, particularly the elderly, are unaware of the existence of subtitling, signing and audio-description and are therefore unable to benefit from them.
In complying with the code, Ofcom will have to give guidance on the extent to which services should promote understanding and enjoyment by people with sensory impairments. It is right for this guidance specifically to cover the need for service providers to make users aware of subtitling, signing and audio-description and of how to access them, and we will consider whether an amendment is necessary to the Bill to make this absolutely clear.
I have some sympathy with the underlying aim of Amendment No. 244, but it would be rather difficult to put into practice. First, the fact remains that the obligation to provide assistance to disabled people, and with it Ofcom's only lever, is on the licence holder, even if the service forms part of a family of channels. By the same token, the costs of providing the subtitling, signing and audio-description would fall on the licence holder rather than on the parent company.
Secondly, it would be extremely difficult and resource-intensive on a practical level for Ofcom to investigate the establishment and funding arrangements of each channel in order to consider the impact of its relationship with a parent company on any case for exclusion from the obligations. I must therefore disagree with my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke. I cannot accept this amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 240. Following the review of the statutory requirements for subtitling, signing and audio-description, the report of which was published in January 2001, we believe that a 10-year period in which to satisfy these obligations is a target which for some will be quite challenging. But it is achievable. This target will give those services with new obligations, like digital, cable and satellite

1259
services, enough time to plan for their introduction. The time-scale does not mean that there will be no subtitling on those channels until the end of the 10-year period. Ofcom will have the ability to set interim targets on the way to meeting 10-year targets, as the ITC currently does, so provision of subtitling, signing and audio-description will grow year by year.
We do, however, understand concerns expressed that 10 years is a long time and that early progress should be expected. The arguments are particularly strong in relation to subtitling, which is a well established technology that can already be provided at a relatively low cost—I agree with what was said about that—and which is likely to become cheaper to provide as new developments such as voice-recognition come on stream. Again, I accept the arguments in that regard.
We do not believe that it would be right to reduce the overall 10-year timetable for the reasons that I have already given. However, we will consider amending the Bill to set out a fixed, interim five-year target for subtitling, which would apply to broadcasters with new requirements to provide subtitling rather than leave the matter to Ofcom. A challenging five-year target would allow progress on providing subtitling to be accelerated in the early years. That would ensure that those broadcasters with new requirements in that area could catch up as quickly as possible with those already providing subtitling, and it should help to lead to a dramatic increase in the amounts of subtitling available over the period. We will consider the details further and come back with an amendment on Report.
As the Bill now stands, Ofcom must consider the extent to which codes made under this part of the Bill have been complied with in carrying out its annual factual and statistical report under Clause 351. It will be for Ofcom to decide the appropriate level of detail that should be included in its report, and I am sure it will consider the arguments for providing as much information as possible so that people with sensory impairments can properly assess the levels of provision on different services. I am not therefore persuaded that an amendment to the Bill is necessary.
I turn to the remaining amendments in the group. I know that people with a dual sensory impairment can have sight and hearing loss to such a degree that it leads to problems with accessing information. Specialised means of communication, such as the "deafblind manual alphabet", have been developed for people who have significant impairments to both their sight and hearing. Those means are not particularly well suited to television and realistically, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, a person would need to have some form of hearing or visual ability in order to enjoy or understand that medium. In such a case, the current duty to promote understanding and enjoyment for people who are hearing impaired and visually impaired should satisfy any need in that respect, as should the existing duty on Ofcom to ensure that the code drawn up under Clause 298, or any revision to it, is accessible to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and blind or partially sighted.
1260
Those people with a more serious dual sensory impairment clearly have specific needs. 1 am aware that the talking teletext service is particularly useful for them and I wonder whether concerns about the future of that service after digital switchover may lie behind the amendments. We had a full discussion of that issue at a previous sitting and I shall not repeat what was said then.
We have taken into consideration the needs of people with disabilities throughout the development of the Bill, including in relation to the provisions on television services for the deaf and visually impaired, and I believe that the measures that we have introduced represent a significant improvement. I hope that my comments have reassured noble Lords that we take these issues seriously and that we are willing to consider changes to the Bill.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I must say how much I appreciate all of the contributions from the Back Benches. To have unanimous support for the amendments from all sides of the Chamber is very significant. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have taken note of that, particularly because we have seen only a very small sample of our actual support. I am very grateful; there were some marvellous speeches.
I greatly appreciate the tone of my noble friend's answer. She is obviously sympathetic but there are limitations within the department. She presented the Chamber with a mixed bag. Some proposals were very welcome. I was so glad to hear them they were heart-warming. I was sorry to hear an apparent determination to dig in heels on exemptions because that is one of the arguments we must win. We simply cannot have such exemptions; that is out of the question. I am afraid that, much as I respect and appreciate the difficulties of my noble friend in the department, this issue will be pursued at the proper time at every possible level and I may test the opinion of the House. In the mean time, I appreciate the Minister's difficulties and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 237 to 241 not moved.]
Lord Cartermoved Amendment No. 242:
Page 265, line 16, leave out "10" and insert "50"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 242 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 243 and 250. It is a small group of amendments which deals with the particular problem of audio-description. It is a crucial service for the blind and the visually-impaired. For them it is a necessity not a luxury if they are to enjoy television.
The present situation is that the BBC, ITV and Channels 4 and 5 are producing audio-description and transmissions over the digital terrestrial platform, Freeview, which were received at the last count in 65 homes. An enormous amount of money has been spent by the BBC internally, and externally by the RNIB, yet

1261
audio-description is only available in 65 homes. I understand that they are trial modules, but that means that the uptake is derisory.
There is no requirement for an expensive module. We do not need a module to receive audio-description. We should compare and contrast the situation that I have just described with that of Sky TV. I understand that in later debates the owner of Sky may be coming in for a certain amount of mention. However, in the area that we are discussing we should acknowledge the efforts that Sky has made. Entirely on its own initiative it is providing audio-description on the digital satellite D-sat without the need for a module. Seven million Sky homes have that capability and 3,000 hours a year of audio-described programmes are provided on Sky One, Sky Sports 1, 2 and 3, Sky Movies Max and Sky Premier.
Why do not the other channels use that function on the satellite platform? If they did they would increase access from 65 homes to a very substantial number. The reason for not doing that seems to be the cost of providing the additional audio bandwidth required to simulcast their existing audio-description on satellite. I understand the problems and I understand that, for example, the BBC might need 18 channels because of all its regional output. It is hard to find out the cost of that extra provision, but even if it were some hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum, how would that figure compare with over £2.5 billion of licence fee, £100 million on BBC 3 and £50 million on BBC News 24, which are both watched by audiences of a tenth of I per cent of UK TV viewers?
However, I understand that things are moving—or could move—on the module front quite rapidly. It seems that the marginal cost of adapting set-top boxes to accommodate the functionality for audio-description is coming down extremely rapidly. I have heard a figure of under £10 for the marginal cost of adaptation. The ideal situation would be for all set-top boxes, whether for satellite, digital or whatever, to include the chip to generate audio-description. The uptake would quickly make it apparent which form of audio-description the visually-impaired audience prefers. I have a simple question to ask the Minister at this stage. Does the Bill as drafted permit Ofcom to lean heavily on the manufacturers and the broadcasters to ensure that the solution that I have described can he obtained, so that there is a real service for visually-impaired viewers?
I understand that there is a commercial problem in that the BBC has spent a great deal of money internally on its system. Of course, as I have described, Sky has its channel for narrative. All this needs a catalyst—or someone—to kick-start the process. I should like to know whether Ofcom would have the power to do that. We lead the world in this area of technology and there should be a commercial opportunity, if only we can get things started.
Finally, there is an important factor to be taken into account by Ofcom; namely, the measurement of audio description. Let us take as an example an episode of "Midsomer Murders" on ITV 1. The most important
1262
fact is that broadcasters must concentrate on producing new material for audio description, not simply regurgitating the same few programmes again and again. So if an episode of "Midsomer Murders" is audio described on ITV 1, that counts towards its quota. When it is repeated on ITV 2, that also counts towards the quota. When it is sold to UK Gold, that also counts towards the quota. Therefore, in a short period one programme, audio described, becomes three.
The percentage therefore—whether it be 10 or 50—must relate to each channel. Each channel must generate its own individual quota. Any programme which already has audio description on it must by law be broadcast but not count towards the quota. Ofcom must introduce a licensing system that acknowledges which programmes have been audio described and then which channel can count against the quota. Finally, Ofcom must check with blind people and their organisations about the programmes they choose to describe. I am told that Granada chose as one of the two shows it audio describes what was coming up on Granada this week. It audio describes to the visually impaired all the programmes they cannot enjoy—it lists them but they are not audio described.
Amendment No. 242, which leaves out "10" and inserts "50", is a probing amendment. The figures would be a reasonable target for the main broadcast channels, but I accept that there would have to be a lower figure for the smaller channels. That should be at the discretion of Ofcom.
I want to comment briefly on Amendment No. 250, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who I am sure will want to speak about it in detail. It would require Ofcom to include the minimum access requirements for disabled people and the best practice guidelines in the proposed code of practice for electronic programme guides. Easy access to electronic programme guides is essential if disabled people, and the millions more who struggle to navigate digital TV, are to be equal participants in the digital revolution and not be put off from switching to digital. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: I support the principle behind the amendment but suggest that some sort of compromise position should be reached. The cost of audio description at £700 an hour cannot altogether be removed from the equation, although in an ideal world all programmes would be accessible to disabled people in a wide number of formats. A requirement that it should apply to 50 per cent of every service would be crippling to smaller channels.
On the other hand, it is clear that many large national and international channels can and should fork out such sums. The positive example set by Sky with respect to disabled access, warmly referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, shows that in the case of large broadcasters where there is a will there is a way. During the course of our debates on the Bill we have constantly been made aware of the fast-pace progress

1263
that is typical of the industry. A target for audio description as low as 10 per cent from the 10th anniversary of the relevant date is too low.
I would therefore encourage Ofcom to take into consideration the ability of different broadcasters to afford to pay for audio description when issuing the code on the provision for the deaf and visually impaired.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I want briefly but warmly to support this group of amendments. I well remember the frustration of failing to get the target of 50 per cent written into the Broadcasting Bill seven years ago. The Minister says that 10 years is a long time—incidentally, I greatly welcome what she said about subtitling—and seven years is long enough. Is it not disgraceful that if seven years ago we felt that 10 per cent was an inadequate target, it should still be only 10 per cent? I believe that we should be aiming for 50 per cent in this Bill. It is not just 2 million visually-impaired people who would benefit from this. The ITC research shows that many older people with cognitive problems or younger people with learning difficulties would benefit. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said about Sky TV and the audio description programmes.
The current wording in the Bill leaves the inclusion of access requirements in the code to the discretion of the regulator. Given that the electronic programming guide is the key to digital TV, it must be made accessible to visually-impaired, disabled and elderly people. I very much hope that the Minister will have a change of heart on this point. If Ofcom left access standards out of the code, it would then be difficult to challenge on it. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on this group of amendments.
Lord Addington: After watching us wield clubs, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has come forward holding an olive branch. Once again we come down to the fact that the technology in audio description is well-established. There has been a monumental cock-up in actually getting access to the service. To offer kisses as opposed to kicks to Sky is rare on these Benches but here I freely do it. Sky has shown it can be done. As the noble Lord said, we just have not got ourselves together. The technology is there but we have not had the will or the co-ordination to make sure that a perfectly well-understood service has not been accessed. It is an absurd situation. If something has to be done to address this issue in primary legislation, we should do it. We cannot allow this state of affairs to continue. I have heard that everyone thinks that the position will improve. Why did we get into this mess in the first place? There are thousands of hours of broadcast audio description but nobody can receive it. That really is Gormenghast and Alice in Wonderland and wasting money with it. I do not know how we got there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has given a wonderful description of why the subject matter of my amendment has to be included somewhere. If people do not know about it, there is no
1264
point in having it. Audio description fits the present situation. I hope that the Minister can at least meet half of the problems, as she was able to do with regard to the previous group of amendments. The Government should take a firm lead or appoint someone who will. This situation is absurd. We have a chance to solve it and I hope that the Government seize that opportunity.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I rise briefly to give my warm support to my noble friend Lord Carter. I thought he moved his amendment wonderfully well. The Committee will be struck by the similarity between the arguments for subtitling and audio description. The question of cost is crucial. While I understand the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I would not place great store on that. Relatively speaking, the costs are low. My noble friend Lord Carter is quite right in his contention, especially taking into account the billions of pounds involved. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, mentioned the previous Broadcasting Bill which in many ways was botched. There were far too many omissions. The Government say that we should discuss those at some other time. That is not good enough. It is time to act. We can correct at least one of the shortcomings of the previous Bill.
The argument for modules sounds quite convincing. I cannot claim to be an expert on this subject but my impression is that it is a red herring. There is no significance in the module argument but that is a matter for the Committee to decide.
My final point is that what we decide tonight, on Report and at Third Reading will affect people who are sight impaired. They want audio-description because it means so much. They cannot see the programmes. They need a voice to explain and to put things in context. There has been an enormous advance. If we do not accept the amendments they will just keep doing without. If we accept the amendments we can take a really good step forward for them. I hope that with her usual care and consideration the Mi sister will be able to go some way towards understanding and will accept the amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: Through the amendments we have the opportunity to be imaginative in using available technology for the benefit of those of all ages who have disabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has been fair in drawing attention to the potential costs of doing that. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, have expressed reasonable and understandable frustration. The general thrust of the amendments is supported from these Benches. I hope that the Minister will find a way to accommodate some of the points the amendments express.
Baroness Blackstone: My noble friend Lord Carter will know that, just as with the previous group of amendments, I have much sympathy with the issues raised in this group.

1265
As regards Amendment No. 242, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, the 10 per cent target for audio description was considered as part of the review of the statutory requirements for the provisions of subtitling, signing and audio-description. Having considered all the issues and arguments during the review we concluded that the 10 per cent target should be maintained.
The decision recognised the unresolved production and distribution difficulties with the audio-description modules needed to receive the service. The Government have been working with the RNIB, broadcasters and manufacturers to help identify possible solutions to the problems. We are disappointed that the current problems have not yet been solved.
My noble friend Lord Carter asked in particular about audio-description systems currently offered by BSkyB on satellite. BSkyB currently provides a limited number of audio-description on some of the 300 channels broadcast via satellite but uses a different transmission system which is suitable only for high bandwidth delivery platforms, such as digital satellite. I do not entirely understand this technology. However, I understand that requiring broadcasters to transfer their existing audio-description to a pre-mix audio description system as used on digital satellite for terrestrial transmission would reduce the number of programme services which could be transmitted. It would also be very expensive and would hinder the development of the receiver-mixed audio-description system which has many advantages and could be applied to all digital platforms. So there are technical problems about the question raised by my noble friend Lord Carter.
My noble friend also asked whether the Bill as drafted would allow Ofcom to lean on manufacturers. As we debated earlier in Committee, the Government have agreed to consider the question of how we might strengthen Ofcom's responsibilities in regard to access to systems. We are actively considering that at present and shall return to it on Report. I hope that that is helpful.
I return to the question of targets. Clause 301 allows the Secretary of State, after consultation with Ofcom, to vary the target percentage for audio-description by order. So, even though the target is currently only 10 per cent, if there were the significant advances that we all want to see in the technology and more widespread take-up of the modules, targets could be increased. I very much hope that that will be the case.
In the same way as the ITC code currently does, we expect that Ofcom's code relating to provision for the deaf and visually impaired will include guidelines on the technical standards to be attained for audio-description, as well as the subtitling and signing, in order to meet the current standards. Amendment No. 243, therefore, would not really appear to lead to any different result.
1266
I turn to Amendment No. 250. As we have said before, EPGs can make both the selection and recording of programmes much easier, enhancing the viewing experience in the process. This is just as true for people with disabilities as it is for anyone else, provided they can use the EPG.
Having considered the amendment quite carefully, I can understand the concerns of those who would like Ofcom to be under a more specific duty here, and I should like to return with some suggestions on Report.
I hope that in the light of what I have said my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: I am sure that after all our years of working together my noble friend the Minister would be extremely surprised if I sought to divide the Committee. There is time between the Committee and Report stages for reconsideration, and then we can decide what to do on Report.
I should like to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. I said that 50 per cent would be crippling for some broadcasters, but not for others, and there would have to be some discretion. There seem to be two systems on offer; there is almost a technical battle going on. We must be sure that the best is not made the enemy of the good. Ofcom should have the power to try to resolve the problem.
My noble friend the Minister referred to the unresolved production difficulty. I hear that this is on the verge of resolution. It should be possible for a very low cost—I am told as little as £10—to put the chip into new boxes so that they would all then become available. There is the lift-off problem in getting the number of modules out in order to have the production run and bring the cost down. This is just the area where Ofcom should be working.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for her helpful reply, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 243 to 246 not moved.]
Clause 298 agreed to.
Clause 299 [Procedure for issuing and revising code under s.298]:
[Amendments Nos. 247 to 249 not moved.]
Clause 299 agreed to.
Clauses 300 to 303 agreed to.
Clause 304 [Code of practice for electronic programme guides]:
Lord Addingtonhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 250:
Page 269, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) The code must include minimum requirements and best practice guidance on making electronic programme guides accessible to people who are blind, partially sighted or have other disabilities."

1267
The noble Lord said: I wish briefly to thank the Minister and anybody else in the department who helped her to give the favourable response that we received.
[Amendment No. 250 not moved.]
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 250A:
Page 269, line 11, at end insert—
"(2A) The practices required by the code must include, where there is more than one version of a public service channel available on an electronic programme guide—
(a) compliance with a request from the provider of a public service channel to substitute either—

(i) the appropriate version of that public service channel as designated by the provider of the channel; or

(ii) the version of that channel selected by the viewer for substitution;

for the most prominent listing of that public service channel in the relevant electronic programme guide;
(b) ensuring that, where the provider of the public service channel consents, the consumer can perform the type of selection described in paragraph (a)(ii).
(2B) In assessing the degree of prominence for the purpose of subsection (2), OFCOM must ensure that—

(a) such prominence amounts to a degree that is greater than it would have been without the giving of such guidance; and

(b) the degree of prominence at least matches the degree of prominence in existence at the date of the commencement of the Office of Communications Act 2002 (c. 11).

(2C) For the purposes of this section there is more than one version of a public service channel available if, in the service of television programmes provided, there are different programmes being broadcast or distributed at the same time for audiences in different areas, regions or nations of the United Kingdom in the same service.
(2D) OFCOM shall perform its duty to draw up a code under subsection (1) within six months at the latest of the commencement of this section."
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 250B, 250C and 250D.
The amendments together have a straightforward but crucial purpose of ensuring that viewers have easy access to their public service channels on digital platforms. They would tighten up the definition of "due prominence" to ensure that when, for example, a viewer in Scotland switches on BBC1, he gets the Scottish version.
Throughout the debate on the Bill, your Lordships have stated your strong support for the UK's public service broadcasters and the role they play in British society. Parliament and the viewers expect special things from their public service channels—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C. They require them, as we have heard, to broadcast impartial news, high quality drama, documentaries, arts programmes and minority interest programmes. That is because as a society we believe there is public value in such programmes being easily available and free at the point of consumption.
On the previous amendment to be debated, we heard of the importance for people who are partially sighted or hard of hearing of accessing those channels via the electronic programme guides. The concession that the Minister made was an important one, because she agreed that their use was essential to enhancing the experience of viewers who want to access digital channels. They are the navigation systems for digital television—a combination of the Radio Times and a channel selector. The owners of those guides control where the channels are listed. That has a crucial bearing on viewers' ability to find the programmes that they want. If they cannot find them, they cannot watch them.
As Members of the Committee will have heard in previous debates, every digital platform has its own monopoly EPG. As the UK moves towards all-digital television, it is essential that those monopolies are regulated in the wider public interest. That is a particularly important requirement in the case of the satellite EPG operator Sky, which has its own pay-TV channels. It cannot be allowed to dictate how easily viewers can find the PSB channels that Parliament has established. It would be like allowing newsagents controlled by the Sun to put broadsheets on the top shelf.
Subsection (2A) of the amendment provides that, where a public service broadcaster has regional versions available on an electronic programme guide—for example, BBC Scotland or BBC Wales—at the public service broadcaster's request, the provider of that guide would have to place either the regional version chosen by the broadcaster or the version selected by the viewer at that broadcaster's most prominent slot on the guide. It would also ensure that, where a PSB has approved the principle of viewer selection—for example, a viewer in London wishing to view his regional news—the provider of the electronic programme guide must provide him with the means to do so.
Subsection (2B) would set a minimum standard of prominence for PSB channels on an EPG so that it is not set lower than the current slots allocated to them. For example, BBC1 would be located at 101. BBC2 at 102, and ITV at 103. That would prevent the PSB channels being buried many pages down the guide among lifestyle channels, pay channels or even worse, as suggested previously by one Member of the Committee.
Subsection (2C) provides a technical definition of a regional service. Subsection (2D) would set a six-month deadline for Ofcom to produce a code of practice for EPGs.
In summary, the amendments seek to ensure that the great British creation of public service broadcasting is maintained for new generations of television viewers. We can do that only by ensuring that viewers can find the programmes that they want to watch. People expect to find BBC1 at 101 and ITV at 103. Scots expect to find BBC Scotland or STV on those channels.
I hope that Members of the Committee will agree to put the due prominence requirements into the code, not to give PSBs any advantage over other channels, but for the benefit of viewers all over the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I have put my name to these amendments because I believe that we must ensure that viewers can get easy access to their public service channels on digital television, and, in particular, that citizens have easy access to their local, regional and national programmes.
We have heard a lot about the importance of EPGs. For the future, I stress that their importance cannot be over-stated. It is the navigation system for digital TV—a combination of the Radio Times and a channel selector. Owners of EPGs control where channels are listed. That affects viewers' ability to find the programmes that they want. If they cannot find it, they cannot watch it.
In the Broadcasting Act 1996, Parliament regulated EPGs by giving public service broadcasters "due prominence" in their guides, but did not specify what that means. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has explained, the amendments will tighten up what is meant by due prominence of public service channels and extend the principle of due prominence to include regional and local variants of public service channels.
Can the Minister confirm that the obligation of due prominence for public service channels applies independently of the purchase of any other service? In other words, would it be unacceptable to insist on the purchase of any other service, whether conditional access or anything else, as a condition of meeting the obligation to provide viewers with access to the appropriate regional version of their public service channel through a duly prominent position?
If allowed, this kind of bundling of services would appear to frustrate the purpose of the Bill's provisions on EPG due prominence and would not be permitted, I hope, either by the ITC or under the new code that will be devised by Ofcom. Can the Minister clarify that point? Can the Government confirm that the obligation of due prominence of public service channels applies independently of the purchase of any other service?
During debate on the 1996 Broadcasting Bill, both Government and Opposition sought guarantees that control of a monopoly EPG could not be used to deny viewers their traditional easy access to PSBs. The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said:
"Let me once again state unequivocally that the Government arc concerned to ensure that electronic programme guides are not used to distort competition between broadcasters. It therefore seems eminently sensible for the Bill to establish certain principles as it does".
He went on to say:
"Nevertheless, as I made clear in Committee, the Government intend to monitor the situation carefully. And should EPGs in the digital market develop in a way which makes further regulation necessary we shall introduce it".
1270
Clearly recent developments demonstrate that as both the market and technology have evolved, greater clarity over the will of Parliament is indeed necessary. The ITC's regulatory code requires "due prominence" without, as we have already heard, specifying what that means and in the case of the current dispute between the BBC and Sky has not been able to rule, despite the complaint being made by the BBC on 7th April. Nor does the Act or the ITC code deal with the different regional and national versions of PSB programming. Yet surely Parliament, when creating due prominence, intended that it would mean that viewers in Scotland could get BBC Scotland, viewers in Wales BBC Wales, and so forth. Where PSB channels are available with national or regional versions, viewers' easy access to those channels must surely be the right version for them.
I suggest that the amendment strikes the right balance between the role of Parliament in determining public policy and the discretion of Ofcom, the independent regulator, in implementing the policy set out by Parliament. Amendment No. 250A makes it clear that "due prominence" means the level of prominence at the enactment of the Ofcom enabling Act, safeguarding the position of the PSBs, and requires EPG providers to provide regionalised services.
It does not fetter Ofcom's discretion over the prices or the technical mechanisms which will be applied. These detailed regulatory matters are properly matters for Ofcom. But it is essential that Ofcom considers these detailed issues against the backdrop of clear public policy. Parliament has determined that EPGs should be regulated. It now needs to make sure that the new regulator, Ofcom, has a clear understanding of its intent behind that decision.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the amendments and will be able to confirm my specific point about bundling of services.
Lord Lipsey: I think that we are in complete agreement about the objective that we all seek: that is, a proper prominence. "Due prominence" is a term of art for public service channels, in particular the BBC on EPGs.
Having said that, one has to be alarmed that when we talk about balance we are also talking here about a set of amendments put down by one of the two parties to the present dispute which is raging—the BBC. I have considerable reservations about the route it has gone down. At least in this amendment, unlike the one proposed earlier, it is not trying to fix the price paid—
Lord Avebury: Will the noble Lord give way? The parties to this dispute do not put down amendments; noble Lords put them down.
10 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: I should have said that they have been inspired to put down these amendments by a briefing from the BBC, which we have all seen. Of course noble

1271
Lords are quite entitled strongly to agree with that. I have done so myself on many occasions. I was merely explaining—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: As a matter of information, I have had a similar briefing on this matter from Channel 4, for example, and from other public service providers.
Lord Lipsey: I have absolutely no criticism of that. But, if there is a dispute and one party wishes you to put down amendments, you should look at that carefully, just as you should look at the arguments of the other side.
I believe that these amendments go too far in seeking Parliament to resolve technical issues which are highly disputed between the parties. Whether or not one party is right I am not qualified to judge, but the amendments go very far in determining the precise detail of what should be done.
I have a lot of sympathy with the amendments—I am in danger of getting into a polarised position—but I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that they strike a proper balance between what Parliament should do and what the regulator should do. Mostly this should be a matter for the regulator's expertise and knowledge. However, there is a case for bringing forward amendments which do not go quite as far as these but give the regulator a further nudge in the direction in which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness wish to go.
At this time of night my final remark may be felt to be holding matters up, but I cannot understand why everyone believes that it is so horrifying to find themselves on a EPG next to the Playboy channel. My own experience suggests that they are much more likely to be found in that position than in most others.
Lord Crickhowell: I rise, I fear, to be accused of introducing a patent note into the discussions in that I suspect I am, in part at least, going to say something similar to what the noble Baroness may say from the Front Bench. That is because on this occasion I am not sure that we want to add to the difficulties that will face Ofcom by defining the matter quite as it is defined in the amendment. I have recently had a conversation with the chairman of Ofcom. I said that I hoped we were not adding too greatly to his difficulties by being too precise about all the things that he has to do in the first months of his responsibilities.
Having said that, I should emphasise that this is an extremely important issue because of the principles involved and, as has been alluded to, because those providing the service can effectively do great damage to individual broadcasters if they do not identify very clearly where the broadcasts can be found. It may be that there is a very simple answer, or the beginnings of a simple answer, by adding "Public Service Broadcasting" to the list that appears on one's screen—"Sport", "Music", "Entertainment" and so on—so that when you press the button for "Public Sector Broadcasting" you get a list of all the public sector broadcasts and where they appear.
1272
If I rise at all today it is because I have already some practical experience of the difficulties involved, living as I do in Wales and receiving my television, in the only way I can in my valley, through my Sky dish. It is not quite as simple as some noble Lords have indicated. It has been suggested that those who live in Wales or Scotland simply have to have the appropriate programme for Wales or Scotland, but if you live in Wales you get S4C and if you do not speak Welsh you have to find an alternative.
I know now that by going to 184 I can receive English language television and not Welsh language television. But even then it is not all that simple because, if you turn on the regional programme at particular times, in Wales you frequently get Welsh club rugby on BBC. I watch it from time to time but it is not my greatest passion. If I want the alternative, I have to find my way to a channel in the 400s, which broadcasts the programmes that viewers elsewhere in the United Kingdom can watch—or switch to Ulster, where I can often find the kind of programme I want. All those channels are scattered throughout the system and their number is growing ever bigger.
I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as regards the importance of the issue. I hope we can start with my suggestion of listing public service broadcasts with their channel numbers, which viewers can display on their TV screens and access relatively simply. However, the amendment may have shortcomings. We could be making Ofcom's job more difficult. This is one occasion when I would prefer to leave it to the wisdom of Ofcom to interpret Clauses 304 and 305, which create the code and the means of enforcing it. If Ofcom is as efficient at regulating as I hope it will be, the problem will be solved.
On this occasion, I take the risk of agreeing with the Minister. I do not go with the amendment but strongly support the important issue that it raises.
Lord Borrie: It seems a growing tendency in the Committee to consider what my noble friend the Minister is going to say before she has said a word. I have no idea what she will say but fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about the importance of the subject. I am slightly anxious, because of the hovering of Chief Whips, that we may be reaching the close of today's debate.
Noble Lords: No chance.
Lord Borrie: I am glad that that is the case and that we may reach other important matters in due course. I shall not delay the Committee unduly.
The purpose of Clause 304 is clearly to require of electronic programme guides that they give appropriate prominence to listing public service channels. Clause 304 implicitly accepts that the owners of EPGs may have good commercial reasons for giving favourable positioning to non-public service channels but in its reference to gibing due prominence to public service channels the clause is not very precise. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, says that the matter can be left to Ofcom. It will be a body of men and

1273
women, all good and true, who will do their best—but they will be guided by the Act. Is there any harm in giving it more precision than the little now offered by the Bill?
I find myself favourably disposed towards the amendments. Their value is in giving some precision where none exists and covering regional or local variants of public service channels so that they are easier to find. I do not see that as being over-prescriptive or over-precise but as giving precision where there is precious little now. I give no particular credence to the precise wording and I am sure that the government draftsman can do better. Nevertheless, the attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to give precision where little currently exists is worth commending.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: We all agree that the problem arises because of a lack of definition of due prominence and because of the difficulty of finding the channels in question even now.
I have a particular concern at the possibility that digital satellite viewers in Wales may not be able to receive, for example, BBC] and BBC2 Wales through the electronic programme guides 101 and 102. It is for that reason that I believe the Bill requires amendment both to tighten the definition of due prominence on the EPG and also to extend it to national and regional variations of public service channels.
I make no apology for speaking about Wales in particular because its television audience is quite complex and diverse. Its take-up of digital television is higher than the United Kingdom average. Within the digital audience there is a particularly high proportion of digital satellite viewers, not least because of the difficult topography. Without being able to access BBC Wales on 101 or 102, instead viewers have to rummage around among the bottom rungs of the EPG, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has said, and only slots away, I am told, from the pornography channel, which may distract them.
Viewers may opt for non-Wales services for a host of reasons. That could result in large parts of the population having minimal access to information and news from and about Wales. We heard earlier today that a healthy democracy depends on people having many sources of information, which is a matter of great concern in post-devolution Wales where the BBC and HTV are one of the few providers of Wales-based news and so forth. So we may not be surprised at the 38.2 per cent turn out in the Assembly election, which has implications for democratic credibility. Therefore. it is vitally important that people should be able to access these services.
In an age when we are encouraged increasingly to view on the global level, it is vital that we still look to the local. The Bill has a duty not only to promote diversity and creativity, but also to safeguard the needs and interests of its many different audiences. In my view it is essential that we continue to connect with our
1274
communities by ensuring that they have proper access to the programmes and services which have most relevance and resonance in their lives.
These are some of the reasons why I am seeking reassurance from the Government that all efforts will be made to find a solution that ensures that viewers in Wales, and in the rest of the UK for that matter, have access to their correct national or regional variations of the BBC and ITV services on digital satellite. I urge the Government to support the amendment to Clause 304 that would ensure that that is made possible.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Having been accused earlier of being a supporter of British vagueness, perhaps I may say on this amendment that I support my noble friend Lord Borrie and the movers of the amendment in wishing to see a degree of prescription about due prominence and about the regional aspects of access which were discussed earlier by other noble Lords.
I hope that this is not introducing a particularly aggressive or antagonistic note, but my feeling is that some of this is about things other than the mechanical ability to be able to find a public service channel in a complicated technology. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, identified this as a BBC amendment—which is, as I said in my intervention to his point, unfair—but the prominence of this issue has come about because of the BBC's decision to use non-encryption for its digital services and to use a new satellite for that transmission.
Reference was made earlier today to there perhaps being some rather sinister point behind the fact that the BBC has not adhered to its original date of 1st June to stop encrypting its services. From making inquiries, I understand that this is because, far from being in some terrible war, as it were, with BSkyB on this subject, it is trying to negotiate an arrangement for the placing of its programmes on the EPG. At its May meeting, the ITC has not been able to deal with this issue and has asked that it be postponed in order that the rolling contract that the BBC has with BSkyB is continued until July. I think that reveals something about the inability of the regulator exclusively to deal with the matter at least in any urgent fashion.
There is a real issue here about the value that we place on public service broadcasting. We have all usefully spent a great deal of time in Committee today and on previous occasions trying to define what we most value in the public service remit and the qualities that we look for in public service broadcasting. We must be aware that there could be some form of retaliation in a public service broadcaster seeking to use other technical means to distribute its digital programmes by a commercially-operated, profit-driven satellite owner. It would be ridiculous if we did not acknowledge that.
We have said that we value public service broadcasting. That has been the consistent and universal view of Members of the Committee who have spoken today. We have given great attention to

1275
what we value in it, how we seek to describe it and how we recognise it. We must also recognise that in this global world, with satellite access often being in the hands of those who perhaps do not have the vision of public service broadcasting that we have discussed today, we must not only value it and enable it to be seen mechanically, but we must also protect it. Otherwise, I fear that we are perhaps in danger, by a process of unforeseen consequences, of agreeing with, or at least accepting, the view of Mr Rupert Murdoch which has been put before me recently, in which he said that he had,
"never heard a convincing definition of what public service television really is. My own view is that anybody who provides a service which the public wants at a price it can afford is providing a public service".
On the basis of the contributions made in Committee today, I do not think that that is the view of Members of the Committee. That is something from which we must seek to protect our television services.
Baroness Buscombe: I want to be brief. I have two very powerful briefs in front of me—one from the BBC and one from Sky. In a sense, I have tried to take a few steps back from two sides of a very powerful argument. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord. Lord Borrie, have said that this is a very important issue because some important principles are involved. I rather like the idea proposed by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that we should perhaps move towards a list of public service broadcasting channels so that we can easily find them. Perhaps we could do that when we have decided what public service broadcasting means.
On that point, we know that the BBC has been threatened with demotion on the EPG from 101 and 102 to 214 and 215. When I mentioned this to my teenage children, they knew immediately where that would put them on the EPG. To some extent, this is almost a generational problem. Young people do not consider this an issue. As far as they are concerned, it is all accessible, it is all more choice and it is all easy to access. However, I have enormous sympathy with the principle behind the amendments. We on these Benches have already made clear that we support the principle of due prominence. I agree that it is worthwhile nudging Parliament to give us a clearer definition of due prominence.
My understanding is that the proposed amendments to Clause 304 would tighten up what is meant by due prominence for public service channels so that EPG owners could not interpret that in any way that suited them. I also understand that the proposed amendments would also extend the principle of due prominence to include regional and local variants of public service channels so that EPG providers had an obligation to make them easy to find. I have every sympathy with that. Several Members of the Committee, particularly my noble friend Lord Roberts, explained eloquently why that is so important.
However, I wish to raise one concern. If we are talking about having due prominence for public service channels, that is all well and good at the
1276 a
moment but what happens as we move into the future? Amendment No. 250A concerns me as it seems that it would require that the prominence given to the BBC services, or public service broadcasting services, would be greater than it would have been without the giving of such guidance as is to be specified in Ofcom's code, and that the degree of prominence at least matches the degree of prominence in existence at the date of the commencement of the Office of Communications Act 2002.
Does that mean that public service broadcasters could claim that a code requirement for greater prominence entitles, for example, the BBC's new digital services such as I3BC3 and BBC4 to be placed ahead of competitors such as E4 and Arts World which were given fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory listings in the EPG? I believe that that could cause concern not just among those who are passionate believers—as are the Committee and myself—in public service broadcasting but also among viewers. At the end of the day we have to think of the viewers. How are they supposed to discriminate between what we think of as public service broadcasters and something like Arts World which has all the character—if I can put it that way—of public service broadcasting? In that sense perhaps this approach could prove—certainly in the future as more channels become available—unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory.
I have real concern about how one would set the parameters in terms of easy access as we move into the future and have more and more choice. I am also concerned that we find ourselves being drawn into an argument between two particular parties at the moment. I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said; namely, that perhaps this question gives us an opportunity to nudge matters in the right direction and to obtain more clarity in Parliament with regard to what we mean by due prominence.
Baroness Blackstone: My noble friend Lord Borrie teased the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and suggested that he predicted what I would say some time before I spoke. However, the noble Lord. Lord Crickhowell, was absolutely spot on. He predicted perfectly what position I would adopt. The matter raises a lot of important issues but the noble Lord is absolutely right that it has to be a matter for Ofcom.
I turn to the amendments that we are discussing. The proposed new subsections (2A) and (2C), which Amendment No. 250A seeks to introduce to Clause 304, relate to the provision of regional versions of some public service channels. As the Committee will be aware, the broadcasters that provide such regional versions have numerous listings on EPGs but which version of a channel is accessed through a broadcaster's primary listing is currently dictated by where in the country it Is viewed. Hence in Scotland what the viewer simply selects as BBC I is actually the regional variation BBC Scotland, whereas in London it is BBC London. That is no accident, nor is it

1277
inevitable. Rather it is an agreed arrangement borne of free commercial negotiations between the broadcasters and the providers of EPGs.
The intention behind proposed new subsections (2A) and (2C) appears to be to allow a broadcaster, or in some cases its viewers, to choose which version of the broadcaster's channel is accessed through the primary listing of that channel. That seems a perfectly reasonable goal, and I am not aware of any reason why it cannot be achieved at the moment. Indeed, if Ofcom saw fit to do so, Clause 304 would already allow it to set requirements as to the presentational aspects of EPGs to make sure that that was the case.
Therefore, my objection to the proposal lies not so much in the end result that it seeks to achieve, which seems perfectly legitimate, as in the means by which it seeks to do so. It would seek to set in stone something that should be left either to free negotiation or to Ofcom's discretion to resolve. Moreover, it would constitute a perfect example of the type of over-regulation that we have made great efforts to avoid in drafting the Bill. In my view, it would constitute a totally inappropriate use of statute.
My objections as regards proposed new subsection (2B) are broadly similar. In short, the provision would seek to determine through statute something that ought to be left to the discretion of the parties or at least the regulator. I have a further objection. What is proposed in paragraph (a) does not seem feasible. Members of the Committee need only apply the wording of the paragraph to BBC1 to see what I mean. It already appears as the 101 listing at the head of the most commonly used EPGs, and I am not aware of any 100 listing, so I fail to see how Ofcom could ensure it greater prominence than it has at the moment.
If those behind the amendment seek confirmation that we want to make it possible for public service channels to be given more prominent places on EPGs than might be the case if matters were simply left to negotiation, let me assure them that that is certainly our intention. It is the purpose of Clause 304(2). However, as I said, it is equally our intention to leave it to Ofcom to decide what prominence a given channel should be afforded. It will have to take lots of factors into account, such as the degree to which the removal of a channel to a new part of the listing might inconvenience viewers. Ultimately, however, we want to leave the matter to its discretion.
I shall answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. EPGs are now regulated by Oftel and the ITC. It will be for Ofcom to draw up a new single code on EPGs. However, I do not expect that the current provisions she mentioned, which basically seem useful, will be significantly amended.
I am afraid that proposed new subsection (2D) is unacceptable, too. Although it is natural that the affected parties want to know what lies in store for them, the regulation of EPGs seems set to be a pretty technical and complex matter. If it turns out that Ofcom is able to draft, consult and finally publish the code required by Clause 304, all within six months of
1278
the commencement of the clause, all will be well and good. Given the importance of getting the matter right, however, I see no reason to set what may well turn out to be an unrealistically short period for the accomplishment of what is, as has been said around the Committee, a very important task.
Amendments Nos. 250B and 250D are related. To date, the only services to which we have wanted to give the benefit of due prominence have been television services. Amendment No. 250B aims to extend that benefit to BBC digital radio services by adding them to the list of public service channels in Clause 304. That seems misguided. In contrast to television, there are no public service channels on radio other than those provided by the BBC. Affording those channels due prominence would create an imbalance between the BBC and commercial radio services. We do not believe that that would be appropriate when digital radio is still in its infancy.
Amendment No. 250D also relates to radio services. It aims to extend the scope of the clause to cover EPGs on radio. Since its effects would therefore be felt more generally, it would not create the sort of imbalance that it seems would result from Amendment No. 250B. I would be happy to take it away for consideration.
I now return to Amendment No. 250C, which would extend the list of services to be given due prominence to any of those provided by the Welsh Authority and not just S4C Digital. I agree that if the listing position given on an EPG is significant in attracting an audience, it is quite important for S4C that its viewers have easy access to the channel wherever they are in the UK. But I believe that the amendment is superfluous, as, if a new service is provided by the Welsh Authority, under Clause 202, subsection (4) of Clause 304 would allow the Secretary of State to add it to the list of channels benefiting from due prominence.
In light of my response to all of the amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: I thank all those who have spoken in the debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for clarifying something which caused a little concern at earlier stages in the debate. I am sure that all your Lordships will be pleased to learn that there is a prospect of an agreement and that the reason why the BBC has not gone free to air for the time being is simply that it is allowing extra time in which an agreement can be reached in the dispute over EPG and that by July a solution will have been reached that will satisfy all concerned. We very much hope that that will occur.
I accept that it would be impossible for us to design a solution along those lines. What we have put forward is only an attempt at what all your Lordships said ought to be done; that is, to clarify further what we mean by due prominence. To that extent, I am disappointed by the Minister's reply and I can only comfort myself with the thought that, from everything that your Lordships have said, the Committee does

1279
believe that due prominence should include many of the elements that we have tried to insert into the amendment. When Ofcom considers the code, whether it takes longer than six months or not, presumably it will look at Hansard and, in the absence of any other guidance, see what your Lordships have said. That will help Ofcom to arrive at what it thinks the code should say about due prominence. For that reason, I am pleased that we have had the debate and I hope that it will have been of some service to those who will have to consider the issue in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 250B to 250D not moved.]
Clause 304 agreed to.
Clause 305 agreed to.
Clause 306 [Character and coverage of sound broadcasting services]:
Lord Dubsmoved Amendment No. 250E:
Page 270. line 5, leave out "the words from "except" onwards shall be omitted" and insert "for the words from "except" onwards there is substituted "and, in the case of a local licence, that an appropriate amount of local material is broadcast, of which an appropriate amount is locally made""
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Eatwell apologises to the Committee for the fact that he is not able to be here this evening and he has asked me to introduce the amendments on his behalf, which is something I am very happy to do.
I wish to move Amendment 250E and I shall also speak in support of Amendments Nos. 252A and 252B. I also wish to oppose the Question that Clause 307 stand part of the Bill.
We are discussing local radio. Both Clause 306 and Clause 307 reflect the Government's desire to strengthen and sustain localness in local radio, which is something that would command widespread support. That is an objective which I believe is well served by Clause 306, but is ill served by Clause 307.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Eatwell argued that Clause 307 was notable for the fact that it was injected into the Bill without any consultation whatever with those whom it was intended to regulate. He also said that it was damaging for a number of reasons. It creates a "one size fits all" regulatory code that will be irrelevant and damaging. I do not believe that anyone can say that one code can capture what localness means in relation to, for example, Capital Radio in London, which broadcasts to 10 million potential listeners, and Oban FM, which broadcasts to 15,000.
The thinking behind Clause 307 involves excessive micro-regulation of inputs into radio programmes but nothing for the outputs. It is ridiculous for Ofcom to be charged with ascertaining for every radio station in the country where their employees live. Surely it is unreasonable to ask Ofcom to do that, and reflects not a light touch but a heavy-handed approach. It is equally ridiculous that Ofcom should, for every radio station in the country, be required to regulate the amount of local advertising. That is surely best left to
1280
commercial pressures arid skills. I cannot believe that the Government intend to persuade a radio station to turn away advertising. For example, would they want a large metropolitan station to turn away major national brands simply because it did not have that local element? That is not necessarily how advertising works and it would be inappropriate in this case. Is specifying exactly how a station should run its sales business what the Minister meant at Second Reading when she referred to light-touch regulation?
The simple point is that if localness means anything, it must mean diversity and variety. Clause 307 would work as much more of a straitjacket and should not stand part of the Bill. Fortunately, we already have a solution at hand in the Bill; that is, in Clause 306. The outstanding virtue of the approach to localness in Clause 306 is that it achieves its goals via the specification of format in the award of the licence. In other words, the specification of localness is tailored to local conditions. Instead of the straitjacket of a "one size squeezes all" code, Ofcom can secure and protect the local characteristic—the individual characteristic of each station.
Moreover, Clause 306 places the weight of concern where it should be: with the listener. Clause 306 does that as it stands. However, my noble friend Lord Eatwell, who has had discussions with some DCMS officials, identified various concerns that are dealt with in Amendments Nos. 250E, 252A and 252B. Those amendments strengthen significantly the ability of Ofcom to specify local characteristics in a licence format. Amendment No. 250E makes localness a licence requirement. Amendments Nos. 252A and 252B ensure local production by requiring that an appropriate amount of material is made locally.
Amendment No. 252B also broadens the definition of what is "local material". At present, Clause 306 characterises that as material including news that is of particular interest to local people. The amendment broadens the definition of "local material" to include, "news, information or entertainment". I suggest that that far better reflects the diversity of the different ways in which different stations can be local. News is not the only way in which stations connect with their locality. They do so through the provision of local information about charities and events, as we all hear on our local stations, and through tailored provision of, for example, musical outlets, reflecting live music in the region, or discussion programmes and so on. I emphasise that the crucial power of Clause 306 strengthened by the amendments is that Ofcom may determine localness on a case-by-case basis. The use of the word "appropriate" in Amendment No. 250E permits different localness requirements to be set for different types of station. Those that serve a geographical community, such as Tower FM in Bolton and Bury, should be treated differently from those that primarily serve a community of interests, such as Jazz FM.

1281
Localness is important. That is why people listen to their local station; and Clause 306, as amended, would allow radio to celebrate the diversity of localness. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 254 and to oppose the Question that Clause 307 stand part of the Bill. Furthermore I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Clause 306 relates to the character and coverage of sound broadcasting services and amends Section 106 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Clause 307 seeks to define localness for commercial radio purposes. It requires Ofcom to draw up a code and identify a substantive input requirement that could be covered with a view to maintaining and establishing connections between local sound broadcasting services and the relevant localities. The UK radio industry has enjoyed fantastic growth in the past 10 years. We need to provide a regulatory structure that will encourage growth and innovation in that fast-moving, converging media environment.
The regulatory regime proposed by the Bill for local radio places an onerous burden on the local stations within its remit. Clause 307 was not included in the draft Bill, and as a result was not considered by the draft scrutiny committee. The policy behind the additional clause concerns me greatly. If implemented, Clause 307 would grant Ofcom the power to micro-manage the day-to-day running of local radio stations. The clause is so prescriptive that it requires the local radio station to maintain premises within the area of locality, provide local training and development and employ local people. Surely the ability to perform a job should be a consideration when deciding to employ a person, not merely where that person lives. I emphasise that we are not questioning the validity of the overriding legislative objective that local radio stations should provide a local service. However, we do not believe that it is necessary to impose such prescriptive obligations on the local stations affected. Indeed, the concept of localness is entirely subjective. Perceptions of locality may vary for a number of reasons—language and culture for example.
Our philosophy is simple. A local radio station has to take into account the requirements and needs of local listeners. Commercial radio is not vastly profitable. The stations have to ensure that they are successful. If they fail to do that effectively they will not survive. The localness of a particular station will not depend on whether the employees live just inside or just outside the area in question.
The Bill is largely deregulatory in its approach. The general principle that underpins the Bill is self-regulation or co-regulation where possible, and only to impose a regulatory regime where necessary. Do the Government believe that the clause will advance that general policy? Do they not agree that the clause intimately defines how a local radio station should be run rather than setting out the purpose that should be
1282
achieved? The Government have failed to appreciate that localness would result from commercial demands alone and that a co-regulatory approach would provide a more efficient local radio broadcasting service that does not measure its success on input requirements.
We oppose the Question that Clause 307 stand part of the Bill. The Government have stated that Ofcom can choose whether or not to include the input requirements in the code, as imposed by the clause. That begs the question—why have a legislative obligation to compile a code at all? That is an area where self-regulation or co-regulation would be a more appropriate alternative. The service provider would be in a more suitable position to determine how best to further local interests and local culture.
Amendment No. 254 requires Ofcom to have regard to the extent to which the various requirements of Clause 307 are being satisfied by self-regulation prior to drawing up or revising a code. That would encourage local radio stations to comply with the spirit underpinning Clause 307 through self-regulation. The inevitable result would be substantial compliance, where appropriate, with various conditions set out by the legislation. In addition self-regulation or co-regulation would place less of a financial burden on Ofcom, and I urge the Government to consider the significant advantages that a less prescriptive regime would demand.
I turn to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. Amendment No. 250E recognises the importance of local broadcasting without listing input requirements. It would effectively ensure that the services remained locally focused without detailing how that objective was to be achieved. The focus would be on content rather than input and it omits the need for a legally enforceable code detailing the locality requirements set out in Clause 307. The amendment would thus ensure that the local character and coverage of a service is maintained through the condition requiring that an appropriate amount of local material is broadcast of which an appropriate amount is locally made. The amendment also ensures that the locality element is maintained, even if the terms of the licence are varied.
Amendment No. 252A complements Amendment No. 250E by defining the phrases "local material" and "locally made". We support this proposal to limit unnecessary control and to encourage industry participation in the regulatory structure.
I also support in principle Amendments Nos. 253 and 255. The importance of the music industry cannot be underestimated. That is why we wish to encourage its continued growth. We do not believe that the correct place to include a reference to music is Clause 307. I raised this issue earlier in Committee when we debated Amendments Nos. 251 and 252 to Clause 306. We want to achieve the appropriate balance. We believe that Clause 306 is the only clause where these issues can be comprehensively addressed.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Eatwell and I support the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in opposing the Question that Clause 307 shall stand part of the Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Dubs indicated, one year ago the draft Bill gave Ofcom a duty to promote and protect the local content and character of local radio. No one quarrels with that. The correct way forward is perhaps to leave it at that and say to Ofcom, "Right, it is up to you how you go about this". I hope that it would consult with the industry and with other people who know something about it and come forward with a code which it would then enforce.
I was shocked to find that there had been no consultation with the industry about Clause 307. It possibly stops short of describing what colour the wallpaper will be at various local radio stations, but not by much. It goes into a ridiculous amount of detail and can have been drafted only by people who know little about local radio. I take one example. What is a local advertisement? Is it an advertisement for a local product or service? If it is not, why would it be on the local radio station? Ultimately, everything is delivered locally, whether it is from Marks and Spencer, Safeway or Jaguar. Products are purchased in a locality and therefore the advertisements are for local products and services.
Is the product locally made? That is not a restriction on the radio station; it is a restriction on the advertiser. If I operate the local garage, is it being said, "Sorry, you cannot go to a London advertising agency. Saatchi and Saatchi may be all right for people down there, but how dare you use them? You must use a local agency". There may not be one in many localities. It is daft.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, pointed out, it is not only news that defines a local radio station. If a tune is played as a request for someone's granny in the area, it has a local flavour to it. That is who local radio plays to. It is why independent local radio has successful audiences. It is not because they are more professional than the BBC presenters, as I have said previously—of course they are not—but they are more locally based. They are anchored in their communities.
As regards advertising, one cannot define proportions because it depends on the size of the radio station. I mentioned previously that I am still chairman of Scottish Radio Holdings but no longer have any hands-on executive responsibility. Within that comparatively small group of radio stations, we have a station like Radio Clyde, which with a very large audience is clearly attractive to national advertisers and too expensive for local plumbers. Why would a local plumber advertise on a station with a catchment area as large as ours and waste many of his bullets? By contrast, a station like Borders or South West or Moray Firth in Inverness is not particularly attractive to national advertisers because of their comparatively small populations. But the local
1284
plumber might well want to advertise on these because he does not waste money on an audience that cannot use his product.
The idea that one can put forward a one-size-fits-all certain percentage of local advertising frankly does not bear scrutiny by anyone who knows anything about the way local radio or the advertising industry work. I favour the route that operated while I was involved. An application—
Baroness Blackstone: I wonder if I may intervene. I am a little surprised that my noble friend Lord Eatwell did not make it clear to my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Gordon of Strathblane that we are going to take away these amendments and come back at Report. I made that clear to my noble friend Lord Eatwell, so I think it would be helpful before we go further—
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: If Clause 307 is being withdrawn, I can sit down very quickly. If Clause 307 is going, I am delighted.
I should like to come back to Clause 306 which is staying and about which I should like to say a word. A bid is put forward to run a licence. If successful, a licence is awarded and it is up to the regulatory body which in my day was the IBA, then the Radio Authority and now Ofcom—to ensure the licensee sticks to that promise. That promise will include a degree of localness. That is the way forward. I am delighted to hear that Clause 307 is coming out.
Baroness Buscombe: I should like to intervene. My name is at the top of the statement that:
"The above-named Lords give notice of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause 307 stand part of the Bill."
I have had no prior notice that that clause was going to be withdrawn. That was why I spoke at length.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be extremely—
Baroness Blackstone: I wonder whether I could respond to what has been said. If the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, does want to come in, I will sit down again.
I did not actually say to my noble friend, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, that I would withdraw Clause 307. I want to make it clear that extensive discussions have taken place between the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and his representatives and officials of my department. We have conceded that we have not got this right. We do want to come back at Report with amendments which will resolve the problems that noble Lords have pointed out. If the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, still wants to speak, I shall sit down, otherwise I should like to explain the position of the Government.
It would be simplest if I dealt first with Amendments Nos. 250E, 252A, 252B and 254 since they all deal with the means by which the local content and character of local radio should be protected. I will then go on to Amendments Nos. 252C, 253 and 255 which deal with the more detailed but no less important questions of

1285
whether the provisions relating to localness need to refer specifically to music, musicians or local talent. The Government have agreed a significant relaxation of the ownership rules for local radio, so that there could be as few as two owners in each area. On a national level, the ownership rules would, by extension, permit the UK radio industry to be dominated by two major groups.
Clearly, we believe that these new ownership rules are right or we would not be proposing them. However, we also recognise that there is a possible risk that greater consolidation could lead to a loss of localness in local radio. We do not say that this will inevitably happen, merely that it could happen. We therefore want to establish a structure that avoids any damaging effects on local radio.
Clause 307 therefore requires Ofcom to draw up guidance on localness. There has, however, been concern in the radio industry that this could lead to the micro-management of the industry, as my noble friend Lord Dubs expressed earlier in this debate and as my noble friend Lord Eatwell expressed at Second Reading. The radio industry has made a number of constructive suggestions to change the Bill which we very much welcome. Those suggestions are given effect to in the amendments before us. We very much welcome those suggestions. As I said just now, my officials have discussed them in some detail with the industry. We are persuaded that we should make changes to the Bill which retain protection for the local character of radio stations while addressing the issue of micro-management. I should like to consider the options and bring back amendments on Report.
I have some sympathy with the thinking behind Amendment No. 254 but I do not think that the amendment is acceptable. We believe—the industry recognises that in its amendments—that there is a case for strengthening Ofcom's responsibilities for securing the broadcast of local material, of which an appropriate amount is locally made. In other words, I believe that the case is already made for taking action now.
However, I would remind noble Lords that this duty of Ofcom's will have to be interpreted by it in the context of its general duties. That will ensure, among other things, that its regulation is proportionate and targeted only at cases in which action is needed. I believe that that, along with the amendments I hope to table on Report, should be sufficient to ensure that Ofcom does not adopt an over-regulatory approach to that duty.
I have much sympathy with the thinking behind Amendments Nos. 252C, 253 and 255. We recognise and value the British music industry and recognise also the importance of the relationship between the radio industry and the music industry. I have already indicated that I should like to consider the amendments tabled to Clauses 306 and 307 with a view to tabling government amendments on Report. I want to ensure that the amendments adequately cover the central notion of "local material, of which an appropriate amount is locally made". However, in
1286
doing so I shall take careful account of the points made about the importance of music, particularly in local radio, and shall consider whether that can be better reflected in the wording of the Bill. In doing so, we shall be helped by the imaginative and constructive amendments we have debated tonight.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The Minister has made an important statement and created a new situation. I was to speak purely to Amendments Nos. 253 and 255 on the importance of music to local sound broadcasting. Therefore, I am grateful for the very positive mentions the Minister made about that and her rethinking of the situation.
On a general point, one of the matters which interested me in preparing for this part of the debate was what was said by the Minister in another place, Dr Kim Howells. He stated frankly that the Government's proposal represented,
"an enormous liberalisation so as to allow for the possibility—I hope that it does not come to pass—of two large radio groups dominating the UK market. If we do not take steps to prevent it, that level of concentration could lead to a drift away from localness".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/02/03; col. 163.]
The knowledge we have of what happened in the United States, where legislation led to huge changes in concentration of ownership, leads us to feel that we very much welcome the fundamental reconsideration mentioned by the Minister. I hope that as well as continuing to respond positively on the importance of music in local sound broadcasting, the Government will be able to reassure us on the wider implications of the liberalisation of their ownership policy in terms of retaining a local sound broadcasting industry which really shows local character and identity.
Lord Dubs: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for her handsome response. We look forward to seeing what the Government come up with on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 251 to 252B not moved.]
Clause 306 agreed to.
Clause 307 [Local content and character of local sound broadcasting services]:
[Amendments No. 252C to 255 not moved.]
Clause 307 agreed to.
Clause 308 agreed to.
Clause 309 [Conditions relating to competition matters]:
[Amendments Nos. 255ZA to 255ZC not moved.]
Clause 309 agreed to.
11 p.m.
Clause 310 [Exercise of Broadcasting Act powers for a competition purpose]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 255A:
Page 273, line 34, at end insert "; and

1287
(e) every power of theirs to issue a code of practice or guidance to holders of such a licence"
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 256, 257, 258ZCA and 258ZE to 258ZH.
The amendments address an extremely important issue relating to the economic regulation of broadcasters, which was extensively debated in Committee in another place. The answers provided by the Government at the time were unsatisfactory, and we have therefore decided to return to the issue to press the Government further.
The Bill gives Ofcom sector-specific competition powers relating to broadcasting, which allow it to include a general fair trading condition in Broadcasting Act licences, and also the ability to exercise concurrent powers under the Competition Act 1998. There are significant concerns, however, over the Bill's provisions which enable Ofcom to undertake economic regulation of broadcasting through broadcasters' licences under the Broadcasting Act in addition to these two groups.
Part 3 gives Ofcom overall power to regulate the broadcasting sector via broadcasting licences issued pursuant to the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996. This gives Ofcom the power to impose licence conditions on licensees and issue directions pursuant to the fulfilment of Ofcom's duties. However, Part 3 provides no guidance on how or indeed whether Ofcom should undertake the economic regulation of broadcasting, using its Broadcasting Act powers as opposed to its Competition Act powers or its sector-specific competition powers.
The key point here is that clearly not all conceivable matters of economic regulation will be matters of competition. Some will be matters of consumer interest, which have no or little competition element. For example, could Ofcom impose conditions on broadcasting licensees relating to the packaging and pricing of their channels and services, pursuant to its duties to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, or to secure the availability of a wide range of TV and radio services?
It is important to note that decisions under the Competition Act or for a competition purpose under subsection (4) provide for a full right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. However, decisions made pursuant to Ofcom's broadcasting powers exercised other than for a competition purpose would not attract a right of appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal.
It should also be noted that even if a decision of Ofcom is partly made for a competition purpose the clause provides that no appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal will be forthcoming. An appeal would be possible only if the decision was made by Ofcom where the only or main reason was a competition purpose.
As 1 said in an earlier debate on Part 2, there is serious concern that this lack of appeal right fails to provide broadcasters with the same rights as, say, telephony providers and providers of other electronic
1288
communications networks and services when they find themselves subject to economic regulation by Ofcom. That is the background to the amendment.
The first point on which I should like to seek the Minister's confirmation is whether it is the intention to task Ofcom with undertaking economic regulation of broadcasters outside the realm of competition matters. The answer to this question is important and may well determine whether my amendments are necessary, as they are designed to give a right of appeal to broadcaster licensees in circumstances in which Ofcom exercises such powers through the vehicle of television licensable content service licences.
Relevant to this analysis is the fact that cable operators who are retailers of pay television will escape regulation of their pay TV retail activities, as they may not hold TLCS licences unless they themselves operate channels. In those circumstances, it would seem disproportionate to seek to regulate identical retail activities of satellite broadcasters simply because the satellite broadcaster happens to hold TLCS licences for channels that he operates himself. The Minister's response to that disparity in another place did not address the situation in practice. The fact remains that cable operators will be unregulated and satellite broadcasters regulated in relation to the same activities simply because the models under which each operates differ.
We still have not heard an explanation of the Government's position on whether it is intended that Ofcom should seek to undertake economic regulation through the backdoor or TLCS licences in the way that we have described. The Bill does not expressly preclude that type of regulation. Can the Minister, therefore, provide such an assurance to the Committee today? If so, my amendments to these clauses may be redundant. Broadcasters will have the assurance that they are seeking; that is, they will not face economic regulation through their licences for reasons other than a competition purpose. Therefore, the question of whether they have a proper right of appeal in those circumstances becomes irrelevant.
Given that such assurances may not be forthcoming, I shall explain the reasons for my amendments. As I mentioned in my initial overview, one major concern of broadcasters is that decisions of an economic nature not taken for a competition purpose will riot, as currently proposed in the Bill, have a right of appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. To clarify a concern raised in another place, we do not suggest that an appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal be available on all decisions of Ofcom under its Broadcasting Act powers. Most decisions will have some economic impact, however small, and we accept that they would attract no more than a right of judicial review.
The key point, however, is that decisions in the nature of the examples that I have given, such as those relating to retail pricing and packaging of television services, would attract a right of appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. I have heard no rational argument as to why that should not be the case in any of the debates.

1289
That is to be contrasted with, for example, price regulation of a mobile telephone operator under Part 2, which attracts full rights of appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. Unless the Government have a compelling reason why, say, potential price regulation of Artsworld, FilmFour or digital radio services must not have a full right of appeal, this is surely the discrepancy that they need to address.
Let me explain how my amendments seek to address the matter. Amendments Nos. 258ZA, 258ZB and 258ZC are the key. As I indicated, Clause 310(4) currently allows any persons affected by a decision by Ofcom to exercise any of its Broadcasting Act powers for a competition purpose to appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. Amendments Nos. 258ZA and 258ZB seek to ensure also that any person affected by a decision by Ofcom to exercise any of its Broadcasting Act powers in the fulfilment of general duties under Section 3 may appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. That would ensure that any form of economic regulation, whether taken for a competition purpose or pursuant to any of Ofcom's general duties under Clause 3, would be subject to appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal.
The two amendments on their own would mean that all Ofcom regulation, including content regulation, would become subject to the Competition Appeals Tribunal. That is not my intention with these amendments. Amendment No. 258ZC would amend Clause 310(8) to ensure that the right of appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal is disapplied in relation to all Ofcom's content regulation functions. That would be the case unless any such decision were made for a competition purpose as reflected in Amendment No. 258ZCA.
Amendments Nos. 258ZE to 258ZH to Clause 311 are consequential to these amendments and widen the scope of any future Ofcom review of its codes, guidance, directions and, as proposed in Amendment No. 258ZF, conditions. I look forward to the Minister's response to these amendments. They are a rather elegant solution to the problem and appear to resolve concern on both sides of the argument. Clearly, it is a point on which we need reassurance from the Minister.
While we are looking at the provisions regarding rights of appeal, I will, with the leave of the Committee, broaden the discussion to rights of appeal under Part 3 in relation to content. It is a matter on which I gave prior notice to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
It has been drawn to my attention—I know that there is considerable concern beyond your Lordships' House, for example in the CBI—that no right of appeal exists under Part 3 with regard to content. So broadcast consumers affected by Ofcom's decision under Part 3 will have only judicial review as their appeal route. I am suggesting that that is unsatisfactory, primarily because of the limited grounds on which decisions can be reviewed.
1290
Unlike appeals to the Competition Appeals Tribunal under Part 2, which can revisit the merits of the decision, judicial review only looks at the way in which decisions were made. All that is despite the communications White Paper promise of appropriate review procedures within the regulator.
In its fourth report, for 2002–03, the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed reservations about possible breaches of Article 6 of the ECHR in the procedures set out under Part 3. It also stated that judicial review is unlikely to be an effective remedy because the subjective nature of Ofcom's judgment would make it difficult to assess the quality of the decision.
I should be enormously grateful if the Minister could allay my concerns, and the concerns of those beyond your Lordships' House, by explaining how the Government envisage the appeals process under Part 3 working in practice. For example, does the Minister envisage the establishment of an internal review procedure for dealing with appeals?
I turn briefly to other amendments. Clause 310(1) identifies the powers of Ofcom to which the clause applies. It appears to me that Ofcom's powers listed here should also include its powers to issue codes of practice or guidance to holders of licences. That is reflected in Amendment No. 255A.
Clause 310(2) requires Ofcom,
"Before exercising any of their Broadcasting Act powers for a competition purpose",
to,
"consider whether a more appropriate way of proceeding in some or all of the matters in question would be under the Competition Act 1998",
Clause 310(3) requires that,
"If Ofcom decides that a more appropriate way of proceeding would be under the Competition Act 1998, they are not, to the extent of that decision, to exercise their Broadcasting Act powers in relation to that matter".
I believe this to be an unsatisfactory situation, with the Bill failing to require or even encourage Ofcom to use its concurrent competition powers in preference to its sector-specific powers.
Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 seek to introduce a less ambiguous position by requiring Ofcom not to use its Broadcasting Act powers on any matter where that matter is capable of being dealt with under the Competition Act. I am aware that this matter was addressed in Committee in another place. At the time the Minister said that the current formulation acknowledges that regulators of a range of sectors, not only of communications, are best placed to determine whether to use competition law or sector-specific powers. He also said that the parties who considered that Ofcom had taken the wrong route could apply for judicial review. This is clearly not the case. Given that Ofcom has discretion as to which route to follow I cannot imagine a scenario where a party would be able to argue successfully that Ofcom had exceeded its powers by choosing one route or the other.

1291
My new clause, Amendment No. 258ZD, seeks to introduce some additional procedural safeguards into this part of the Bill. I believe that the introduction of and changes to licence conditions and directions should be governed by a set of tests for their introduction and modification similar to the tests for setting or modifying conditions in Clause 44 of Part 2 which apply to electronic communications networks and services. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why the Government have chosen not to adopt such measures in Part 3 of the Bill. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Razzall: Perhaps I should apologise to the Committee for intruding on private grief by intervening for the first time on Clause 309 on the sixth day in Committee. However, it falls to me to speak on competition matters in relation to amendments to the Bill.
I support the noble Baroness's requirement of various undertakings. A number of the questions she posed can easily be answered and the undertakings given. However, I find myself in some difficulty over two fundamental questions she asks. I do not see anywhere in Clauses 309, 310 and 311, to which the noble Baroness's amendments relate, any express or implied implication that the clauses give Ofcom the power to impose conditions or regulations that do not relate to competition matters. There is much in what she said about concerns that the Bill will give Ofcom powers to produce regulations that affect economic performance and economic-related issues, but nowhere in the three clauses do I find any express or implied concerns. I am sure that the Minister—who was nodding as I was speaking—could give her the confirmation she requests in regard to that issue.
I part company with the noble Baroness over the question of judicial review. Clause 310(2) is very specific:
"Before exercising any of their Broadcasting Act powers for a competition purpose, OFCOM must consider whether a more appropriate way of proceeding in relation to some or all of the matters in question would be under the Competition Act 1998".
In the event of a dispute over whether those powers have been exercised, I see no better remedy than judicial review. I disagree with the noble Baroness that judicial review on that issue is an inappropriate mechanism. Any other appeal mechanism would be much more prescriptive and restrictive. Judicial review has been developed over the years to deal with the exercise of government powers of this nature and has been rather radically honed in recent years.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I support the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, particularly in relation to Amendment No. 258ZCA.
In the Church of England we have spent considerable time recently looking very carefully into these matters. I support fully the view that the rights of appeal from decisions of Ofcom need to be extended to licensing and content matters covered in Part 3 of the Bill.
1292
I know that Ofcorn will continue the existing roles of bodies such as the Broadcasting Standards Commission, but it would greatly increase Ofcom's transparency and accountability if its decisions could be scrutinised in the manner that we on these Benches are currently exploring.
I have heard the points made from the Liberal Democrat Benches and I shall be interested to explore them further. Certainly in terms of the advice that we have been receiving in the Church of England it would seem that leaving judicial review as the only route available for redress is neither adequate nor appropriate. I may return to the issue at a later stage.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I have only recently heard about this possibility. I, too, am intrigued to know whether there is a likelihood of appeals, particularly on content matters. It has worried me from the beginning that Ofcom or the content board, or a combination of the two, would not be sufficiently independent—and transparently so—in cases brought against them, particularly on fairness and privacy issues. If there was a hope of a process other than judicial review—which, as we have heard, is fairly limited in what it can do for a complainant—it would relieve the minds of many people. I was particularly struck by the range of appeals and appeals upon appeals available in respect of the Bill's technical and economic provisions, which contrasts with the lack of appeal available against any of Ofcom's decisions. It will be interesting to hear more about that from the Minister. I gather that there is legal backing for the amendment and even if it is not possible, such a provision should be written into the Bill.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Howe, and the right reverend Prelate asked about the right of appeal. Which is the right route of appeal on the decisions that Ofcom will make? In Part 3, Ofcom is asked to make subjective content judgments, with safeguards. Ofcom is required to give broadcasters a reasonable opportunity to make representations before imposing sanctions. In the event that a dissatisfied broadcaster alleges that it has been unfairly treated, it may bring judicial review proceedings against Ofcom. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, emphasised that that is exactly the right approach. The subjective judgment on content is made by the specialist regulator under the supervision of the High Court.
The approach in Part 2 is different because there are no content judgments to be made there. Where Ofcom uses its Broadcasting Act powers for competition purpose, there is of course a right of appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal.
Baroness Buscombe: Does not the Minister accept that judicial review is not necessarily appropriate in this instance, given that it can only examine the methodology of a decision, not its merits?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am inclined to follow the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. We have substantial experience of the process in terms of competition policy, and there is reasonable satisfaction with it.
Baroness Buscombe: We are talking not about competition but about aggrieved licence applicants

1293
and content questions—as opposed to competition matters—where judicial review would be seriously inappropriate.
Lord Davies of Oldham: With decisions involving subjective judgment, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. that the matter should be resolved in the High Court under judicial review. Where Ofcom is involved in other types of judgment, there is the right of appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal, which seems an entirely justified strategy for dealing with such issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, suggested that there was some unfairness in the proposals in terms of the relative positions of satellite and cable. As retailers of channels, neither is licensed. Therefore, cable packages do not require a licence under Part 3 of the Bill, but neither does Sky as a package of satellite channels. Since Sky operates a vertically integrated platform in which it both packages channels and owns Broadcasting Act licences to provide content for its own channels, it considers that it is singled out from cable operators. However, if a cable operator were to own its own channel, it would be treated in precisely the same way as any other licence holder. So it is not the case that there is unfair discrimination to one provider against another.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of economic regulation. I will come to the detailed comments which she made about her amendments. Ofcom does not have a duty to regulate the economics of broadcasting per se. Ofcom has two objectives for regulating broadcasting economics; namely, competition and consumer interests. Intervention, such as economic regulation in pricing and in the packaging of channels made in the interests of consumers, should be treated in the same way in terms of route of appeal as a competition intervention.
For example, Ofcom may wish to intervene in Sky's packaging of channels so that consumers could have more choice of packages without having to buy a lot of unwanted channels as a minimum. I recognise what the noble Baroness is saying that such an intervention would have a significant economic impact on Sky. But the purpose of the intervention would be a subjective question of what represented an acceptable amount of consumer choice.
Ofcom's duty to further the interests of consumers is qualified by the parameter, where appropriate, of promoting competition. It is therefore difficult to see that Ofcom could justify intervening in the packaging of channels in the consumer interest without being able to show that it was not appropriate, via the extended general and sectoral competition powers that Ofcom will have, to resolve the issue by encouraging more competition in the pay TV market. If Sky thought that Ofcom had not properly evaluated these options it could challenge Ofcom under judicial review that it had not used its powers properly.
I turn to the amendments. I am seeking to obtain from the noble Baroness withdrawal of most of the amendments although I have some good news as
1294
regards one amendment. Amendment No. 256 is similar to one which first appeared in another place. It would limit Ofcom's ability to determine the most appropriate route for intervening in a competition matter. The amendment would replace the requirement on Ofcom in Clause 310(2) to choose the,
"more appropriate way of proceeding",
which is the choice between the Competition Act powers and the Broadcasting Act competition powers, with a prohibition on the use of Broadcasting Act competition powers where a matter was "capable" of being dealt with under the Competition Act.
We believe that the "more appropriate" test is in line with the treatment of other regulators with concurrent powers in relation to competition issues. Therefore, we would defend that position as enshrined in the Bill.
This formulation acknowledges that the regulators in a range of sectors, not just communications, are best placed to determine whether to use general competition law or sector-specific competition powers in a given case. We regard that as the entirely correct approach.
Conduct amounting to a breach of a competition rule made under the Broadcasting Act may also constitute a breach of the prohibitions in the Competition Act. However, depending on the circumstances, it may be more appropriate for Ofcom to act under the Broadcasting Act powers. Amendment No. 256 would hinder Ofcom's ability to make that decision.
I think that the noble Baroness would regard Amendment No. 257 as consequential and linked to Amendment No. 256. Therefore, if I am able to persuade her to withdraw Amendment No. 256, I foresee little difficulty with regard to Amendment No. 257.
Amendment No. 255A seeks to broaden the range of powers that Ofcom cannot exercise if its Competition Act powers are more appropriate, and provides for an appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal against the exercise of those powers. As I indicated earlier, we do not agree with this approach. It is unnecessary because sufficient safeguards are provided by Clause 310, as drafted. In particular, subsection (1)(d) ensures that Ofcom has to consider whether it would be more appropriate to proceed under the Competition Act before it decides to enforce an obligation imposed by licence conditions. That would include any obligation arising out of a code of practice or guidance issued by Ofcom to amplify those licence conditions.
Amendments Nos. 258ZA, 258ZB and 258ZC seek to give a route of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal to a wider range of interventions by Ofcom. As I indicated in my more general comments before coming to the specific amendments, we do not think that would be appropriate. The Bill, taken with what will remain of existing legislation, gives Ofcom a wide range of specific functions for the regulation of broadcasting. We do not envisage it relying on general duties in Clause 3 to a substantial extent: it will use the specific powers that we have created.

1295
Where, however, Ofcom decides that it cannot otherwise adequately perform its general duties, it might decide to impose a licence condition that is not otherwise specifically provided for. Where it does so, that intervention will be made in pursuance of a much broader range of public policy reasons than competition alone—involving, for example, furthering the interests of consumers.
We have listened to the concerns about the exercise of Ofcom's Broadcasting Act competition powers and, in particular, that Clause 3 could be used as the basis of conditions amounting to what it terms "economic regulation", without a route of appeal to the CAT. I have sought to make clear the differentiation between the two roles of Ofcom in that respect.
Amendment No. 258ZCA appears to recognise that, in theory, Ofcom could use non-competition powers under Part 3 of the Bill—that is, Clauses 259 to 308 and Clauses 312 to 339—to intervene for a competition purpose. This rightly recognises that such an intervention should have a route of appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal if it was proved that the intervention was for a competition purpose. We entirely agree with this principle which, once again, I sought to emphasise earlier, and have already allowed for this in the Bill.
Amendment No. 285ZD seeks to ensure that Ofcom carries out its functions according to best regulatory practice. We do not disagree with the principle behind this. Indeed, that is the requirement of Articles 6 and 7 of the framework directive; namely, that Ofcom should adopt appropriate, fair and transparent processes for applying its powers. However, we believe that the Bill contains sufficient provisions to ensure that that is delivered. Although such a provision is made in Part 2 as a requirement of implementing the directive, there is no need to repeat the principles here. To do so would require the numerous repetitions of this text throughout Part 3.
We consider that Amendments Nos. 258ZE, 285ZF and 258ZH are unnecessary as we have ensured that provision for Ofcom to review its codes and consult on those reviews is already made in the relevant sections of the legislation. We would maintain that these amendments would therefore create much duplication. I do not see what they would add to the Bill.
Amendment No. 258ZF would require Ofcom to review every licence condition imposed on licensed broadcasters and to consult on that review. That is unnecessary since Ofcom is already under a duty under Clause 6 to review all its functions and remove those burdens that are no longer necessary.
Finally, I come to Amendment No. 258. This amendment seeks to ensure that Ofcom carries out its functions according to best regulatory practice by requiring it to inform any person affected that it has used its Broadcasting Act powers for a competition purpose. Under this amendment such a notification would include informing those affected that they may appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal against the intervention.
1296
We do not disagree with what we take to be the core principle behind this amendment—transparency and fairness of the regulatory process—and we therefore agree to consider further the possibility of tabling a suitable amendment at Report stage. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw that amendment on the basis that we shall act positively in future and that she will not press the other amendments in the light of the response that I have given.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I am smiling to myself because I believe that we are about to discuss amendments which concern the concept of unsuitable versus suitable. I am disappointed that the Minister says that the Government accept the principle behind Amendment No. 258 but clearly it is unsuitable in its current form. However, I am grateful that the Minister assured me that the Government will table a suitable amendment at Report stage that we shall, I hope, be able to support.
I shall not detain the Committee at this late hour. I am clearly disappointed in relation to the Minister's response with regard to Part 3. As I say that, I look firmly towards the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I thank them for their support for what I considered was a reasonable suggestion; namely, that, as stated in the White Paper, an appropriate review procedure within the regulator would look after the interests of those aggrieved by the provisions of Part 3. I urge the Government—I cannot put that strongly enough—to take that point away and reconsider what Members of the Committee including myself have said on that matter.
I depart most strongly from what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said with regard to judicial review in that instance. There are instances where judicial review is entirely appropriate but I believe that in the instance we are discussing it is not appropriate.
I thank the Minister for his extensive reply. There are a number of issues that I shall want to read with care in Hansard. I hope that the Government will bring forward an amendment that we can support. I am pleased that there are a number of principles in relation to other amendments where the Minister feels that there is some consensus. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 256 to 258ZCC not moved.]
Clause 310 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 258ZD not moved.]
Clause 311 [Review of powers exercised for competition purposes]:
[Amendments Nos. 258ZE to 258ZH not moved.]
Clause 311 agreed to.
Clause 312 [OFCOM's standards code]:
[Amendment No. 258A not moved.]
Lord Gordon of Strathblanemoved Amendment No. 259:
Page 275, line 37, leave out "unsuitable" and insert "misleading, harmful or offensive"
The noble Lord said: I rise with some hesitation to speak to this amendment in the presence of the current chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority and in the presence of a former distinguished chairman of the same body.
Clause 312 gives objectives for Ofcom to set in its codes for programmes and advertising. My amendment seeks to replace the word "unsuitable", which appears to be a lovely portmanteau word which has been very popular today, with the terms "misleading, harmful or offensive". The merit that I claim for the words in my amendment is that they have the advantage of being concepts that already form the basis of the current ITC and Radio Authority codes of advertising standards and practice. Continuity and clarity will be very important.
Advertising is fairly well regulated in this country. It is done by a system of pre-clearance in broadcasting, because clearly advertisers do not want to go to the sometimes considerable expense of making an advert only to find that the basic concept will fall foul of the regulator. In television, we have the Broadcasting Advertising Clearance Centre, and in radio, we have the Radio Advertising Clearance Centre. Advertisers can come forward with an idea, clear it informally with the regulator, and go ahead and make the advert. In the case of television, that can be very expensive. In the case of radio, a commercial can be considerably less expensive.
Clearly it is very important that people know what they are taking about. "Misleading, harmful or offensive" are words that they have grown up with over the past 20 years. "Unsuitable" is a portmanteau word that is much wider than that, and will make for a lack of clarity, legal actions right, left and centre, and uncertainty. It is a bad idea, and we would be much better including the words in the amendment. I repeat that. if they were in the Bill, they would give Ofcom exactly the same powers as the ITC has at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I added my name to the amendment because I strongly feel that when Ofcom, under its duties in the Bill, is setting out standards and objectives under Clause 312, those objectives need to he more precisely stated in relation to advertising than the prevention of "unsuitable" advertising under subsection (2)(g).
At the end of the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 25th March, when the problems had been raised by one or two speakers, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that "unsuitable" simply meant that advertising could be unsuitable for certain times or certain audiences, and was similar to the Independent Television Commission's current powers. However,
1298
"unsuitable" is capable of very wide interpretation and, if I may suggest it, misinterpretation. "Misleading, harmful or offensive" are more appropriate and precise words. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane said, they are concepts that are already in the ITC and Radio Authority codes.
I have a special interest as chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, which is the self-regulatory body responsible for non-broadcast advertising. The code of advertising practice that we operate, like the codes of the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, has precise criteria that give the much greater certainty appropriate for a creative business such as advertising than that of "unsuitable".
Furthermore, I should be most concerned if the broadcasting codes incorporated such a catch-all word. Surely we all understand that many advertising campaigns are increasingly run across several different platforms simultaneously. There would be extreme incoherence between broadcast and non-broadcast codes if "unsuitable" were used instead of something more precise, as the excellent amendment suggests.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I strongly support the amendment. I endorse the fact that "unsuitable" is very seriously unsuitable as a tool of advertising regulation. As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, was kind enough to say, I speak from the experience of twice being an advertising regulator, once with the Advertising Standards Authority and once with the IBA. Although the backgrounds were a little different, the job of regulation of advertising was very much the same. I learnt in both roles that self-regulation was a great deal better than statutory regulation, provided that certain conditions can be fulfilled. Those are not necessarily always easy conditions. They were admirably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Currie, the chairman of Ofcom, in a speech to the Advertising Association's annual lunch. One critical condition for any self-regulatory system is that a sanction as fair and effective as possible should be attached to the regulation. In the old days, the ASA and the IBA had that. For that, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said, one needs clear, credible and precise language. The words "misleading", "harmful" and "offensive" are part of the dictionary of advertising regulation and are well held and well understood by those who have to operate them. They have a long history of use. "Unsuitable" is a very vague and inappropriate term to apply to advertising. It is not a good regulatory tool and it is so imprecise that is certainly susceptible to an immense amount of misinterpretation, leading to a great deal of confusion among the various interest groups concerned.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: As deputy chairman of the ITC, I would like to add my support to the amendment. As regulators, we agree that "unsuitable" is too vague and broad. We understand that the industry far prefers the

1299
wording before us. It is clear, unambiguous, effective and easy to administer, so I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I rise briefly to support the amendment. "Unsuitable" is a very vague word. "Misleading, harmful or offensive" can be interpreted in a number of different ways, but they are a little sharper than the vague "unsuitable". "Misleading" is fairly clear. The timing of the broadcast and its audience are the criteria we took into account when I was at the Broadcasting Standards Commission and when we were considering any of the adverts which caused complaints—and there were quite a number of them. If they appeared during children's programmes and might have been perfectly acceptable for a slightly older audience, that was regarded as unacceptable. I am sure that the amendment is an improvement and I willingly support it.
Lord Puttnam: I rise briefly to support the amendment. It is correct. In order to be entirely evenhanded, having attacked the use of the word "suitable" in Amendment No. 207, it seems entirely fair that I also attack the use of the word "unsuitable".
Baroness Buscombe: I rise more briefly than I had proposed to speak to the amendment but only because it has been so eloquently spoken to and supported by a number of noble Lords. My name and that of my noble friend Lord Saatchi have been added to it. We feel very strongly about the amendment. At the risk of some repetition, it may appear a small and inconsequential amendment, but it is regarded by the advertising industry as extremely important. It is surely significant that broadcasters and staff at the existing advertising regulators, the ITC and Radio Authority, also support the amendment.
The Government have not so far supported it. While the issue was briefly debated in Committee in another place and again at Second Reading in your Lordships' House, the reasons given for opposing the amendment have been questioned by the advertising industry again and again. I know that it has remained in touch with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to try and make a difference. The argument that "unsuitable" is needed to give Ofcom the same wide-ranging powers that the ITC had under the 1990 Act is highly spurious. A comparison of the 1990 Act and the 2003 Bill demonstrates that Sections 8 and 9 of the 1990 Act are already separately and individually replicated in various clauses of the Bill—I refer to Clauses 312, 314 and 315. In other words, with or without the word "unsuitable", the Bill already gives Ofcom exactly the same powers as the ITC was given by the 1990 Act.
The advertising industry believes that this is an important issue; the word "unsuitable" goes much further than existing regulatory powers. It is vague and inappropriate wording to apply to advertising and is not a good regulatory tool. The fact that it is so sweeping and imprecise a word means that it is capable of misinterpretation by interest groups in future. In contrast, as noble Lords have already said,
1300
"misleading, harmful or offensive" have the advantage of being concepts that already form the basis of the current ITC and radio authority codes.
I have an interest in this regard. It is a very outdated interest but I was involved in the advertising industry back in the 1980s. The words "misleading, harmful and offensive" were well known and understood by everyone then, so why change it? It "ain't broke", so why try and fix it? I have been waiting a long time to declare a vested interest, albeit an outdated one, to join so many other noble Lords who have already done so. We urge the Government to support the amendment. It is important to the industry. If we do not receive a satisfactory reply this evening, we will return to the issue on Report, divide on it and win.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was somewhat dismissive of the response of the Minister in another place when he defended the position in the Bill because the drafting was designed to maintain the current wide scope of protection provided by the Broadcasting Act 1990, which, I stress to the Committee, contains no qualification limiting the scope of the code governing standards and practice in advertising.
I listened carefully to all contributions to this short debate, not least because it was moved so forcefully by my noble friend. No one made any comment on the nature of broadcasting and the concept of the watershed. The noble Lord. Lord Borrie, indicated that such advertising campaigns go across a range of media. Broadcasting has a specific consideration to take into account: a particular target audience and a particular time of the day at which audiences are influenced and open to—
Lord Borrie: I do not like to interrupt the noble Lord but the phrase in Clause 312(2)(g) is very broad. It refers to,
"the inclusion of unsuitable advertising in television and radio services".
Surely that means not just matters relating to timing and audience but the words and images presented by the advertising.
Lord Davies of Oldham: Of course the phrase is broad. It must be broad so that control of broadcasting can take account of different times of the day and different audiences who are being approached by the advertisers.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I apologise for interrupting again so quickly. is the Minister suggesting that the present legislation, which does not contain the word "unsuitable" but merely goes for the words for which I am seeking, is somehow deficient? How have we got by for the past 20 years?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am arguing that we need some breadth to the position. Limitations are being identified and words and concepts that give some precision are being specified. I recognise the value of precision. I stress that the problem with regard to the

1301
Bill is that it deals with the media. For example, the concept "harmful" might apply quite strongly at certain times of the day with a very young audience but have no application at all at 11.30 p.m. when only adults are watching.
So what the Minister said in another place, and what we are defending in the Bill at the present time, is that there is a proper reason for retaining the concept of "unsuitable". It gives a breadth, which I recognise that my noble friends object to, which improves the position. That is against the background that the codes will be established on the basis of the fullest consultation with those affected in the industry. No one is suggesting that the concepts will be handed down as the laws of the Medes and the Persians. In fact they will be working codes on the basis of consultation. I am merely indicating that the underlying concept that we work into the Bill should have some breadth to it. That is why the phrase "unsuitable" is used. It is broader than the concepts that my noble friend seeks to introduce with his amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to question what he said. In my reply I clearly indicated the differing times of the day when advertisements would be shown—I meant, without spelling it out, the watershed. The words "harmful or offensive" are clearer than "unsuitable". They are more specific, and even though both of them are interpreted in the eye of the beholder, it is the circumstances in which they are interpreted, I would have thought, that is what matters, with the greatest respect. "Unsuitable" is pretty vague.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness has merely emphasised the nub of the discussion. I object to my noble friend's amendment, which introduces wording that is more specific in terms of how the codes would operate. I am seeking greater breadth, because I believe that broadcasting has different obligations from other advertising media. We have had breadth with regard to the way in which broadcasting has been controlled since the 1990 Act, when the three concepts were built into the Act. We are merely sustaining the position that we ought to have that breadth as the basis for the codes that will control advertising for broadcasting, because of the different nature of broadcasting and the different audiences at which it is targeted at different times of the day. That is the basis of the Government's contention.
I hear that I am far from persuading both my noble friends and other contributors to this debate. However, let me make the obvious point—it is not for me to judge what should or should not be allowed, but it is right that the advertising codes are developed like the general standards code to reflect public attitudes as to what is acceptable in the specific medium of broadcasting. The Bill is concerned with the broadcasting media and it is a specific aspect that we need to deal with. So I hear what my noble friend has said, but I ask him to reflect on the issues. We are at Committee stage. I recognise that there are later stages
1302
of the Bill, but we regard the position adopted by my honourable friend in another place, which I am seeking to sustain today, as the best means of providing the necessary protection for broadcasting, which is different from advertising in other media.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the Minister for his reply. At the lateness of the hour I am in danger of becoming short-tempered. I am extremely disappointed that on yet another matter on which every single speaker representing a wide range of interests, and every possible body that Ofcom would consult with, expresses one view. The Government opt obdurately for another and cling to a rather poor defence put up by the Minister in another place.
However, it would be wrong to press the amendment at this stage and I shall not do so. We are taking a long time in Committee and we shall take even longer on Report if we are to have Divisions on amendment after amendment which the Government have refused to accept at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 260:
Page 276, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) Before drawing up or revising the codes, OFCOM shall have regard to the extent to which matters they arc required to secure under this section are, or may be, secured by effective self-regulation; and, in the light of that, to consider to what extent it would be appropriate not to draw up, modify or withdraw a code under this section.
( ) In determining for the purposes of this section whether procedures for self-regulation are effective, OFCOM may take account not only of self-regulation independent of those to whom it applies, but also of the extent to which the matters to be secured under this section are being, and are likely to be, secured without the further imposition of a code."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 260, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 261.
Subsection (3) of Clause 312 requires that:
"The standards set by OFCOM under this section must be contained in one or more codes".
The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear that as regards its codes Ofcom has the option of, first, drawing up or revising its own codes; secondly, contracting them out to an effective self-regulatory system, as Ofcom may do with any of its functions under Clauses 1(7) and 6(2); or, thirdly, reviewing the possibility of removing or reducing regulatory burdens under Clause 6(1) where they are no longer necessary.
Both contracting out and the explicit duty to review and reduce regulatory burdens where possible are an important change of regulatory approach and it would be helpful to make both principles explicit in relation to Clause 312.
A similar amendment was proposed by my honourable friend Andrew Lansley during the Commons Committee stage. In the discussions in Grand Committee Eon 28th January (at col. 785 of the Official Report), he said that it was important to clarify not only that Ofcom could contract out codes for self-regulation, but to require that Ofcom keep the scope

1303
of its codes under consideration. The Minister in his response was not entirely clear that the ownership of codes could be contracted out to self-regulatory bodies, but unless this is achieved—with Ofcom retaining backstop powers—there is little meaning to the "self' in "self-regulation".
By way of example, as has already been mentioned in previous debates, an Advertising Association task force representing broadcasters and the advertising business has recently put forward a proposal to Ofcom to contract out broadcasting advertising to a self-regulatory system, using the tried and tested model of the Advertising Standards Authority.
One of the objectives of the advertising industry in so doing is to address the challenges of media convergence which will increasingly reduce the rationale for entirely separate systems of advertising regulation—self-regulation for non-broadcast advertising and statutory regulation for broadcast advertising. Another objective is to provide consumers with a one-stop shop for complaints about advertising across all media.
Part of the proposal is that Ofcom should contract out to an agreed self-regulatory system the ownership of the broadcast advertising codes. Again, this is modelled on the much-respected ASA/CAP system for non-broadcast advertising in which CAP—the industry Committee of Advertising Practice—owns, administers and enforces the codes. Unlike the current self-regulatory system for non-broadcast advertising, the proposal envisages that Ofcom would have to approve any code changes as it is recognised that, in accordance with the Bill, a co-regulatory relationship with Ofcom would exist.
This amendment would make it clear that codes could be contracted out. The second part of the amendment reinforces the principle of Clause 6(1) which requires Ofcom to review regulatory burdens and lift them where appropriate.
Clause 317 sets out Ofcom's duties in relation to the publication of, and consultation on, draft codes. Amendment No. 261 replaces "after publishing" the draft code in line 14, subsection (3) with "in the preparation of any" code, Ofcom must consult. The purpose of the amendment is not, as the Minister, Dr Kim Howells, in another place assumed during Commons Committee stage on 28th January, to place difficulties in the way of Ofcom acting expeditiously to undertake its regulatory functions, but instead to reflect recent regulatory working practices and to ensure maximum transparency.
We do not think this places a statutory obligation on Ofcom to go through two stages of consultation before setting standards, as suggested by the Minister, Dr Kim Howells. It just creates maximum flexibility, allowing Ofcom to take soundings as it develops its thinking.
There is some concern in the advertising industry that the current wording of subsection (3)—
"after publishing the draft code"—
1304
could reverse the transparency that has been introduced in recent years; for example, at the ITC. Previously the advertising business found that, unlike broadcast licensees, it was rarely alerted to the likelihood of a code being changed until the draft code was published. By then it was difficult to change views, which meant that advertisers were no more than passive spectators, a position they found unreasonable since without their funding commercial broadcasting would not exist.
It is important to ensure that Ofcom works transparently in relation to the advertising industry as well as its licensees by involving this sector in formal and informal discussions about codes at all stages, rather than only giving this sector the opportunity to comment at the formal consultation stage when views are already set out on the overall direction to be taken. The purpose of this amendment is therefore to establish that the advertising sector would be party, like licensees, to the ongoing discussions which regulators have as a matter of course with the various parts of the industry and with consumer groups. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government want standards to be maintained in television and radio that ensure citizens are protected from harm. The Bill secures this protection by ensuring that Ofcom is properly charged with maintaining standards. This is among its general duties in Clause 3. Then there are specific responsibilities in the Bill, notably at Clause 312, which provide for Ofcom to ensure that there are codes for content standards. These are underpinned by high-level principles in the Bill and backed by sanctions.
We consider that Amendment No. 260 is unnecessary in encouraging Ofcom to operate through self-regulatory systems where those will effectively deliver the protections required. Ofcom is already encouraged to do that by way of Clause 6. The amendment also seems aimed at allowing regulation without any code. Whether Ofcom itself draws up a code, or, for example, endorses an industry code which achieves the required result, I find it hard to imagine an effective system that does not have a code of some kind telling broadcasters what they can or cannot do. Codes are a fundamental part of the regulatory structure for broadcasting and are almost infinitely malleable. They can be very detailed or very high level. But a code of some kind. backed up by sanctions, is an effective means to securing transparent regulation.
I am disappointed by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on Amendment No. 261. This issue was addressed in another place and we had thought that the Opposition seemed to be reasonably satisfied with our response. The Government maintain that Ofcom is required to consult on its draft code. It is not precluded from taking soundings prior to drafting the code and I expect it would want to do so. A change in that code may be proposed as a result of it becoming apparent from a number of sources over a number of years that a change might be needed. That can all continue to happen.

1305
However, the formal consultation is best undertaken on a draft code. Many consultees would find it difficult to form a view in the abstract and a draft code is the best way of stimulating debate, both on the principles and on the detail of their proposed implementation. A statutory requirement for a two-stage process of consultation would work directly contrary to the aims of efficient and effective regulation which we are aiming for.
As I indicated, we hoped that we had succeeded in making this case in the other place. I hope that on mature consideration the noble Baroness may feel that she can accept the case on this occasion and is prepared to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I shall not say much more than that at this late hour. In some ways I am disappointed by what he has said. I will read with care what he has to say in Hansard but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 312 agreed to.
Clause 313 agreed to.
Clause 314 [Objectives for advertisements and sponsorship]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 260A and 260B:
Page 278, line 44, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 46 and insert—
"(7) Provision included by virtue of this section in standards set under section 312 is not to apply to, or to be construed as prohibiting"
Page 279, line 1, leave out from "political" to "paragraph" in line 5 and insert "or referendum campaign broadcast the inclusion of which is required by a condition imposed under section 326 or by"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 314, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 315 and 316 agreed to.
Clause 317 [Setting and publication of standards]:
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
Clause 317 agreed to.
Clauses 318 to 325 agreed to.
Clause 326 [Party political broadcasts]:
Lord Lipseymoved Amendment No. 262:
Page 287, line 20, at end insert—
"(1A) The regulatory regime for every television licensable content service licence and every radio licensable content service licence shall include—

(a) conditions requiring the inclusion in that service of party political broadcasts and of referendum campaign broadcasts, if so prescribed under this section; and

(b) conditions requiring that licence holder to observe such rules with respect to party political broadcasts and referendum campaign broadcasts as may be made by OFCOM."

1306
The noble Lord said: To detain the Committee at this hour of the morning, it has to be good. This is an important matter and I am grateful to those noble Lords who put their names to this clutch of amendments referring to party political broadcasts.
It is barely an exaggeration to say that a sword of Damocles hangs over us in this matter, not only on the Bill but about something even more important; that is, the integrity of our political system. I believe that most noble Lords would agree that one of the great advantages of our system over some others, in particular the American system, is the fact that it does not allow paid advertising by political parties. That is the crucial fact that makes our politics affordable, stops us becoming not a democracy so much as a plutocracy, and keeps corruption at bay. In the United States of America there would be nothing more popular than that among everyone except politicians and those who fund them.
The problem that we have is signalled on the front of the Bill where my noble friend Lady Blackstone has had to state,
"I am unable (but only because of clause 314) to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Communications Bill are compatible with the Convention rights".
The fear is that because we do not permit political advertising, that will be seen under the European Convention to be a breach. The case I make is set out in considerable detail and very well by the Electoral Commission in its publication entitled Party Political Broadcasting (the Electoral Commission 2003). The core of the argument is that our best defence for the human rights court is that we have a perfectly good, robust, established system of party political broadcasts which enables substantial minorities to have their say and therefore does not require paid advertising.
I have been connected with the system of party political broadcasting for some time. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, looks at me. He and I were responsible for some of the Labour Party's greatest party politicals. In those days Ministers often spoke straight to camera but things have moved on.
The point here is that this is a very ramshackle system. There is not a proper process. There is no real way to determine who gets what. At the end of the day, the broadcasters decide and you either grumble or take them to court. There is inadequate consultation. It is a mess. That will no longer do if we are trying to set this up as a system that is a defence in front of the European Court. I do not want to go seriatim through the amendments, which speak for themselves. Broadly speaking, we want to have Ofcom set up a system for party politicals under an independent chair which can bring order to this chaos. We want to extend its remit in this regard only to the BBC and S4C. We want to encapsulate in legislation, rather than as something that is just done by ad hoc negotiation, the entitlement of parties to party political broadcasts based on objective criteria. And we want Ofcom to be able to extend PPBs to other broadcasters if in time they become more important.

1307
Those are the amendments in a nutshell. I very much hope that Ministers will have something positive to say about them, sooner rather than later. There is a case that they have come in rather late in the Bill's progress, and perhaps it will take rather longer before the Government are ready to legislate them into effect. But we need words of comfort; otherwise, we shall leave the Bill only with the very uncomfortable words of my noble friend, Lady Blackstone, on the front page of the Bill and with nothing to assure us that the threat which I perceive, and which the Electoral Commission in its wisdom takes very seriously, will not materialise.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to which my name and that of my noble friend, Lady Wilcox, have been added.
The amendments largely reflect the recommendations of the Electoral Commission's report published in January 2003. As the Bill stands, as the noble Lord said, the ban on political advertising is maintained, reflecting the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, a policy which we support.
The reasoning behind the ban is simple. If the prohibition was removed and political parties were permitted to pay for advertising through the broadcast media, only the wealthiest candidates with access to financial resources would be able to advertise frequently. Other smaller or less affluent parties would fail to secure the necessary media coverage to participate fully in the democratic process. This is contrary to the interests of the electorate; success would be judged on pecuniary advantage alone. Furthermore, it would be impossible to maintain a balance between each political party and the level of media coverage it enjoyed individually.
I believe that the amendments are pretty much identical to those tabled by my honourable friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, Andrew Lansley, in another place. I am pleased that the noble Lord has put them down for us to debate in the Committee.
Lord McNally: We are perhaps fortunate that the amendment is coming up at this time of night. I can imagine that if it had come up early in the day, with the Chamber full and everybody feeling fresh and bushy-tailed, we could have had a good couple of hours on party political broadcasts.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, some of us go back a long time on this matter. I still wake up in cold sweats having been a young, junior official accompanying George Brown to the BBC's studios to be told that we had only two takes to get the broadcasts right and trying to convince George that he had to stick to the script.
The noble Lord is quite right. When we consider the time and energy we have in recent times put into legislation to try to put a cap on party political spending, we can see that to allow this backdoor blast below the waterline would be very dangerous. We have only to look at the United States to see the dangers. I
1308
do not want to go any further than the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, hut, to borrow a phrase, it is a real and present danger to our democracy if we are left unprotected in this matter.
The party politicals may not be the most loved of television broadcasts, but they are infinitely preferable to bought advertising by politicians and political organisations. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some words of comfort.
Baroness Blackstone: The Government propose to resist the amendments. not because we necessarily object to all of them, but because we intend to consult on our response to the Electoral Commission recommendations and to bring forward proposals that take account of its report. Members of the Committee will be aware of the commission's report Voting for Change, which brings together recommendations from a number of its reviews, including that on party political broadcasts. The Government will seek views on PPBs shortly so that we are in a position to introduce any necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows in conjunction with other changes in electoral law.
I am aware that deliberation about the future arrangements of PPBs has already been extensive. The commission published a wide-ranging discussion paper in December 2001. A consultation paper was published in June 2002 and the commission's final report in January 2003. By then, the extensive consultation on the Communications Bill had been completed and it was already in Committee in the House of Commons. We do not believe it right to accept the principles and to seek to implement them without putting forward the Government's own proposals for comment and proper scrutiny.
The amendments would give Ofcom much discretion on the allocation of PPBs as well as establishing certain criteria for that allocation. That may or may not be the right way forward, but it is right that stakeholders and Parliament are given an opportunity to consider the issues more fully before we give Ofcom such powers.
Notably, some of the commission's recommendations refer to the need to ensure that the PPB arrangements provided for in the Communications Bill comply with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention. The Government do not share the commission's view about the supposed deficiencies of the Bill. if we did, that would have been evident from the statement that I laid before the House under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act. So those changes may be unnecessary.
On the other hand, the Government fully support the commission's intention to involve a much wider audience with the democratic process. It suggests that one way of doing that is to extend the PPB obligations to all broadcasters. That is a programme on which we will welcome views and supportive evidence, with some assessment of the costs and benefits to political parties, broadcasters and the public. It may be a proposal that we will want to take forward. but we

1309
need to assess the evidence on the implications. There is no immediate urgency, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey implied, given that the terrestrial channels that already have PPB obligations retain nearly 80 per cent of the audience share. As the Electoral Commission states, it is better to get it right than to fail through haste.
The Government will seek views so that we are in a position to introduce any necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, along with other changes to electoral law. In the light of that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lipsey: I thank the Minister for that reply. The consultation process for PPBs is chaotic. It would be foolish to cavil at the perfectly sensible process of carrying it forward with the full consultation that the Minister has set out. I am delighted by the tone of her response and the fact that the Government are so awake to the need to do something here. The Minister has set a very good example for the consideration of the rest of the Bill. I thank her very much and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 263 to 265 not moved.]
Clause 326 agreed to.
Clause 327 [Retention and production of recordings]:
[Amendments Nos. 266 to 267 not moved.]
Clause 327 agreed to.
Clause 328 agreed to.
Clause 329 [Government requirements for licensed services]:
[Amendment No. 268 not moved.]
Lord McNallymoved Amendment No. 269:
Page 289, line 10, after "functions," insert "and to be necessary on grounds of national security or for the safety of the public,"
The noble Lord said: The basis of the amendment is to take account of evidence that the pre-legislative scrutiny committee received that the powers to constrain broadcast content should be limited on the face of the Bill to those of national security or public safety. The amendment proposes that that restriction on government and ministerial powers to censor broadcasts should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker: As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which also came to the same conclusions, I should just like to say that, unamended, these clauses are an assault on the right to freedom of expression and it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to circumscribe their own powers in the way that the amendment does.
Baroness Buscombe: I support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad that Amendment No. 268 was not moved; I could not understand it.
1310
Amendments Nos. 269 and 270 seek to limit the grounds on which Ministers can direct broadcasters to carry an announcement or to refrain from broadcasting specified material. These powers have existed since the beginning of broadcasting. The examples that I have go back to 1927 and they have been only rarely used. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that the grounds on which the power could be used should be specified on the face of the legislation. The committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, agreed with that.
We have considered the matter very carefully in the light of all the comments made. We take our human rights responsibilities very seriously. But we remain of the view that it would not be wise to delimit the power in the way proposed.
Let me explain. What we have discovered in research is that there have been a number of occasions on which these powers have been used over the past three-quarters of a century. On some occasions the restrictions which have been imposed by the Secretary of State have been included in the BBC agreement. On some occasions they have been patently absurd in modern terms and they have been withdrawn. We have decided to write to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to set out the whole history on that point; and I hope that that will be done within the next few days.
The difficulty is that the amendments restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to matters of national security or the safety of the public whereas in fact the European Convention on Human Rights is much more widespread. It states:
"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary".
It is clear that that is a much wider protection than that provided by the amendments. I can give the Committee the absolute assurance that since the passage of the Human Rights Act, Ministers, and the Secretary of State as referred to in the amendments and in this part of the Bill, are constrained by the Human Rights Act and by the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, the protection of human rights which is provided by the Bill and by the constraints on Ministers by the European convention are wider than those provided in the amendments. On that basis, I hope that Amendment No. 269 will not be pressed.
12.30 a.m.
Lord McNally: Clearly the amendments will not be pressed this evening. What the Minister said is so significant that I should like to read it in Hansard and compare it with the amendment before looking at the issue again at Report stage. At the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 270 not moved.]
Clause 329 agreed to.
Clause 330 [Promotion of equal opportunities and training]:
[Amendment No. 270A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 270AA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 270B to 271A not moved.]
Clause 330 agreed to.
Clause 331 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Corresponding obligations of the BBC and Welsh Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 272 to 276 not moved.]
Lord Crickhowellmoved Amendment No. 277:
Page 404. line 25, at end insert—
"(5A)No order may be made under sub-paragraph (5) modifying sub-paragraph (2) unless the order relates to a conclusion contained in a report published under section 332(6)."
The noble Lord said: I am not grateful to the Government for giving me the last amendment of the evening to move, but I am grateful to them for deciding not to take two very important sets of amendments at this hour in the middle of the night. I add only one other comment in that connection. I hope that we shall not make a general practice of sitting long after 10 o'clock, which is what the House decided in its wisdom and after proper debate earlier in the year. However, in the light of the circumstances tonight, sensible arrangements have been made and I, for one, am grateful for that.
I can be quite brief. This is a very simple amendment which takes up a recommendation of the Joint Committee to connect this sub-paragraph with what is now Clause 332(6). The amendment draws attention to the fact that the Secretary of State may by order alter the public service remit of S4C, but the earlier Clause 332(6) gives the Secretary of State the right to review the performance of the Welsh Authority in dealing with these matters and then to produce a report.
It seems strange to have a clause that allows the Secretary of State to produce a change in the remit without requiring a reference to the publication of the previous report. My amendment seeks to bring those two matters together.
Baroness Buscombe: We support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord McNally: As do we.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The point has been made that the amendment is intended to bring the Secretary of State's power to amend S4C's public
1312
service remit into line with her order-making powers relating to the remits of the other public service channels laid out in Clause 267. We feel that this is to pursue the wrong analogy. The correct analogy is with the BBC. Like the BBC, S4C is both a public service broadcaster and an independent broadcasting authority funded by government grant. It is therefore quite different from the other licensed public service broadcasters referred to in Clause 267. Just as for the BBC, we do not consider it appropriate to link in the legislation a former review mechanism to any change to the remit. As we said when the pre-legislative scrutiny committee first recommended the change, an amendment to the remit may arise from a range of factors—not least a request from the authority itself.
If the concern behind the amendment is that the Secretary of State has too much power, under Schedule 12(3)(8) no change to the remit can be made without the approval of both Houses.
The review in Clause :332 is essentially permissive. It may happen but it does not have to happen. If it does not happen, any subsequent review must be at least five years later, if at all. It is very much a backstop power for the Secretary of State.
The reviews under Clause 260, by contrast, will include an examination of the fulfilment of S4C's public service remit. They will be presented to the Secretary of State and must happen at least every five years—more frequently if Ofcom believes that is appropriate or necessary.
I hope that the Committee feels reassured that S4C's remit will be changed only as a result of appropriate consultation. The Government believe that it is better to recognise the status of S4C that way, so I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: For once, I do not intend to say that I want to consider the Minister's reply carefully and might want to return to the matter. On this occasion, the noble Lord has given a convincing and reassuring explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 not moved]
Schedule 12 agreed to. Clauses 332 to 338 agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to. Clause 339 agreed to.
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before one o'clock.

Official Report of the GrandCommittee on the

  Extradition Bill
  (First Day)
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords 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 the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
  I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
  Title postponed.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 1:
  Before Clause I, insert the following new clause—
  "PURPOSE OF THIS ACT
  The purpose of this Act is to make provision about extradition and to give effect to the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002, on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States."
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 would introduce a new purpose clause and, in doing so, make clearer what the Government intend by the proposals in the Bill.
  I do not wish to plunge the Committee into a heated debate about the rights and wrongs of the process by which we signed up to the framework decision, the degree of scrutiny that it received or the subsequent obligation on our national Parliament to abide by the decision. Those concerns were expressed by many noble Lords—some did so with considerable vehemence—at Second Reading. In his letter to us dated 12th May, the Minister kindly answered some of those points by saying:
  GC 118
  "Let me make it quite clear that if Parliament amends the Bill in such a way as to make it incompatible with the Framework Decision—though I hope it won't—it will be the Bill as enacted by Parliament and not the Framework Decision that will govern how our extradition system operates".
  I shall set the amendment in context by briefly reiterating the Conservative Party's overall position on the Bill. First, we agree that our extradition procedures need improving. There are too many opportunities for delay by the malevolent. However, secondly and importantly, we do not think that Part of the Bill is necessary to achieve that. The changes proposed in Part 2 will achieve a sufficient speeding-up of the extradition process. Most importantly, they will achieve it without the reduction in the safeguards for the liberty of UK citizens that is implicit in an acceptance of the proposals in Part 1. Thirdly and finally, we understand that there is considerable public concern about terrorism, post-Twin Towers, post-Bali, post-Iraq and post-Morocco, and we can see arguments for Part 1, if it were to be restricted to terrorism alone. That is our broad position—away with Part 1.
  I am aware that that approach has not—so far, at least—commended itself to the Government. However, if there is to be a Part 1, we should, at least, be open about it and about its consequences for every citizen in the United Kingdom. The Government are not being candid: they are being coy. In his opening speech at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, rightly reminded us that,
  "Extradition is a classic balancing act. The rights and protections to those who are the subject of extradition requests must be set against the needs of society and of victims of crime to see justice done and done swiftly and effectively".—[Official Report, 1/5/03; col. 858.]
  No one could disagree with those sentiments, but the Minister did not then examine in detail what was in the scales of that balance. On the one side, in the last year for which records are available—2000—there were 47 extraditions and only 78 requests. On the other side—the down side—there is, as many noble Lords pointed out at Second Reading, a significant diminution of the safeguards available to the 55 million people who live in the UK.
  The point of proposing the new purpose clause is to make the Government lay their cards on the table about what is intended in the Bill. What is called the Long Title of the Bill is, ironically and erroneously, short. Before us, we have a Bill to "make provision about extradition". At Second Reading, the Minister spoke about the cumbersome and convoluted extradition procedures currently employed in this country. He spoke about delays and about appeals that cost the taxpayer money and allowed criminals to evade justice.
  However, it would be misleading—to put it no higher—to present the Bill merely as a tool to speed up the extradition process and make it more efficient. In the implementation of the European arrest warrant, we have a fundamental change in the way in which we conduct extradition. We are relinquishing many of the key safeguards enshrined in our criminal justice system.

  GC 119
  The Bill refers rather nonchalantly to Part 1 and Part 2 warrants, and it is not until Clause 63 that we learn about the celebrated—or infamous, depending on one's point of view—European framework list, with its 32 generic offences. Although Part 2 makes provision for improved extradition, Part 1 has an altogether different aim. Paragraph 5 of the preamble to the framework decision states:
  "The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing"—
  "abolishing", my Lords—
  "extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender"—
  "surrender", my Lords—
  "between judicial authorities".
  The reality is that the European arrest warrant is one step in the process of abolishing extradition altogether. It is strange, then, that we do not hear of the framework decision until Clause 63, and stranger still that there is no mention of that aspect in the purpose clause. The Government seem to be trying to pass it all off as the simplification of a complicated extradition process, although the actual aim is to abolish extradition and replace it with surrender for category 1 countries.
  For that reason, I tried to amend the title to reflect the reality of the changes proposed in the Bill. My original idea was that we should have a new title: "The Surrender and Extradition Bill". Unfortunately for me, the kind members of staff of the Public Bill Office informed me that the title of the Bill could be changed only if the substance of the Bill were altered. Nor was I allowed to amend the existing purpose clause. Presumably, there is something undesirably contradictory about a Bill that makes provision for new extradition procedures, on the one hand, but aims, on the other hand, to abolish extradition and replace it with surrender.
  I need not labour the point that the concept of surrender is the fundamental change. Surrender is the final goal envisaged in paragraph 5 of the preamble to the framework decision, implemented in Part 1 of the Bill. The European arrest warrant is the first step towards achieving that goal. Having been stumped in my attempts to enshrine the change in the title or in the existing purpose clause, I opted for another purpose clause that had the advantage of setting out from the start and on the face of the Bill the fact that the law makes fundamental changes to our extradition procedures, in line with the Council framework decision.
  No doubt, the briefing notes elegantly prepared by officials for the Minister could have words to the effect that the amendment reflected the reality of Government policy and should be accepted. Somehow, I doubt that they will. Why? Because the Government are scared of the word "surrender". The use of the word "surrender" will highlight to our fellow citizens the fact that some important changes are afoot. The Government will use every endeavour to
  GC 120
  keep the word "surrender" out of the Bill, so as to make it easier to slide the significant consequences of the Bill past the country.
  In truth, the amendment is innocuous. The Government should not be shy of admitting the role that the framework decision plays in the proposed changes to our extradition procedures that are laid out in the Bill. I beg to move.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for opening with an interesting and, in a sense, challenging amendment. I can summarise my response by saying that the concerns set out in the noble Lord's speech were so far from our mind that we failed to spot that the word "surrender" was the central thrust of his concern. In short, the Bill does not abolish extradition between EU member states. Extradition is the process by which one country sends a warranted fugitive back to another country after due process. That is precisely what Part 1 does. I draw to the Committee's attention the Long Title of the Bill. It states unequivocally that it is a Bill to "make provision about extradition". There we have it: that is the purpose of the Bill.
  I appreciate that the new clause appears to go further than the Long Title and specifies that the Bill is also designed to give effect to the European arrest warrant. The Bill already makes that explicitly clear. In defining extradition offences for the purposes of Part 1, Clauses 63 to 65 refer to the framework decision. This is the implementing part for the European arrest warrant being executed in this country. Clause 142 makes a similar reference, which effectively implements the framework decision for warrants issued in this country to be transmitted elsewhere. There is also an interpretative provision in Part 5 at Clause 203(7), which gives the full title of the framework decision. There is no mystery or secret there.
  The new clause refers to the Bill being about extradition, as well as implementation of the EAW. Part 2 is concerned with extradition to non-EU countries and sets out clearly the procedures to apply. Therefore, I failed to see what the new clause might add to the Bill. It occurred to me, however, that the intention behind the amendment was that the Bill should be restricted to those purposes. Again, I do not think that there is any cause for dispute on that. The Bill is clearly concerned with extradition and with nothing else. If there was anxiety that it might have been intended that the Bill should be used incrementally to add on other things or as part of a process of creep, I can say that it is a single purpose Bill. The brevity of the Long Title attests to that.
  There are, inevitably, transitional or related provisions that must be made. We have provisions to extend the presumption in favour of bail in Clause 193; to apply legal aid in Clauses 184 to 186; to clarify police powers in various provisions in Part 4; and so forth. All of those are clearly defined in the extradition context and in that context only.

  GC 121
  We shall, in due course, come to the transitional provisions concerning requests issued prior to January 2004, which is when the European arrest warrant will come into effect. They are requests that are currently on the Schengen Information System being operated by other member states in the EU, and we will need the capacity to deal with them when the UK becomes a party to the system in 2004. Such requests can be made only on the basis of a pre-existing domestic arrest warrant issued by a judicial authority and would normally require the permission of that authority to be placed on the system. As we have explained, that is a limited short-term measure to put beyond doubt any question that such warrants are in some way less valid than one issued after 1st January 2004. In any event, the potential for challenge will not affect warrants issued once the European arrest warrant has come into effect, which is why the provision has such limited application. However, it was clear from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, when speaking to his amendment, that that was the central thrust of his argument. Nevertheless, it is now on the record, should that be of help.
  I am not certain that I will necessarily have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on these matters because, in a sense, the position of the Government is clear. It is not that this is a part of a dreadful process of creep towards corpus juris, but that we need an effective system of extradition if we are to fight international crime. The Bill does that. It is why we regard the legislation as necessary and important. For those reasons. I hope that I have been able to help in part, if not in full.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I want to ask my noble friend at the Dispatch Box whether I heard him right. He said that he failed to see what might be added to the Bill by Amendment No. 1. I repeat, did I hear him right in that? Although the amendment lacks merit in certain respects, for some of us it does make things clear. First, if it were added to the Bill, it would make it clear that Part 1 is not primarily concerned with terrorism. Of course Part 1 is not primarily about terrorism, it goes back to a long time before September 11th. One can date it from 1999. I know that while the Government like to link that development with the whole debate on corpus juris—I hope that Members of the Committee will not be detained too long on those debates—this is a project that goes back to the origins of the European arrest warrant.
  Does not the Minister agree with one point rightly made by the noble Lord in moving his amendment; namely, that the objectives set for the Union, presumably to which the Government subscribe—this legislation is instrumental in securing our agreement to the framework decision—are leading to the abolition of extradition and replacing it with a system of surrender? It is perhaps permissible to consider that the very abbreviated Long Title to the Bill is even somewhat misleading when it states "Make provision about extradition". The Bill makes very necessary provisions on extradition proceedings. Anything I may say in this
  GC 122
  Committee or elsewhere should not be taken as expressing anything other than my support for updating the law on extradition. However, as is required by the framework decision, Part I introduces a system of surrender. It does so, quite naturally, by amending the law which has governed extradition procedures in this country. Therefore the amendment before us adds to our understanding of the Bill which, on first reading of the Long Title, might remain obscure.
  Whether the wording of the amendment could be improved is another matter. I had expected my noble friend to say something about the wording, but again that is another matter. However, its thrust exposes the fact that the Long Title is missing something that could be added at the outset. Of course I am experienced enough to know that many complications arise when seeking to amend the Long Title of a Bill. Nevertheless, while the Bill concerns extradition, Part 1 especially seeks to give effect to the framework decision about the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures which are explicitly stated in that decision to be the object of the Union.
  I must apologise to noble Lords because I shall have to leave the Committee proceedings before they finish this evening. However, I should make it clear at the outset that I speak on this matter for one main reason: any amendments I move or speak to will have one primary aim; that is, to defend the human rights of ordinary people. Part 1 raises questions for noble Lords to consider and I hope that those rights will be the thrust of the debates on particular matters. Therefore to declare, "This is what the Bill is all about", has more merit than has been given to it by my noble friend at the Dispatch Box, who said that he failed to see what it could add.
  Lord Filkin: I do not think there is much that I can add to what I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, apart from agreeing with my noble friend Lord Wedderburn that the Bill is not concerned primarily with terrorism, it is about extradition. The Bill is not about the abolition of extradition. As I have already explained, Clauses 63 and 65 make it clear that the legislation will not abolish extradition. However, the last thing I wish to do during what is obviously a preparatory discussion is to enter into an area of controversy on an issue which appears to he in the nature of a perfectly legitimate probing amendment seeking to mark certain political points.
  For the reasons I have explained, I genuinely believe that the Long Title is appropriate for its purpose. Furthermore, the framework decision does not use the term "surrender" but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, indicated in the extract of my letter he read out, once enacted, this Bill will govern our extradition procedures. Part I will put in place extradition arrangements which involve due process as a consequence. I shall not trouble the Committee by going further than that at this point.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I wish to intervene briefly. First, I express my pleasure at the fact that, in his first response, the Minister did not indicate any

  GC 123
  objection in principle to a purpose clause. It is helpful to include a purpose clause in what is a complex Bill. Furthermore, the trend in legislation is to try to make it more user-friendly and easily understood. I was glad therefore that the Minister did not evince any objection to the principle. I think that the purpose clause which forms the subject of this amendment fulfils those purposes very well.
  I have four or five brief questions to which I would be grateful if the Minister could respond. First, is not the framework document which derives from the Tampere meeting absolutely critical to our extradition arrangements? The answer to that has to be "yes". Secondly, does it not introduce a detailed system of surrender? Again, the only answer to that question would be "yes". Thirdly, does it not need to be implemented into our domestic law in order that our obligations under Tampere and the framework document are fulfilled? My last but one question is: does not the Bill achieve just that? If not, what else does it achieve?
  The noble Lord will be relieved to hear that the question was in fact my last. However, I believe those to be quite important questions of principle. If the answer is "yes" to all except the last query—that nothing else would be achieved except that of meeting our obligations under Tampere—then what on earth is the objection to setting out in the first clause of the Bill that the purpose is to do just that?
  Lord Filkin: The noble and learned Lord asked first whether the framework decision is critical to our extradition arrangements. We believe that the decision is extremely important in seeking to put in place a better system of extradition in our relationships with European Union member states. As I signalled in the debate at Second Reading—I thought that we had a good debate—there are substantial benefits for British citizens as a consequence. I shall not go into detail at this point, but I am sure that Members of the Committee will recollect that the key issue was that it would allow us to bring to trial over here people who otherwise would have avoided justice and who are currently avoiding justice.
  Secondly, yes, the framework decision puts in place a system of extradition. Thirdly, the framework decision does have to be implemented in British legislation. The noble and learned Lord is absolutely correct. I make again a point that I think was made clear at Second Reading. If the decision is to have legal force in Britain, and if we are to derive the benefits that it will bring to British citizens, then it has to be legislatively enacted by Parliament. Until such time as it has been enacted, we shall not derive those benefits.
  Finally, while the Bill does give effect to the framework decision, it also governs extradition with the rest of the world. I hope that I have answered the questions advanced by the noble and learned Lord.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: The argument appears to turn on whether this is merely an alteration in extradition or whether it marks the shrinkage of the
  GC 124
  extradition procedure to such an extent that either it justifies the word used by my noble friend—"surrender"—or, as others have used it, the phrase, "the abolition of extradition". If it is not an alteration, as has been maintained by Members on this side of the Committee, perhaps the Minister can remind us by how much the Government expect the speed of handling extradition cases to increase. In the past the Minister has referred to the length of time that extradition proceedings can take and has implied that that is wrong and intolerable; we must shorten the process. He has put a figure on that. Can he remind us of what is now the average length of an extradition case and what he expects it to come down to?
  Once we have the figure, can the Minister then tell noble Lords how it is to be achieved? What will be cut out? Plainly something must be cut. What kinds of cases are being cut? What stages of cases are being cut? As I recall from what he said previously, we are to see a quite dramatic reduction in the time that extradition cases are expected to take. How is that to be achieved and what is to be cut out?
  The Minister has stated that safeguards are still built into the process. No doubt he will refer to Clause 21 which concerns human rights. However, to judge from all that has been said about the validity and the mutual recognition of the legal systems of other countries, it does not appear that Clause 21 will be invoked in very many cases. Although it is long on words, given the comments about the legal systems operating in other countries within this single legal space, one would not expect it to be used all that much.
  We do know that dual criminality is to be abolished and that the grounds on which extradition can be resisted are to be narrowed. This is important because it is one of the premises of the whole argument. There should always be wider grounds to plead against extradition, not only on those such as, "I am not Mr Brown, the accused; I am Mr Smith". I say that because extradition by itself places the accused in an extremely difficult position. The accused is taken to another jurisdiction where he is less likely to secure bail because he is a foreigner. Because he is less likely to secure bail, he will be less able to prepare his defence. Following that are all the other points that we have discussed: whether he will understand the proceedings; whether adequate interpretation will be provided; and the matter of legal representation.
  There is quite a strong presumption that a person being extradited is placed at a disadvantage. That is why there ought to be in place a process and a series of hurdles. You cannot have an automatic extradition process. Because of that, it is incumbent on the Minister to prove to noble Lords that this is not just a system of automaticity. He must prove that proper extradition cases will be heard. Given his remarks about the shrinkage in time, I remain unconvinced.
  Can the Minister also give the Committee further information about how the system as it is being set up compares with extradition proceedings between the individual states of the United States? I understand—I stand to be corrected because I may be wrong on this—

  GC 125
  that in certain states such as California, people may not always be extradited to states such as Alabama, except in serious murder cases, because of concerns about the quality of justice in Alabama. That is something which can be brought before the courts. It is not something that can be easily brought under the Bill. I want the Minister to compare the single legal space of the United States and the single legal space that has been created in this sense in the Bill because I would be very alarmed if extradition were to become even easier from one country to another in the EU than it is between states in the United States. It would be helpful to have a detailed statement later about the United States and extradition procedures between the two as that is relevant to our considerations.
  As the framework decision has been mentioned,en passant I ask the Minister: is it right that there is a delay in Austria's implementation of this directive in terms of extraditing its own nationals or has that now gone? My main point is the reason why there has to be some kind of procedure and whether we are not shrinking it so much that actually there is some validity in what is being said about this being called "the abolition of extradition"?
  4 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: The thrust of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Is the Minister going to answer every contribution individually?
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Yes.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: That is unusual.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may return to what my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Can we clarify the position? Are we to have a discussion as normal on the first amendment where the Minister responds at a later stage, or is he going to reply to each contribution?
  Lord Filkin: After the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, had moved and spoken to his amendment, I looked around the room. Members were sitting down and silent. I therefore stood up to make my response to the debate. During my response, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn asked whether before I sat down—although I seem to recollect that I was—I would answer some further questions, which, out of courtesy, I did. Since then it appears that the debate has reopened on the amendment. Therefore, I have sought to be courteous to Members and to respond to their questions. That is my understanding of what has happened. I am always open to the advice of the Committee and the Chair if I am wrong in my understanding.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: On behalf of my noble friends perhaps I may offer this clarification. In Committee, one of the great advantages for BackBenchers is that once the Minister has responded at any stage of the debate they are able to ask questions.
  GC 126
  Members on the Front Benches are able to ask questions or to make speeches towards the close of the debate and we do not try to reopen it.
  Surely it is one function of Committee that any Member, but in particular Back-Benchers, may make speeches at any time. It is only in that way that BackBenchers manage to hold the executive to account. That becomes progressively more difficult for them as we progress to the Report and Third Reading stages. If I am mistaken in my understanding, it is important to have that made clear by the Chairman and the authorities. I would not wish, for example, the speeches made earlier by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden to be considered as an intervention, which is how the Minister referred to them. I realise that that may have been a slip of the tongue.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before anyone goes further, I ask Members not to suggest that the Chair can intervene in these matters, because it cannot. If there are matters of procedure which need clarification, it is normally the Whips who would intervene, but certainly not the Chair.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I thought he noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was being unfair to the Minister. The Minister was showing his usual courtesy to the Committee in attempting to answer a speech made by my noble and learned friend before other Members has entered the debate. I appreciate that, although I hope that we shall have general debates on the various amendments as we go through the Bill.
  I want to return to the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, which I think is important. He asked: what is the objection of having Amendment No. 1? I get more and more worried about the complexity of legislation and its wording. At Second Reading I had the temerity to point out that in a Bill that was said to be intended to simplify the law of extradition, we were in fact starting to consider a Bill of 213 clauses and 116 pages for the purpose of simplifying one Act of 38 clause that covered 33 pages. That is true of many other parts—this is no party-political criticism—of the legislative procedure today. We have become very complicated in the language we use.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew is asking what is wrong with having a first clause which sets out the purpose of the Bill so that people at least understand where they start. I understand that the Minister did not suggest that my noble and learned friend's purpose was not an accurate one in the intentions of the Bill. Therefore, I believe there is some advantage in having the new Clause 1 setting out that purpose before we consider the various clauses that follow.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I was not being unkind to the Minister. Indeed, I was amazed by his courtesy in replying to every Member as soon as he finished making his speech. So I was certainly not criticising the Minister. I thought that perhaps he was making more

  GC 127
  work for himself than was absolutely necessary. As the Committee will know, I always like to be helpful to Ministers if at all possible.
  I think that the amendment is perfectly reasonable and necessary. The reason it is necessary is that we seek to implement the framework agreement in the same Bill that deals with extradition. The problem with the Bill is that it is two Bills. It is two Bills because Parts 1 and 2 aim to obtain different results. Therefore, there should have been a Bill to deal with the framework agreement and then a separate Bill to deal with extradition outside the framework agreement. That is what has caused confusion. As noble Lords who took part in the Second Reading said, if this was a plain extradition Bill about Part 2 there would have been little quarrel with it. Most of us would accept that that would have been a tidying-up operation of the existing extradition procedures.
  The issue has become complicated because of the intrusion into the Bill of legislation to implement a framework directive which seeks to achieve a uniform system in the European Union of exchanging people accused of crimes in various parts within it. It would have been far more honest and—perhaps I may suggest—far easier if the Government had introduced two Bills.
  In the country there is a great deal of confusion as to what is happening. Like noble Lords, people in the country see little objection to Part 2 of the Bill. However, they "fear"—and I use that word advisedly—Part 1 and the framework directive because they believe that it removes from them rights which they previously enjoyed and which they will no longer enjoy. Therefore, this is a good amendment because it makes clear that there are two distinct matters dealt with in a single Bill.
  It is too late for the Government to rethink the issue and to bring forward two Bills; but that is the reason for the confusion; and that is why Amendment No. 1 would be helpful to the Minister and to the Government.
  Lord Filkin: I shall respond first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. He asked the very important and probably the central question that this scrutiny process needs to address—whether we are convinced that there will be a proper process for people who are to be extradited from this country as a consequence of the Bill. In broad terms, I accept that challenge. It seems right and proper that that question should be posited on our first amendment on our first day of our Committee. It is certainly one of the tests and measures that the Bill has to meet. It is not the only one, but it is an important part of the process. I shall touch on that matter now. I suspect that we will need to return to it in more detail at subsequent stages.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, next asked about current time periods. From recollection, the average time taken for a contested case from the United Kingdom to abroad is some 18 months. The average cost for a contested case is £130,000. The noble Lord was right to indicate that we are talking about
  GC 128
  relatively few cases. Every one matters to the individual, but the average number per annum over recent years has been about 35 outward extraditions. As I indicated at Second Reading, they were for serious crimes in the top few categories. I do not have the exact figures to hand. They were for murder or attempted murder, drugs and international crime of that kind. So they are serious issues, as I am sure that the Committee is aware.
  The noble Lord then asked what period we would expect that process to take as a consequence of the changes. The short answer is probably about three months. Therefore, he was right again to ask the question: what is cut out as a consequence of those changes and does the suspect lose out proper protections as a result? In broad terms, what is cut out is the attempt by some, not all, people charged with serious criminal offences to use the legal system to the utmost to prevent or avoid extradition. It would be surprising if they did not, if they knew that they were to face a charge of murder or serious drug running or so on in another country. They are extremely vigorous in using every available legal mechanism.
  At a later stage, perhaps in a response, I shall go into more detail and specify step by step what currently happens and how people who, understandably from their point of view, seek to avoid extradition by using the legal system to its maximum. That includes the use of judicial review and, if possible, using it again and again to try to delay extradition.
  A further change which we shall reach later in our discussions is the removal of ministerial discretion. I shall not pre-empt our discussion on that issue. Clearly, that is a further reduction in time and process. It is an otiose process, which will be taken out as a result of these actions. That is beneficial because we believe, as I shall subsequently argue, that there is a full, fair and accurate opportunity for someone for whom there has been an extradition request to come before a judge—there is an appeal process against that hearing—and to put their case as to why they should not be extradited.
  I return to the debate we had at Second Reading. that the essential thrust of this issue is about recognising that crime is international. It is much more international than it ever was. It is important that we have effective arrangements to bring to justice people who are charged with crime, whether they commit an offence in this country and then run abroad, or whether they commit an offence abroad and therefore need to be extradited to another country abroad. One of the reasons why this is particularly important in the European Union, although not exclusively in the EU, is that this is an area of free movement.
  Therefore, if the UK persists with its current extradition arrangements we are unlikely to meet the needs of justice or of the victims of injustice and crime. If one can delay extradition long enough, the prospects increase that witnesses will fall away and no longer be prepared, willing or able to give evidence. The matter will become clouded with time. Justice will not be done because the person will not be brought before a proper

  GC 129
  court to answer for the crime with which he or she is charged. That matters to us and I am sure that it matters to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. That is why the Bill is necessary. That is why Part 1 and its sensible reduction of unnecessary and otiose legal procedures is part of it. However, I shall answer the more specific element of the question, which I think justifies a more detailed answer, either on Report or by letter before Report stage—simply to illustrate some of what is happening at present, and therefore the way in which Part 1 benefits justice without depriving the accused of a fair and proper hearing as is his or her right.
  The noble Lord also asked about a comparison with the extradition arrangements between different states of the United States. I am certain that he shares my view that the European Union is not, and should never become a federal state like the United States of America. I do not know the detail of how the arrangements work between states, but I shall research it and come back to him.
  The noble Lord asked also about Austria. Austria has a limited extension in respect of its own nationals until 31st December 2008 at the latest, only for offences not punishable under Austrian law. Article 33(1) of the framework decision refers to that. I think that that answers the question.
  The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, asked what is the objection to a purpose clause. We believe that we already have a purpose clause. The Bill as written sets out its purpose. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure effective extradition. I do not wish to raise hopes, but I will always listen to noble Lords. However, I must in truth say that the Bill's current purpose is a true, fair, accurate and sufficient purpose. I doubt that I will change my mind, but I shall nevertheless reflect on the point.
  The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked, "Why not two Bills rather than one?" I think that I would reverse it and ask, "Why not one Bill rather than two?" We are seeking both to put into practice a framework decision which we think is right and in the interests of British citizens and to bring about wider reform of our extradition laws which we signalled well before September 11th were needed and overdue. The Bill therefore attempts to address that issue in the round. Clearly, as we shall see, there is an intersection between Part 1 and Part 2. It is not simply about the European Union.
  As for a uniform system in the European Union, I think that the UK's position on extradition has always been broadly positive. The UK has always recognised that one has to extradite in order to serve the cause of justice. In 1991 the Conservatives themselves introduced significant changes to extradition which I think have stood the test of time. We have not sought to change that and we do not intend to do so. The problem with many other European countries at present is that they will not extradite to this country. We think that that is wrong. The framework decision and the Bill change that. So a Frenchman who comes to this country and commits a murder will now be brought to trial in this country for that murder. The
  GC 130
  relatives of the victim will not have to go to France. That person will come here and he tried in an English court for the crime that he committed in England. We think that that is right. I t is an enormous benefit of the framework decision. There are other benefits, but I shall not weary the Committee by going on.
  I shall reflect—although I do not think that I will change my mind on whether anything is wrong with the purpose as set out. I shall certainly take the central challenge put by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. I shall try to ensure that I can convince the Committee and then the House that there is an adequate system for those accused of an offence so that they can put their case under British justice before extradition.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has replied. It was a helpful reply. I stress that I am open-minded on the issue and open to persuasion, although I am currently very unconvinced and very sceptical about the good effects of the Bill. I hope he will forgive my saying so, but at one point he said that he might come hack to the issue on Report. I hope that he will actually answer questions in Committee. To leave it to Report seems to be saying, "We will go away and reflect". With respect. I do not think that it is a brilliant idea to say, "I will come back on Report".
  Lord Filkin: All I was seeking to indicate was that, if I was not able to give as full a response as possible, I would not ignore it but return to it at the earliest opportunity.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am grateful.
  The Minister said that three months is the time period. If, as I understood it, that meant three months from the time of arrest to the time of extradition, that is a very short period. It does not seem to indicate a lengthy court case. Unlike other Members of the Committee, I know nothing about that; I am simply asking as a layman. However, three months seems an extraordinarily short period. It seems to indicate that the actual court case will be extremely quick and limited. Although we are not debating a one-year period against a three-year period or the possible length of sentence if a person is found guilty, that is part of the interaction of all the other issues. We are not talking about offences of murder but about offences that could carry a one-year sentence. It seems that people could be whisked out of the country after a very fast hearing. The Minister may correct me on that.
  The Minister did not list the grounds on which extradition can be resisted. It can be resisted because of mistaken identity. As the Minister said, it can also be resisted because the crime was not committed in the country requesting extradition. Although we will want to probe the point, I should jolly well hope that one cannot be extradited to a country requesting extradition if the crime was not committed in that country. That is not much to be grateful for. Within the context of the European Union and its current

  GC 131
  membership, I do not expect that the human rights in Clause 21 could be invoked on many occasions. So what are the grounds on which extradition can be resisted?
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We have had a—
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Is the Minister going to reply to that?
  Lord Filkin: I thought that we had addressed many of those issues on Second Reading. However, the first ground goes to the heart of the issue. If a judge thinks that Clause 21 is not satisfied, he or she will refuse extradition. That could not be clearer. It is essentially putting in the hands of a British judge the power to decide whether the test in Clause 21 is met. We will undoubtedly discuss that matter in detail when we reach Clause 21. It gives the judge an extremely important and strong power. Many other tests have to be met in the hearing before the judge, but I shall not weary the Committee now by going into all the details. We will come to those when we come to them. In essence, we believe that the arrangements are necessary to ensure a fair hearing for an individual whose extradition is sought while not allowing that individual so to protract the process that he or she can effectively avoid coming to justice. I hope that for now the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, will accept that that is the position.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We have had a very interesting debate. I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of the principle behind the amendment. I make it clear that I am wedded not to the precise wording but to the principle that legislation should carry a clear explanation of the proposals and their implications.
  I am grateful to the Minister for his very full reply. However, 45 minutes ago, when initially replying to the amendment, he seemed to be arguing that the Bill "already makes it clear". I think that was the phrase he used. He went on to say that the Bill "makes it clear" in Clauses 63 to 65, 142 and 207. With the greatest respect, members of the public are not able to thumb through such a range of clauses. We owe it to them to provide greater clarity about what the legislation seeks to achieve.
  The Minister also said that I was endeavouring to raise the spectre of the creep to corpus juris. I was not really. I was merely quoting from the framework decision, to which we are signed up, in relation to abolishing extradition and replacing it with surrender. All I am saying is that if that is what the framework decision says, surely we should be telling our fellow citizens that that is happening. A balance may be struck, but it is none the less a balance. If they do not realise it, should we not bring it to their attention? As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, we should also make it clear that there are two distinct parts to the Bill—Part 1 and Part 2, one of which is about changing extradition and replacing it with surrender, the other of which is to do with extradition.
  GC 132
  I am not stuck on the precise wording, but I am fairly stuck on the principle. I felt that my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew hit the nail on the head when he asked whether there is a downside to having a purpose clause. It can do no harm and it may help enlighten readers, the public and our fellow citizens. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I will probably want to reflect and bring it back for further consideration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.30 p.m.
  Clause 1[Extradition to category 1 territories]:
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 1, line 6, leave out "in Council" and insert—
  "() No order may be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I want to focus particularly on Amendments Nos. 2 and 261. My noble friends tabled some of the other amendments in the group, which are consequential on Amendments Nos. 2 and 261. I do not think that their amendments contain any differences in principle or approach. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has tabled various amendments in this group. They seem to have the same target albeit they approach it from a slightly different angle. I look forward to hearing his views.
  This group of amendments deals with the procedures for the designation countries in either category 1 or category 2 and the procedure by which Orders in Council throughout the Bill are made. I tabled Amendments Nos. 2 and 261 in a positive, even anticipatory frame of mind. In his helpful post-Second Reading letter, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said:
  "my Ministerial colleague Bob Ainsworth said in Commons Committee Stage that he recognised that there were strong feelings on this point and that we would be prepared to consider using the affirmative resolution procedure for designating extradition partners if a strong case for doing so could be made. I have no doubt we shall have a lively discussion on this point during our own Committee stage".
  We are grateful to him for that statement.
  Before I attempt to make that case, and before the affirmative resolution procedure, I should like briefly to mention the rationale behind the drafting of the amendments. Amendment No. 2 probes the Government on the reasoning behind providing for designation of countries to be made by Order in Council. The Bill does not lay down any principles or guidelines governing the choice of territories to be designated category 1 or category 2. However, given the differences between Part 1 and Part 2 which we have just been discussing, surely it is vital that either the Bill explains the basis on which decisions are taken by the Secretary of State or Parliament is allowed a close scrutiny of the decision process. I would like the Minister to explain why such a fundamental decision is subject to Order in Council by the negative procedure.

  GC 133
  What would be the difference between having an order rather than an Order in Council as Amendment No. 2 proposes?
  Both amendments, one providing for an order by designation, the other providing for an Order in Council, insist on the affirmative procedure. That is a point of principle, judging by the debate on Second Reading, when there was clearly some support from all parts of the House. We have drafted Amendment No. 261, which covers Clause 210 on Orders in Council, to cover all the changes from negative to affirmative procedures, in that way meeting the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has taken the alternative route and has tabled amendments in each instance, to provide affirmative procedures in Clauses 1, 68 and so on. We have the same aim in mind, however. We chose our drafting to facilitate debate in Grand Committee, where we cannot vote, but we recognise the advisability of tabling separate amendments to each of the pertinent clauses, as the noble Lord has done, when it comes to considering the issues on Report.
  Having clarified the drafting, I shall state the case for the need for the affirmative procedure. As we noted in the first debate, extradition is a matter of striking a balance between what we receive and what we give up in return. I accept that my party's radical approach to Part 1 does not commend itself to all Members of the Committee. However, even the most hardened advocate of the new procedures for the European arrest warrant in Part I must accept that it represents a substantial change. None of us can foretell for certain whether the balance that we are striking is the right one. Moreover, there is that other joker—the law of unintended consequences. Quite often, as successive governments have learned to their cost, legislation does not operate exactly as planned. That is why we need high levels of parliamentary scrutiny and, in turn, why we need the affirmative resolution procedure.
  That is the case "for". Let us now look at the Government's defence to date. First, it depends on precedent. The 1989 Act, in terms of designation, proceeds by Order in Council laid before Parliament after being made. The Government argument seems to be that we have had no scrutiny previously, so why start now? The answer to that seems perfectly straightforward: previously we did not have a system in which one category contained significantly fewer procedural safeguards and protections than the other. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Lamont drew out of the Minister, the whole purpose of the Bill is to reduce the opportunities for delay currently available to the extraditee. A precedent of that type should not be followed when the system itself is being so transformed by the implementation of the European arrest warrant.
  Secondly, the Government argue that to introduce the affirmative procedure would reduce what they describe as "flexibility". How often is the procedure going to be used? "Very rarely", the Minister has said, so the loss of flexibility can hardly be great. What is
  GC 134
  certain is that using the affirmative procedure would put people's minds at rest about other countries being slid into categories unheralded and unnoticed.
  The third point that the Government bring up is that we should not be suspicious of the negative procedure since,
  "we have no plans to designate any non-EU countries, other than possibly Norway and Iceland, as part 1 countries".
  That is a quote from the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on 12th May. However, as the Home Affairs Committee report pointed out, the Bill effectively enables any country to be designated as a category 1 or category 2 territory. Consequently, there is nothing to prevent territories other than EU member states from being designated as category I territories. We have no reason to doubt the assurances of the present Government, but situations change. Present procedures do not provide sufficient guarantee for the future.
  Fourthly, as my noble friend Lady Park pointed out on Second Reading, deep concern exists about the accession states. The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, made it clear that while accession to the EU would not bring with it an automatic change from category 1 to category 2, it was largely expected that such a transition would take place. I, for one, am deeply concerned at the idea of accession territories becoming category 1 territories without proper scrutiny and almost as a matter of course.
  The problem lies with what the Government like to call the mutual recognition of judicial spheres, which is enshrined in Part I of the implementation of the European arrest warrant. Stephen Jakobi, the director of Fair Trials Abroad, said:
  "I must conclude by giving a solemn warning. In 2004 ten countries will join the Union. Public concern has been expressed by the Commission about corruption in some of them. What evidence we have suggests that this corruption extends to their judicial system. In 2007 Bulgaria and Romania are scheduled to join. There is clear evidence of corruption and third world standards in their criminal justice systems. The principle of mutual recognition of judgements, of which the arrest warrant is but a high profile example, will to some extent export Bulgarian and Romanian standards of justice to all parts of the Union".
  Part 1, and the implementation of the European arrest warrant, is a wholly new step forward, as we would all agree. I see no harm in allowing Orders in Council for designation to be by affirmative procedure; I see, however, a great many dangers in allowing designation without any clear criteria being carried out without parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: I start by declaring a couple of interests. I am a vice-chairman of the Council of Justice and a trustee of Fair Trials Abroad. They are both organisations that have taken an interest in the Bill.
  I shall speak to all the remaining amendments apart from Amendment No. 261, to which noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has already spoken. This group of amendments deals with the question of the appropriate parliamentary procedure for the approval of Orders in Council. I entirely agree with Amendment

  GC 135
  No. 2: no country should be designated as a category 1 country except by an Order in Council that has received the actual approval of both Houses of Parliament. My amendments extend the same principle to a number of other Orders in Council. I welcome the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has put his name down in support of the amendments.
  Amendment No. 148 would require the affirmative procedure for designation of a territory as a category 2 territory under Clause 68(1). Under Clause 68, an Order in Council is needed when a country with which the United Kingdom has had no previous extradition arrangements is brought into the extradition net. Extradition has a very serious potential consequence for the individual whose extradition is sought, and it is plainly desirable that there should be parliamentary control over the designation of territories to which people in this country can be extradited. I recognise that our proposal goes beyond the existing practice in the Extradition Act 1989, but the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is right in saying that it is not a precedent that can be relied on and that the practice should change.
  I should also mention the memorandum from the Home Office to the Delegated Powers Committee, which is printed as an annex to its report, which says in relation to designation under Part 2:
  "It may also be necessary to designate countries on an ad hoc basis".
  I have to say that I am not at all clear what that means, and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain what it means. If the measure is intended to apply in cases when there are no formal extradition arrangements, that if anything seems to strengthen the case for the affirmative procedure.
  Amendment No. 151 will require the affirmative procedure for an Order in Council under Clause 70(4), which removes the requirement for providing evidence to support a claim for extradition and substitutes a requirement to provide information. That would make it possible for the court to consider something in the nature of a written statement of the information on which the country requesting extradition relies, but nothing that is in the nature of evidence, which must be given and tested in the courts. That is a major step in making extradition easier. It therefore requires a high degree of confidence in the police and judicial system of the territory that seeks extradition. When that confidence exists, I have no objection in principle to the substitution of information for evidence.
  I recognise, again, that what we propose goes beyond the existing requirements under the 1989 Act. I also recognise that the requirement to provide evidence is already excluded between parties to the European convention on extradition. That is a convention of the Council of Europe, not of the European Union, and therefore includes several states that are not members of the European Union and which therefore may not become category 1 territories.
  GC 136
  I might not have objected to Clause 70(4) if it had been limited to designation of other parties to the European convention on extradition. Had that been so, it is possible that the negative procedure might have sufficed. However, as it is, Clause 70(4) can apply to any category 2 state. There are many states in that category where it would not be appropriate to dispense with the evidence requirement. I believe that the United States of America is one of them, given the enormous difference in the quality of judgments in the 50 different states, let alone in the federal jurisdiction. In fact, under the new treaty that has just been entered into with the United States, even the need for the provision of information, showing a reasonable basis for the belief that the defendant committed the offence, is excluded on requests for extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States. What is more, it is excluded on a non-reciprocal basis, since that information still has to be provided for the United Kingdom's requests for extradition from the United States. I find the fact that that is non-reciprocal absolutely astonishing.
  I give notice to the Minister that we will pray against the order to give effect to the treaty when the Order in Council that gives effect to it is laid before Parliament. Owing to the contents of that treaty, under the Extradition Act 1989 it is subject to annulment under the negative procedure.
  I agree with the Delegated Powers Committee that Clause 70(4) permits the removal of important procedural safeguards in relation to any designated territory. Therefore, I agree that it is necessary to use the affirmative procedure.
  Amendment No. 168 raises the same issue as Amendment No. 148 in relation to provisional warrants under Clause 72. I do not believe that I need to add to what I have already said, except to point out that in the case of Clause 72 the Delegated Powers Committee also called for the affirmative procedure.
  Amendment No. 182 requires the affirmative procedure for an Order in Council that extends in relation to a particular territory the period of 40 days from the date of arrest in the United Kingdom at the end of which the judge must order the discharge of the person whose extradition is requested if the necessary extradition documents are not received. That Order in Council creates a more limited power than others covered by this group of amendments. However, as the Delegated Powers Committee pointed out, even that extension could have a significant effect on the individual concerned. It could in effect amount to detention without trial. Again, I agree with the Delegated Powers Committee that the affirmative procedure should be required.
  Amendments Nos. 198 and 205 cover the procedure in court. Amendment No. 198 applies to the procedure under Clause 83—extradition for the purposes of trial—while Amendment No. 205 applies to the procedure under Clause 85—extradition after a conviction in absentia. In both cases, the Order in Council may require the judge hearing the application not to rule on the sufficiency of evidence. It would

  GC 137
  therefore remove an important procedural safeguard. Again the Delegated Powers Committee took the view that the affirmative procedure is required—as did the Home Affairs Select Committee in the Commons. Once again, we take the same view.
  Amendments Nos. 262 and 264 to 266 are consequential. As all those amendments echo the views of the Delegated Powers Committee—as does Amendment No. 2—I hope, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that the Government will be able to give a sympathetic response to them.
  4.45 p.m.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. On the matter addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I confess that to me it is a pity that amendments relating to Part 2 of the Bill have been grouped with amendments relating to Part 1. Although I understand the force of what the noble Lord said—in particular, the iniquity of submitting to America not needing to give us reasons that we must give it—I shall not deal with that.
  I seek clarification from the Minister on what countries will be designated and when. As I understood what he said on Second Reading, the intention was that all existing countries in the European Union would automatically be designated, if and when the Bill was enacted. On the other hand, in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the Minister appeared to say that one reason why we must enact the Bill is that, unless we do so, we will not receive the benefits of extradition the other way.
  If that is so for us, presumably, we shall not designate countries in the Union unless and until they have enacted similar provisions. First, will designation be automatic or will other European Union countries be designated only when they have enacted—if that is the right word in those countries—the provisions of the agreement?
  Secondly, assuming that those countries are designated or remain designated only when they have implemented the agreement, to what extent must they implement it? Let us suppose that Parliament passes one or two amendments to the Bill that make it not strictly in accordance with the agreement. Would that mean that we should not receive reciprocity, or would we get extradition from those countries on a similar basis if we had enacted the bulk of the agreement, but with a few details altered?
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: In order to alleviate an embarrassing silence, perhaps I may, as a member of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers, express the firm hope that the Minister will accede to our recommendations. It is no doubt in the confident expectation that he will do so that the remainder of the committee has fallen silent.
  Lord Filkin: I shall deal with the important questions in reverse order, and then return at the end to the two central questions raised by the amendments tabled by Members on the two Opposition Front
  GC 138
  Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about ad hoc requests. The Extradition Act 1989 allows any country to make an ad hoc request to the UK, even if it has no standing extradition relationship with the UK. That is subject to no parliamentary procedure. We should want to be able to continue to receive such requests and to make judgments about whether it was reasonable to accede to them—for reasons that I hope would be understood.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also stated his concern about the UK-US bilateral extradition treaty and his intention to challenge some of those measures when they come before the House. Let me speak briefly to that.
  Why does the new treaty abolish the prima facie evidential requirement for requests from the UK, given that we shall still be obliged to provide it on request to the USA? US extradition law does not permit it to remove the prima facie evidential requirement, but we are in a different position. We have been able to lift the prima facie requirement since 1991. We have already removed it for more than 40 countries, including places such as Albania, Turkey and Latvia. Since the Conservatives introduced that change, there has not been great evidence that that has been a major source of problems.
  So we see no need to impose a more stringent requirement on a well-established democracy, such as the USA. It is to our mutual advantage to remove the prima facie requirement and we see no reason why we should deny ourselves benefits simply because US law does not permit reciprocity. That is not the only incidence of absence of reciprocity in extradition. For example, New Zealand operates a backing of warrant scheme in respect of requests from the UK, even though we do not do so in respect of requests from New Zealand.
  On the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about which countries will be designated, I shall speak to the matter later, because I trust that we shall reach it, but our current intention is that Part I should constitute EU countries, plus Norway and Ireland.
  Noble Lords: Iceland.
  Lord Filkin: I am so sorry; did I say Ireland? I meant Iceland. I am most grateful for that correction. All other extradition partners will be included in Part 2. All EU countries are expected to operate the European arrest warrant from 1st January 2004. If we fail to enact the EAW, it will be for other countries to decide whether to offer us the full benefits. In essence. the judgment will be with them, rather than with us, about whether the non-compliance is so material that, as a consequence, they do not wish to co-operate with us.
  I turn to the essential debate about the clutch of amendments concerning positive or negative resolutions. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Goodhart, and others who have tabled amendments in that regard. The Bill as drafted provides that all such designations for both Parts 1 and 2 would be by negative resolution. As I have said, that

  GC 139
  provides for a greater level of scrutiny by Parliament than currently exists, because the 1989 Act provides that most orders are not subject to any form of parliamentary approval—the only exception being those orders that remove the prima facie evidential requirement.
  As has been said, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform made firm and clear recommendations that orders designating extradition partners should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. As has been noted, we signalled that our ears were open to hearing the arguments put for that on Second Reading and by the noble Lords, Lord Hogdson and Lord Goodhart, today. Accordingly, I can inform the Committee that we accept the advice of the Select Committee and the arguments made today on that point.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
  Lord Filkin: I shall be tabling an amendment at a later date to provide that orders designating countries as extradition partners—be they in Part 1 or Part 2—should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  The Delegated Powers Committee also recommended that orders that remove the prima facie evidential requirements from Part 2 countries and that vary the period in which papers must be supplied following provisional arrest should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is the effect of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  I can confirm that the change that I have just announced will also give effect to those recommendations. Any order designating a country as a Part 2 extradition partner will also, if appropriate, contain provisions removing the prima facie requirement or setting a different period for the receipt of papers. So if the main order designating the country as a Part 2 extradition partner is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, it follows that Parliament will also be required to debate whether the prima facie evidential requirement should apply or if a period of other than 40 days should be set for the receipt of full papers following provisional arrest.
  I very much hope that the fact that we have made those changes goes a long way to meeting the concerns expressed.
  Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister; that certainly goes a long way. However, I seek clarification on one point. If a country should be designated as a Part 2 territory and then, subsequently, it is decided to dispense with the prima facie evidence rule for that country, where a separate Order in Council will be required, will that Order in Council also be subject to the affirmative procedure?
  Lord Filkin: The answer, my instinct tells me, is yes. It would be illogical not to do so, given that they are different measures.
  GC 140
  However, the second of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 261, would provide that all Orders in Council made under the Bill should be laid before Parliament in draft to be approved by a resolution in each House—in other words, any order-making power other than those to which I have referred. That goes considerably further than the Bill and the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee.
  Indeed, apart from the specific recommendations to which I have referred and the one place at which the Delegated Powers Committee said that further explanation was required, which I shall happily give when we reach that point, the committee concluded that the Bill as drafted provides for the right level of parliamentary scrutiny. At paragraph 5 of its 18th report, the committee stated that, apart from the specific points to which I referred,
  "the delegations are appropriate and subject to an appropriate level of Parliamentary scrutiny".
  That being so, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the changes that she seeks to make through Amendment No. 261 are unnecessary, although we have been glad to accept the thrust of argument made from both Opposition Front Benches on the central amendments before us.
  I repeat my assurance that we will table a government amendment or amendments to provide for the designation orders to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In the light of that, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for responding so positively; I shall of course withdraw the amendment, pending the government amendments.
  I hope that the Minister will not think that I am ungrateful, but he said quite a lot about Amendment No. 261 quite fast. I should like to read what he said in Hansard, but I am most grateful for what he said and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 1, line 6, at end insert "and only applies to persons who have been charged with or convicted of terrorist offences"
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 63, 114, 117, 119, 121, 123, 124, 128, 130 to 133, 135, 130 and, just to put the final seal on it, clauses stand part from 1 to 67. As I am sure that the Committee would agree, that is an horrendous grouping, but I suggested it so that we can debate the issues in the Bill to which we on these Benches have the strongest objection. If we were able to vote in Committee and were not in Grand Committee, I would have separated out the amendments referring to terrorism from those which seek to delete Part 1 from the Bill.

  GC 141
  Let me turn briefly to clause stand part and why so many amendments are grouped together. I made it clear on Second Reading that we believe that Part I should not be in the Bill and that Part 2 is sufficient and appropriate to cover extradition to all countries. If, as they have said so far, the Government refuse to accept our objection to Part 1 and excise it, our next best preference would be to have Part 1 confined only to terrorism offences.
  In seeking guidance on how to group the amendments, I talked to people at the Public Bill Office. I was advised that the only way in which we could signal our intent to remove Part I altogether was to object to all the clauses in Part 1 standing part and then to say that if Clause I were carried on Report, we would consider the other clauses to be consequential. We would not be too surprised if the Government did not agree with us on that understanding of consequential. Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of speaking to every clause from Clause 2 to Clause 67 at this stage. I want to get out of this room alive.
  I should make it clear that every noble Lord has the right, as we progress through our debates on the Bill, to speak at clause stand part in its place in the Bill. By grouping them together, I am not pre-empting the right of noble Lords to make their points on each clause at the relevant stage. I should also point out that I am not encouraging everybody to take a lot more time. I shall certainly not speak to clause stand part on each and every occasion—perhaps on the odd occasion. I shall try to limit myself carefully. However, I certainly do not want noble Lords to think that I am trying to stifle debate.
  We object to Part 1 for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Hodgson explained earlier. The debate we had on Amendment No. I means that I do not have to go through a lot of detailed arguments that I would otherwise have had to address. I shall simply say that our main objection to Part 1 is that we believe it makes inroads into the civil liberties of British citizens that are unacceptable and unnecessary. It makes fundamental changes and goes too far by eroding the principle of dual criminality at the same time as it removes the backstop power of the Executive to prevent extradition where it would be unjust to allow it to go ahead.
  We have always supported measures to improve co-operation with other countries to fight crime, and we will continue to do so. But we oppose the Government's proposals to harmonise our judicial processes with those of other countries in the EU.
  The Minister commented earlier that he thought that my noble friend Lord Hodgson might be talking about corpus juris in Amendment No. 1. That was never the intention—corpus juris is contained in Amendment No. 3.
  Although the Government say that they have chosen this route as the only alternative to harmonisation, we believe that, because of the way in which the Bill has been drafted, they are achieving the
  GC 142
  very harmonisation they say they are trying to avoid. We believe this goes far beyond the mutual recognition they say they are proposing.
  Part 1 creates powers to arrest and deport British citizens for activities that are not defined in English law. The list of offences is in practice nothing of the sort—it is a general descriptive list to which Ministers can add at some future date without the need for parliamentary approval. We will naturally debate that matter in detail later.
  This is not streamlining extradition—it is putting it into an EU straitjacket, stripping away the safeguards that we believe are necessary. We can consider those in detail over the next few days of debate in Grand Committee. For today's debate, I thought I should refer only to the most pressing matters.
  I turn to the amendments that seek to limit the operation of Part 1 to terrorism offences. We define terrorism using the Government's own words in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. We ensure by our amendment that we cover both those who have been charged with and convicted of terrorism offences.
  If we are unpersuaded by the Government's answer that we should not proceed and then take these matters forward to the House on Report, we would of course separate out our amendments regarding the excision of Part 1 from the Bill as against those that would confine Part 1 to terrorism.
  The argument we have put forward on confining Part 1 to terrorism is that there may be justification for surrendering the safeguards that we believe are otherwise necessary to underpin extradition procedures in Part 1 simply because of the unique threat of terrorism. That alone might be enough to allow us to give up those important safeguards.
  I thank the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for writing to noble Lords between Second Reading and Committee. I was pleased to see him refer in that letter to,
  "the unique threat that terrorism presents".
  He rejects my stance because he says we have to fight against other serious crimes too. I agree with him wholeheartedly—of course we have to fight against all other serious crimes. But where I part company from him is in my belief that they can be fought quite properly with the weapons available in Part 2. Nothing the Government have said so far during the course of our proceedings persuades me that this is wrong.
  At Second Reading, the Minister said, at col. 856 of the Official Report, that he expects a Part 1 case to take three months. He repeated that in his response today to a question put by my noble friend Lord Lamont. The Minister also said, at col. 857, that a normal Part 2 case will take six months. Even with my feeble maths, it looks as though we are being asked to sacrifice the civil liberties being excised from Part I for the sake of three months. I believe that so far the Government have not given a cogent reason for following that line, and that is unacceptable. I beg to move.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I would like to say a few words on Amendment No. 3 and the other amendments in this group. There are considerable

  GC 143
  worries about the harmonisation of justice affairs throughout the European Union. Those fears have been enhanced and exacerbated by the discussions in the Convention on the Future of Europe. We have heard that there is a proposal for a European Union public prosecutor. If that is not moving us towards a new European judicial space and harmonisation of systems, I do not know what is.
  There are concerns that Part 1 of the Bill is the thin end of the wedge and, as so often happens in the European Union, that we are proceeding by stealth to a position where there is a single area of judicial administration and that extradition will eventually not be necessary. We will all be subject to the same judicial arrangements and an EU public prosecutor will oversee simply everything. I know that sounds farfetched, but many things which were first proposed and dismissed as imagination or nightmare have then come into law. That is why people like myself and an increasing number of others want to scrutinise every little bit of legislation that has anything to do with the European Union.
  One is bound to be suspicious of this piece of legislation on another ground. Indeed, I think the Government deserve some credit for this—I hope they do. The European arrest warrant has, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, pointed out, been under discussion since 1999. It has been such a long time because our Government were a little concerned about some of the proposals coming forward. Then, suddenly, after 9/11, the matter was given a great impetus and we found we had a framework agreement. The impetus, according to discussions in the European Parliament, was a result of 9/11. One could have understood that an impetus relating only to terrorism might have been reasonable. However, it has resulted not only in issues of unlawful seizure of aircraft or ships or sabotage—included in the 32 items—but a whole schedule of crimes covering just about everything under the sun.
  It seems that 9/11 and terrorism were used to extend the idea of a European arrest warrant and the scope of that warrant. I therefore think it is quite reasonable for the Opposition to put down a limiting amendment. If the amendment were carried, I think much of the opposition to the Bill would be lessened and we would not be so worried about it.
  I am sorry to have taken up the time of the Committee but I think the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, should know how many people feel about the Bill. They do not like it; they are afraid of it. They believe that it has been rushed and that terrorism has been used to bring forward legislation that has not only an immediate but an ongoing purpose which will undermine the judicial protections in our own system that has protected our people for a long time.
  Lord Goodhart: On the previous group of amendments, my party was in entire agreement with the Conservative Front Bench. On this issue, we are not. We welcome, in principle, the idea of the European arrest warrant. There is no doubt that the
  GC 144
  existing procedures take far too long, and there is no reason to believe that, for example, multiple applications for judicial review serve the interests of justice. On the contrary, as the Minister said, it is delays which damage the interests of justice. Justice delayed is justice denied, and that is as true of the victims of crime as it is of parties to proceedings.
  If we are satisfied that a person against whom extradition is claimed will get a fair trial in the requesting country, there is no reason why we should require that a kind of mini-trial take place before there can be extradition. Of course, that is a big "if. In many other member states of the EU, a person is as likely to get a fair trial on a criminal charge as in this country. We have a system of criminal justice of which we are rightly proud, but we are sometimes prone to regard it as being somehow superior to the systems in all other countries. That is simply not true.
  Having said that, I admit that there are problems with some member states—for example, Greece, Portugal and, perhaps, Italy—especially on procedural issues. In some countries, there can be severe delays, and, in more than one, there are problems with access to effective free legal representation and interpretation facilities for those who cannot afford to pay for them. We hope that our amendments will go some way towards dealing with those problems.
  The question of the framework list, which was raised, is entirely separate. It would be possible to have Part 1 with or without a framework list. No doubt, we can deal with questions relating to the framework list when we get to them.
  I can see no justification for confining Part 1 to terrorist offences. If Part 1 is not suitable for people charged with other serious offences up to and including murder, it cannot be suitable for people who are charged with but not, at that stage, convicted of terrorist offences. They must be entitled to the same kind of defence against improper extradition as anyone else.
  We do not and will not object in principle, and we cannot, therefore, support Amendment No. 3. We will come to the detail when we get to what we see as the necessary strengthening of the protections of individuals in Part 1.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made an interesting and important contribution, albeit a brief one. He said that he did not agree with the thrust of the Conservative Party's arguments on the amendment. None the less, he made certain concessions in his argument that ought to be considered.
  The amendment returns us to the points raised earlier and which I raised when I spoke on Amendment No. 1. I apologise for repeating the point, but we need to remind ourselves that a person who is extradited is placed at a disadvantage compared with a national. A person extradited to this country may be placed at a disadvantage compared with a British

  GC 145
  citizen. They may not be familiar with the proceedings, and they may not understand them. In the absence of a Eurobail system and because of the fear of absconding, they are likely to be kept in custody, which will separate them from their family and, above all, may prevent them from preparing their own defence. It is because such a person would be placed at a disadvantage that one would argue that virtual automaticity in extradition ought to apply only if serious, serious crimes are involved.
  The amendment refers to terrorism. Perhaps that is too narrow, and it should refer to offences that would carry a sentence of five years or seven years in this country. I remain to be persuaded that the whole apparatus of the Bill is necessary for the whole panoply of offences. Why have we removed the double criminality provision? We heard that Austria had preserved double criminality. The Minister told us in answer to my question that Austria had a derogation on double criminality until—I think he said—2008. I hope that I understood him correctly. It may be that, for that to end, the Austrian Government will have to amend their constitution. I know that one of the earlier problems that they had with the arrest warrant was their constitution. If amendment of the constitution is required, there is no guarantee that it will happen by 2008. If Austria can have some sort of derogation, why cannot we? Double criminality is, at least, one way of having some sort of court hearing.
  I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, say that he saw no reason to have a mini-trial. There is a reason to have a mini-trial, if one is concerned about standards of justice. The noble Lord referred to Greece, Portugal and—I think he said—possibly Italy. I should have thought that, in the light of the Greek plane-spotters case, there was every reason to be concerned about standards of justice in Greece. That case was resolved only because of the intervention of the Foreign Secretary. Government-to-Government discussions were held so that an embarrassing situation could be prevented. In the future, when we have the arrest warrant, the Foreign Secretary will not be able to ring up and say, "We think that this is a miscarriage of justice".
  I know that that was not an extradition case, but it could easily have given rise to such a case, and it is relevant that double criminality is disappearing. There were tremendous defects in the handling of that case. There were several categories of defendant and one lawyer provided for the lot of them. One of the people accused—a woman who had sat in a van reading a newspaper—was bundled together with all the others and represented by the same lawyer. I am told that, in Greece, the average salary of a judge is something like £10,000. It is not surprising that there should be some observations about the quality and impartiality of justice.
  It was a concrete case. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned Greece, and we have the case of the plane-spotters in our minds. I see no reason why one should not have a mini-trial on such a question. That is why I support the idea of having some sort of threshold. whether it is terrorism, as has been
  GC 146
  proposed by my noble friend, or some other threshold. What was said about Greece, Portugal and possibly Italy provides an argument in favour of having some sort of proceedings. I do not believe that a reference to the European Convention on Human Rights in Clause 21 is adequate. The convention has been judged to be consistent with all sorts of things that would appear rather questionable or strange to us. The presumption of innocence seems to operate differently in certain countries from how it operates here, but their practices have been judged to be consistent with the convention. That is why there must be a threshold or some sort of proceedings.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that he did not agree with all that. He thinks that the matter can be addressed by tabling amendments to do with legal aid, translation facilities and bail. I will support such amendments; I agree with their thrust. However, that does not get at the issue of the quality of Greek justice. We will not solve the issue by concentrating on amendments to do with bail, translation facilities or legal representation. A mini-trial of the kind that was suggested for certain offences—not the most serious—is a good idea.
  Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I fully understand the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about other forms of justice being different but not necessarily worse. Any judge faced with a system of justice outside his own would be bound to make those noises. I do not necessarily mean that they would be entirely a matter of politeness, although they might, in some cases.
  For someone threatened with extradition from this country—most of whom will be British residents or will be normally resident here—it is this system with which they are familiar. If they are to be extradited to another country with a system with which they are unfamiliar, they will certainly take the view that it is an inferior system for various reasons—some good. some bad, some indifferent. That undermines a theme that has run through all the Government's thinking, as I understand it, which is that there is a straight balance here and that, as long as we can get criminals extradited to this country, the ordinary British citizen will be content that there should be a reciprocal arrangement whereby he can be extradited to another country. I do not believe that for one moment.
  I am sure that the main worry of the ordinary citizen here is the risk that he may suddenly find himself bundled out of this country and tried in another country. However excellent we may say—or even think—the system of justice in another country to be, the ordinary citizen would give up every right to have criminals extradited to this country, if he could be sure of his own judicial safety.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: The problem is further compounded by what the Minister confirmed at Second Reading. If there is any doubt as to whether a crime has been committed, it is purely the issuing magistrate who will define the crime. My noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick used the example of the

  GC 147
  plane-spotters. If the extraditing magistrate said that they were guilty of sabotage or were indulging in computerised crime because they were carrying pocket PCs, that would be the end of the matter. That aspect of the arrest warrant makes the amendment or something like it more necessary.
  Lord Filkin: I shall deal first with the specific points and will return to the general case for why we think that amending the Bill to confine Part 1 to terrorism would not be appropriate.
  I do not apologise for re-stating the broad picture. In the Government's view, there is nothing wrong with the European arrest warrant. It is a step forward in achieving justice for British citizens and with other member states. Great benefits will flow to justice and the fight against crime as a consequence of the warrant. I do not wish to over-state the case, but the warrant is a necessary part of effective action against serious international crime in the context of people's increased mobility. There are full and adequate safeguards to protect the individual from mischief or wrongful process as a consequence.
  If I commit an offence abroad, I should face trial for that offence. If someone from abroad commits an offence in Britain, he should be brought to trial here. It is not in the interests of justice not to support and promote such principles, subject to the important qualification referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick—namely, that there should be a fair process for bringing people to trial. That is not in the interests of victims or in the interests of more effective action against international crime.
  Let me turn to the concerns of the noble Lord. Lord Stoddart, about harmonisation of judicial procedures. I think that I shall shock him when I say that the Government share many of his views. The harmonisation of judicial procedures is not on our agenda and it is not our intent. Turning specifically to the European public prosecutor, I have been pleased to be part of the process of discussion with my fellow Interior and Justice Ministers about why this is an inappropriate remedy for an issue of crime or fraud against European Union budgets. We are making some progress on the argument, but I shall not delay the Committee by going into further detail as it would be inappropriate to do so at this point.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question on that point. I understand that at present we have a veto on this, being a third pillar matter. If we assume that the convention proposals are introduced—which again I understand would collapse all the pillars—so that instead of having one unified treaty or constitution, would that mean that we would lose our veto? Whether in the future we had a public prosecutor or further harmonisation would not depend on the British Government because qualified
  GC 148
  majority voting would apply and the Government, no matter how good their intentions or how similar to my own they were, could or would be overruled.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I wonder if I could query what the Minister said. I have a letter dated 10th December 2002 written by his colleague, Mr Dennis MacShane, the Minister for Europe. I do not know exactly to whom it was written because it is addressed to "Dear friend". In the letter Mr MacShane sums up the Prime Minister's and the Government's view on what they want out of the Giscard convention on the future of Europe. Obviously they start by seeking a proper constitution for Europe, but it is the second point which seems to go against what the Minister has said. It states that they want:
  "A stronger Commission: with real authority to ensure Europe's rules are obeyed".
  I suggest that then comes the killer point, which is quite simply this:
  "Tackling crime and bringing justice to Europe's citizens should be communitised".
  There it is, and it is that which worries us.
  Lord Filkin: I do not wish to be discourteous either to my noble friend Lord Stoddart or to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, by not going into detail. I shall be pleased to discuss the issues at another time.
  In short, the issue of the European public prosecutor is being debated in the draft constitution. The current draft puts it in subject to unanimity—a lock—rather than to qualified majority voting. The Government's view is that even that goes further than we would wish. It is not subject to QMV. However, these are broad issues and it would be helpful to hold further discussions on another occasion.
  On whether this has been rushed, the Government's discussion paper of March 2001, which Members of the Committee may recollect was produced before the events the following September in the United States of America, proposed a system very similar to that set out in the Bill covering all serious crimes. In fact, the framework decision was heavily influenced by the United Kingdom's own proposals for the reform of extradition. We have never claimed that the European arrest warrant should be limited to terrorism, nor has anyone else. The discussion paper clearly did not focus on that.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his welcome in principle to the European arrest warrant, and his recognition that delay damages justice, both for the person who is charged and, even more important, for the victim. The issue must be brought to a fair conclusion. However, this is not the time to go into further detail on the specifics.
  We touched on this point at Second Reading, and all I would mark is that one either takes a position that we should never extradite until every country to which we are extraditing has either exactly the same judicial system and processes as ourselves, or that we harmonise our judicial processes. Both of those seem to me to be positions that the Government would not wish to take. Alternatively, we can recognise that the

  GC 149
  interests of justice are served, after a proper process of testing, to allow people to be extradited to face trial in other countries. There is nothing new in that. It has been the practice of United Kingdom governments for over 100 years. We have been positive and cooperative partners on extradition, whereas others have been laggards.
  As a consequence, we see no case at all for confining the process only to terrorism, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, concluded. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, was right to point out that this touches in part on his earlier argument. He questioned whether the focused and shortened procedure set out in Part 1 gives an adequate opportunity for a person to make the case that they should not be extradited. Our position is quite clear on this. We believe that it does, and the Committee process, along with the other stages of our discussions, will test and challenge it.
  Given that there is an adequate process for a person who is the subject of an extradition request, in our view there is no justification not to allow other crimes and charges to be subject to Part 1 requests for Part 1 processes of extradition to countries where we believe it is reasonable to do so. In a sense that will be the focal area of our debates in Committee and I am happy to repeat my acknowledgement of that to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont.
  I wish to make one qualification on what the noble Lord said about Austria. Austria does not have a derogation in respect of dual criminality. It is not permitted to extradite its own nationals in cases without dual criminality until it amends its constitution, or by 2008, whichever is the earlier. That is the position.
  With regard to the Greek plane-spotters, as we know that was not an extradition case. We discussed this at Second Reading. In fact the people concerned were bailed to the United Kingdom. They then returned to face trial, and all credit to them. However, had they been charged and had they then moved to the United Kingdom, while I do not wish to comment in detail, there would have been no particular reason why we would not have acceded to an extradition request from the Greek Government for people charged with espionage, which was the charge laid. I repeat that that is totally in line with legislation introduced in 1991. Had the Greek Government made the case, we would have looked reasonably at the issue. However, I cannot prejudge the case without looking into it, but in principle there is no reason why we would not have agreed to extradition.
  Lord Lamont: Surely if that had been an extradition case, prior to this Bill, would not dual criminality have applied? It would have been said that there was no case for extradition. We all know that the case against those people was absurd and a disgrace. What defence could they have made? I am astonished to hear the Minister say that we would not have objected to their extradition. Of course it is a matter for the courts, but
  GC 150
  it would have been a scandal if they had been extradited. Again, surely they would have been protected by dual criminality.
  Viscount Bledisloe: With respect, perhaps the noble Lord has misunderstood the rule against dual criminality. The charge made against them was one of espionage. As the Minister pointed out, that is also a crime in England. The complaint made was that we did not think that the evidence added up to espionage. But so far as dual criminality is concerned, they would not have got out of it on those grounds.
  Lord Filkin: That is exactly correct. The charge of espionage meets the dual criminality test. I shall not delay the Committee on that point, but return to the heart of the matter.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Is that all?
  Lord Filkin: On the Greek plane-spotters? Yes, it is.
  If Part 1 should be used to extradite terrorists, that begs the question why it is not appropriate for other serious criminals. All Members of the Committee understand that international crime seriously affects the lives of our fellow citizens, whether it be the scourge of the trade in illegal drugs, of people trafficking or of promoting illegal immigration into this country.
  The amendments could lose the great benefits afforded us by the EAW framework decision—the real benefits of being able to seek the return of nationals from countries which currently refuse to extradite their own nationals. We would lose the benefit of being able to extradite those who commit fiscal offences. I indicated that previously in relation to someone who had defrauded the Exchequer of more than £1 million. The Italians would not extradite him to face trial in this country because they did not have an exactly identical charge or crime in their country. That person therefore escaped justice. We would also lose the benefits of the speed of extradition that the instruments would give us with our own fellow member states.
  There is a significant difference between three months and six months. If the person is brought to trial within three months, the prospect is greater that he will face justice appropriately than if it is six months or more. The delay is not in the interests of the victims of crime who, as we signalled previously, must be paramount. We do not see why those who commit serious crimes should not also be subject to the fast-track procedures that we propose for Part I, which strike the right balance between ensuring the right to fair treatment under the law as well as speed of decision.
  We have already heard, and will no doubt hear further, that that is too different from current procedures. However, we need to start unpacking why that is. What is it in Part 2 that is lacking in Part 1 that makes Part 1 so unacceptable? It seems to boil down to two issues, or three at the most.
  First, people might cite the ability to have repeated judicial review challenges that seek to delay the day. I do not in all honesty believe that that is the thrust of

  GC 151
  the argument from Members of the Committee who are concerned about the measure. I do not believe that the repeated delaying mechanism—the ability to keep on mounting a judicial review even though it has no merit or hope—is what is really being sought.
  Perhaps, then, Members are concerned about the other two issues: ministerial involvement and dual criminality. I am slightly surprised to hear the charge that ministerial involvement is something that we need to keep in these Part 1 cases. In essence, we should be open about what value it would add in the Part 1 cases. In short, Ministers exercising ministerial judgment in this respect have always to be thinking of the judge on their shoulder and whether any judgment that they make would stand the test of judicial review.
  Therefore, Ministers must, if asked to make a ministerial judgment, reflect as to what the court would decide if it was challenged. They are almost acting in a quasi-judicial function already. Our position is that we should let the court decide those issues in the limited circumstances in which Part 1 cases seem to us appropriate. Clearly, we are not for a second saying that Part 1 cases are appropriate for all countries.
  On dual criminality, I put two questions. Do we believe that when someone is residing in a country they should obey its laws? If the answer is yes, do we think that it is unacceptable that a person should be able to evade justice if they manage to get over the right border before being brought to justice? Without wishing to be contentious, those are the questions that we should all ask ourselves.
  The Government's position is clear: if we wish to have a reduction in international and domestic crime, we must have an effective system that brings people to face justice speedily and effectively while giving them the protections to which they are entitled against unfair process.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Would that not depend on the gravity of the offence? Does a sense of proportion not come into it? I have read in newspapers that France is introducing a new offence of whistling during the national anthem. I do not know whether that carries more than one year and therefore becomes an extraditable offence but, if it does, in common sense someone should not be extradited for that.
  Lord Filkin: That touches on an important issue. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, is again right about the threshold for the processes. We will debate that in some detail when we come to it. The noble Lord signalled that the threshold that we propose or that the framework decision proposes is too high and that he would be happier with a framework based on a five-year sentence. We will debate those issues. In a sense, we are arguing about a threshold, rather than a principle.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The Minister posed two questions. Is there not a third? If the person has come
  GC 152
  back to this country from another country, should he be returned to that country to stand trial for something that would not be an offence if done in this country?
  Lord Filkin: The Government's position is that he should. When in Rome, one should do as the Romans do. If we do not take that position, we are basically saying that, as long as someone can run for a border fast enough, he will escape justice. That is not a credible or responsible position, given the reality of international crime. I do not wish to put it too bluntly, but, if I were a terrorist, I would hope that the amendment would be made.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The Minister must agree that the sort of serious crime that he mentioned is already covered by the Bill. We are talking about the removal of dual criminality in cases that may be of minor importance.
  Lord Filkin: I do not think that some of the examples that I gave were of minor importance, in terms of the statute of limitations, which we talked about at Second Reading, or in terms of fiscal offences, in some countries. We will come to the matter in more detail at another time, but the thrust of the dual criminality issue is that we do not want to have a pedantic, if I may put it that way, emphasis on having an exactly identical law for serious matters—we will discuss those serious matters later—that would prevent someone from facing justice.
  If we adopted such a position, we would make it more difficult to bring to trial people who should be brought to trial. That is not to say that they should be convicted, but they should, at least, be brought to trial.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Like others, I believe that, in the last analysis, it is the Government who should protect the citizen and the citizen's rights. The Home Secretary believes in intervention in judicial decisions. Only recently, he said that he intended to take certain actions that would allow Ministers to intervene in matters of sentencing and in decisions on asylum and immigration. Ministerial involvement is not necessarily a bad thing. The Home Secretary believes in it in certain circumstances.
  I believe in ministerial involvement in this circumstance. A citizen will be physically removed from this country to another jurisdiction, where, as has been said, the laws will not be properly understood and will not equate to those to which he or she is used in this country. So that there is, in my mind anyway, a case for ministerial involvement. I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude on this issue, particularly bearing in mind the Home Secretary's announced views with great press coverage that he also believes that Ministers should be involved in the judicial process.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may intervene while the Minister is considering how to reply to that. I would not wish to align myself with everything that the Home Secretary has recently been saying about the

  GC 153
  judges. Indeed, I do not think that I would wish to align myself with anything the Home Secretary has recently been saying about the judges.
  I was touched and gratified to hear the Minister speak of Ministers always having regard to the "judge over their shoulder" because when I was the Attorney-General I sponsored the little booklet with very entertaining graphics entitled Judge Over Your Shoulder. That has had a salutary effect because it has meant that Ministers in purporting to exercise their functions have had to have regard to the limits of judicial review. They do not put themselves in the position of the judicial authority. All they do is to look at the road that he or she has taken. If he has taken a wrong turning and misdirected himself and behaved unfairly, the judge says, "Go back and do it again. Start again and see where you get to this time following the right road".
  So I believe that judicial review, contrary to the opinions of the Home Secretary and be it said some of his predecessors in my government, will be an effective curb upon the abuse of executive powers. That is not to say that there does not remain a place for ministerial involvement in extradition, or so I believe. The Minister will not have the answer at his fingertips now, but I should like him to reflect on why the extradition legislation for over 100 years has involved a ministerial position.
  I can think of a rather sensible reason. However, I do not know whether research shows that this has been the explanation all along. It is that it is extremely important that any extradition procedure in this country should carry the confidence of the ordinary public. Let us take the perhaps slightly fanciful example of a British citizen who is arrested in Spain for interfering out of principled motives with a bull fight because he takes a particular view about bull fights. He returns home and extradition is sought to enable Spanish law. which may be a savage law in those circumstances, to take its course. It seems important from the point of view of confidence among the ordinary public in the extradition system, that a Minister should have the ability to decide whether extradition using British law enforcement officers should be activated to send that person back to undergo trial.
  I am not presuming to say what the answer should be but I think that there is, in terms of public confidence, a proper place for a Minister at the process end of the judicial proceedings. Perhaps the Minister might care to reflect upon that.
  Lord Filkin: I shall deal with the last two interesting interventions. I had forgotten when I read the noble and learned Lord'sJudge Over Your Shoulder many years ago that it was a product of his actions. I am pleased to learn about it, as one always is.
  In short, for reasons that are clear, our position on Part 2 cases is that there is a need to retain ministerial involvement, but there is not for Part 1 cases. At this point I have nothing further to add to what I have said already on that.
  GC 154
  I turn now to some of the further practical reasons why we think the differentiation that has been made between terrorism and other serious offences is inappropriate. The consequence would be that when dealing with a country, we would have to put in place parallel regimes, depending on the ostensible purpose of the crime in question. Thus there would be one extradition for Spain if one was dealing with terrorist offences and another for non-terrorist offences.
  A more substantial problem may arise that may be instanced by, say, a bank robbery that had taken place in Madrid, the perpetrators of which had fled to the UK. Are we saying that the different extradition procedure would apply depending on whether the motives of those bank robbers were for personal gain or to fund the activities of, for example, ETA? 'That would invite the courts to try to inspect what was the motivation of the perpetrators of that crime. That is a challenge that it would be foolish to ask a court to undertake.
  It matters as a distinction because the involvement of paramilitary groups in non-terrorist crime, as the experience of Northern Ireland shows, demonstrates that this issue is of profound importance to the United Kingdom. Perhaps I may remind the Committee of what Lady Sylvia Hermon said during the debate on the Third Reading of this Bill in another place. She does not sit on the Government Benches and she is the wife of a former Chief Constable of the then Royal Ulster Constabulary. She has considerable knowledge of these matters. She said that:
  "Paramilitary terrorist organisations, both loyalist and republican, smuggle weapons, fuel and cigarettes. Given that the paramilitary terrorism that we have had to confront is so closely tied to other very serious offences, [the] proposal to narrow the definition to terrorism would do a great disservice to the people of the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/03; col. 248.]
  We agree with those comments.
  One real and very terrifying example of this was recently highlighted by the conviction of the Real IRA operatives responsible for a campaign of car bombing in Birmingham and London during 2001. Noble Lords will recall the destruction and injury caused at the BBC Television Centre at Ealing Broadway two years ago. On 9th April 2001 John Steele wrote in the Daily Telegraph that the case,
  "provided clear evidence of links between Irish terrorists and mainstream crime".
  He went on to explain the sobering concept that one tactic apparently employed by those men to conceal their terrorist activities was to,
  "hide behind their involvement in 'ordinary, decent crime".
  I do not need to labour the point. It is well known to noble Lords, but certainly today in particular some Members of the Committee will be well aware of the strong links between terrorism and other forms of crime, and the way in which ordinary crime—if I may put it that way—is used by terrorists to fuel and support their activities. They are inextricably linked and any attempt to deal with them by using different procedures would be fraught with difficulty and complication.

  GC 155
  In his speech at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which as promised I reflected on after the debate, said that the Government's example of a terrorist funding his network by drugs was "extreme". I would now say in all candour that, in the terrorist fraternity, such practice is commonplace and this Government and this House have to deal with that awful reality. These amendments would not help our cause in doing so.
  I should like also to turn to Amendments Nos. 124 and 135 which seek to remove subsection (7) from both Clauses 63 and 64. These subsections relate to conduct which would amount to an offence under specific provisions of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.
  What conduct or actions are we talking about here? This covers genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. I am sure we all agree that those are the most serious of crimes. Because we take very seriously our responsibilities concerning such crimes, the UK takes extra-territorial jurisdiction in order to deal with them. We would certainly want to be able to extradite for them as well. Why seek to remove those parts of the Bill which would allow us to deal with them? Our current extradition law allows us to deal with them and it was amended specifically for that purpose, so we are adding nothing new. We simply continue to maintain our commitment to bringing war criminals to justice.
  All these provisions are clearly drafted to mean that the dual criminality test will always have to be met for such conduct. The wording explains that it would apply only where conduct constitutes or, if it took place in the UK, would constitute such an offence. That is the definition of the dual criminality test. In that respect, there is nothing new or sinister here. We look simply to continue our observance of the UK's international obligations to ensure that war criminals are brought to justice.
  I shall not go into further detail at this point. This has been an important debate which has served to set out some of the areas to which no doubt we shall return and test further. In the light of what I have said and given our present procedures, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to withdraw her amendment.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before the noble Lord leaves this subject, he has mentioned several times the benefits to the United Kingdom which the Government see arising from the European arrest warrant as proposed. Could he remind the Committee of how many extra suspects do the Government believe the United Kingdom will get back as a result of passing Part 1 in its present form? I do not think that he has touched on the matter this afternoon and I cannot recall it being covered at Second Reading. What is the balance between what the Government see as the advantages of bringing people back to try them
  GC 156
  here and the disadvantages many of us see in accepting that the judicial systems of Italy, Greece, Belgium and other countries are as good as our own?
  Lord Filkin: As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, knows, I do not accept his basic premise that this is in some way a trade-off along the lines of, "Let us put up with a bit of difficult practice here because we get some benefits". We do not see that there is anything wrong at all with the European arrest warrant process as it is intended to be legislated for in this Bill. We do not perceive it as flawed or risky, and that is what will be tested and judged. I do not grant that premise.
  On the specifics of what the noble Lord has asked, I do not think that I have ever given an estimate of the numbers of extra cases that might be brought to trial. It would be quite difficult to do so because several variables would come into play. However, I shall not say "no" out of hand. I shall reflect on his question and if it is possible to indicate a quantity, I shall do so.
  The point I intended to make in terms of the benefits of extradition is that it would not simply bring more people to trial, it concerns also trying people in what many would consider to be the right place. I shall repeat an example I made earlier because I am not sure whether the noble Lord was in his place at the time. If a Frenchman comes to Britain and murders a British citizen here, at present that French person cannot be brought to trial for that murder in this country. He would be tried in France. It may be that he would get a fair trial and that the French process would work well. I am not saying that it would not do so. But it seems wrong that the witnesses and the family of the victim would have to travel to France to have the case heard rather than having it heard in the country in which the crime was committed. I shall say no more, but that was one of the points I instanced earlier.
  I hope that, if not to his entire satisfaction, I have at least responded to the noble Lord.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In the Minister's response to my noble friend Lord Pearson he has encapsulated the difference between us by saying that the Government see nothing wrong with the European arrest warrant, that it is perfect in its current form and in the process under which it will operate. It appears that the Government believe that they have given birth to a perfect baby, but we see it as something already in the form of a difficult adolescent.
  I shall not seek to summarise all the points made by noble Lords in this important debate, but I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Pearson, Lord Lamont and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew for their support in these matters. I was particularly struck by the comments made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew with regard to the proper role of a Minister in extradition matters. We shall return to that in detail in later amendments.
  I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who made the important point that there is a genuine fear that we are drifting by stealth

  GC 157
  towards harmonisation. That is where the difficulty arises because there is a difference between us in principle here.
  With his usual courtesy, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made it clear well in advance that he could not support my amendments, so his remarks came as no surprise. We differ on the principle of how we approach the European arrest warrant. We do not see it as an undeniable good that has to be wrought upon us. However, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the practical matters that he explained so clearly. We worry that the judicial systems of other countries are not sufficiently robust to bring justice to those who are then extradited. There are differences between other countries to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred. I might add to his list of difficult countries in terms of trust that of Belgium as regards its police systems. In previous debates the noble Lord has raised the matter.
  The Minister spoke of a trade-off and said that we would benefit from other people being extradited back to this country. I still return to the fact that my first concern is this: what are we giving up for our people who are resident in this country? Which civil liberties must be given up? What will be the price that we pay? We shall debate those matters in great detail later.
  I conclude with one comment. The Minister said clearly: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". He emphasised time and again the point that if you are abroad and you commit an act that is an offence in that country, then you should jolly well expect to be prosecuted for it and, if found guilty, to be convicted. That underlies the entire thrust of the argument that the Minister seems to have been developing throughout the debate; namely, that if one believes that, then ultimately Part 2 should drift into Part 1. Part I would be expanded.
  Lord Filkin: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I wish I could claim that I had chosen Rome deliberately because it is within the European Union, although in a sense that makes my point. We were talking about the Part 1 processes for countries where we think it is appropriate to do so. Therefore we were not saying and have never said that to be the situation for any country in the world. We are talking about the narrow circumstances of Part 1.
  Consistent with that, we have agreed to use the affirmative resolution procedure for the designation of any country in Part 1, recognising the concern to ensure that, without expecting that anyone will find a perfect judicial system anywhere in the world not even here—if a country looks to be a reasonable enough extradition partner, we can use the procedures set out in Part 1 rather than Part 2. I intervene to ensure that there is no misinterpretation that I had implied that if someone committed a crime in an appalling police state named X, we would automatically bang the accused back. Not for a moment was I saying that.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for that clarification. I have to say that I had hoped that the
  GC 158
  Minister would say exactly that. The difficulty, however, is that we still must come back to what happens in countries already in the European Union and the fact that we are not guaranteed that the Part 1 procedures will be applied only to existing EU members. That creates the additional difficulty that offences created in the future in other countries may be added to the framework list—by unanimity in a ministerial decision, it is true, but it could happen. Thus we are trying to aim static provisions at a moving picture. It is the moving picture that worries us so much.
  The Minister finds fault, for example, with our definition of terrorism. The courts already have to work with the Government's definition of terrorism when they decide each and every case in this country. We see that as a difficulty that we trust our courts to determine. We do not necessarily trust the procedures applied abroad to be able to determine properly decisions that will have to be made as a result of the procedures set out in the Bill. The Minister will therefore not be surprised to learn that I expect to return to these amendments on Report. He will also not be surprised to hear me say that I look forward to our later discussions on the very important safeguards that are enshrined in further amendments. not only from these Benches, but from all sides of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Clinton-Davismoved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 1, line 9, leave out "may" and insert "must"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 4, for the convenience of the Committee, I suggest that we should also consider Amendment No. 5. First, I should like to make a short point. I live in a world of optimism in that regard. My first point is that the issue which this amendment addresses is very simple. Since my stroke, I speak very slowly, so I think that the Committee is bound to make rather slower progress than is usual.
  This clause retains the possibility that a state capable of imposing the death penalty can be allocated into category 1. I welcomed the Government's statement declaring that they will not allocate to category 1 any state which uses the death penalty. But, in my view, the use of the word "may" renders the clause rather ineffective. There is then the possibility that a country could still be included in category 1 regardless of whether it imposes the death penalty.
  The clause then limits the remit of the provision to the death penalty under the general criminal law of the territory. I ask, therefore, whether capital offences defined as coming within the general criminal law would be so caught. Would terrorist-related or emergency legislation be defined as coming within the general criminal law? How are military tribunals to be covered?

  GC 159
  I submit that the clause as currently worded does not provide any effective safeguards or progress the discussion of criteria for allocation, a subject which remains rather opaque. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 5 in this grouping is tabled in my name and I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. However, I am afraid that I did not return the compliment by adding my name to Amendment No. 4 because I do not think that it is necessary. The words "may not" inevitably equal "must not" in the particular context. However, in my view Amendment No. 5 is needed. It concerns a point raised originally in briefing by the Law Society.
  Subsection (3) states that:
  "A territory may not be designated for the purposes of this Part if a person found guilty in the territory of a criminal offence may be sentenced to death for the offence under the general criminal law of the territory".
  It makes plain sense to stop at the words,
  "may be sentenced to death for the offence",
  thus leaving out the phrase,
  "under the general criminal law of the territory".
  What is meant by those words? Do they exclude emergency law? Do they exclude military law? Are they meant to leave open, for example, the possible imposition of the death penalty under Article 2 of the 6th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights which permits the death penalty to be imposed for acts committed in time of war or imminent threat of war?
  All those possibilities open a wide loophole. A state could abolish the death penalty under the general law, but keep draconian powers to apply the death penalty, for example, in times of internal insurrection. It would be best to get rid of those words or to tighten and clarify the definition of the circumstances under which the death penalty could in fact be applied.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall deal first with Amendment No. 4. I certainly support the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, moved the amendment. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I think that perhaps in drafting terms, it is not necessary. If my Chief Whip told me that I "may" not do something, of course I would not do it. "May" means "must" so far as I am concerned.
  Any matter with regard to the death penalty is one of personal choice in political terms when one votes. Members of this Front Bench will be supporting not only these amendments but all other amendments with regard to safeguards that need to be imposed to ensure that persons are not extradited to a place where they might then face the possibility of a death penalty.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has very effectively explained the amendment on which we received briefing from Liberty. I shall not repeat that. We shall return to the question of the death penalty later in Part 2 with Clause 93. I simply say that I support Amendment No. 5. The clause as currently
  GC 160
  worded does not provide the effective safeguards we need, nor does it take forward properly the discussion of criteria for allocation which, as the Law Society says, is opaque in this respect.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I also support Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I very much welcome the Government's frequently stated policy that they will not extradite people into territories or countries where it is not certain that capital punishment will not apply. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis stated, the Bill leaves a bit of a loophole, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, explained. It would be much better if this were clearly stated on the face of the Bill as:
  "A territory [must] not be designated for the purposes of this Part if a person found guilty in the territory of a criminal offence may be sentenced to death for the offence".
  Full stop. I think that is appropriate. I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I endorse the support for the policy of the subsection. It has been, I do not know for how long, and it was certainly the policy of the last Conservative Government not to extradite to a country where the death penalty could be imposed. There was a case called Soering which caused tremendous complications. The Commonwealth of Virginia sought to extradite Soering. Its Attorney-General had been elected on a strong pro-capital punishment ticket. I shall not go into the details, but the extradition request had to be downgraded by Virginia so that he was tried for a lesser offence which did not carry the death penalty.
  It is important that we should maintain that position. It has been the policy of successive governments for a long time. It is a good thing that is defined in statutory form. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the words are possibly productive of doubt and really are not needed. It is enough to say,
  "where he can be sentenced to death".
  One might possibly say,
  "where he can lawfully be sentenced to death".
  But under the general criminal law the words seems to be unnecessary and potentially troublesome.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I share the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but does he actually have the procedure right? The provision goes to designation of a country and not to extradition or an actual offence. A country is designated when it does not have the death penalty. It then has a political crisis and introduces, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, presupposed, emergency legislation or martial law, which includes the death penalty.
  First, the noble Lord's amendment will not say that in that case the country's designation has to be revoked. Surely he needs a further provision elsewhere stating that even where a country has been designated and does not have a death penalty under its general law, if it changes that in relation to a particular type of offence, there cannot be a Part 1 extradition. It seems a little strange that if a country introduces martial law

  GC 161
  under which one can be executed for rebellion or subversion, that that would then prevent one from being extradited to that country for fraud, blackmail or so on, which is not covered by the death penalty at all. While the intent of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seems good, I am not currently convinced by his method.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to noble Lords for having tabled the amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the amendment standing in his name. It will help us to put on the record and to clarify at least one issue to everyone's satisfaction.
  The amendments are concerned with the provision in the Bill which ensures that no country retaining the death penalty can be designated as a Part 1 country. Perhaps I should explain the history of that provision, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, has given us some of the history, since it was not in the Bill when it was first introduced.
  As we have previously indicated, it is our current intention to designate only EU countries together with, perhaps, Norway and Iceland as category I countries. None of those countries retains the death penalty in any circumstances.
  It is not impossible that Parliament might one day decide that certain key Commonwealth extradition partners should be in Part 1—Australia, Canada and New Zealand are countries which spring to mind. Again none of those countries use the death penalty in any circumstances.
  The United States of America is the only country with which we have any significant volume of extradition business that retains, and uses, the death penalty. For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that we have never had any intention of designating the USA as a Part 1 country, and, indeed, the USA Government have made it clear to us that they would not want to be so designated.
  In addition, the human rights clauses in the Bill mean that we would be unable to extradite in any individual case where there is the prospect that a death sentence would be carried out. So I hope the Committee will agree that the prospect of anyone ever being extradited to a category I country to face the death penalty is remote indeed.
  Nevertheless, the Home Affairs Committee in another place recommended that there should be an explicit provision to the effect that no country which retains the death penalty can be a Part 1 country. While we believed, for the reasons which I have just given, that this would make no difference in practice, we were happy to go along with the Home Affairs Committee's recommendation, as we were with many of its other recommendations. The result is now contained in Clause 1(3). It simply provides that no country which retains the death penalty can be designated as a Part 1 country.
  So I can assure my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that the use of the word "may"—as several noble Lords have rightly recognised during the course of the
  GC 162
  debate—is absolute for these purposes and does not allow any means of getting around the provision. So, his amendment to substitute the word "must" will not serve any purpose. Similarly, I am not sure what the other amendment in the group would achieve. It may be that it is designed—
  Lord Clinton-Davis: If we did use the word "must" instead of the word "may" my noble friend has implied that there would be no difference. So why do we not use the word "must"?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The answer is because there is no need to. It is commonly used and understood in these circumstances—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and equally well by other noble Lords. We are content with the current wording. To change it to "must" would not add anything.
  It seems that Amendment No. 5 was inspired by concern about civil offences or perhaps military offences in particular. We are not aware of any such countries and there are certainly none among those countries which we could ever possibly consider designating as category 1 countries. We do not think that the amendments are necessary. I hope that the reassurance I have given, in particular with regard to Amendment No. 4, satisfies Members of the Committee. We cannot always satisfy everyone in these debates. I hope for those reasons that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I apologise for having to slip out earlier and I in no way want to antagonise my noble friend, who is such a valuable member of the House of Lords' tug-of-war team. My noble friend twice spoke about countries which retain the death penalty. Twice in the last century, one current member and one prospective member of the European Union had military dictatorships imposed on them. I do not know the detail. Reference was made earlier to the possibility of martial law being introduced in those circumstances and the death penalty being extended to all kinds of offences that those responsible for the break in democracy did not like. Is the implication of Clause 1(3) and what the Minister has said, that in the circumstances where this is not retaining the death penalty and it is reintroduced, that the category 1 designation would then be revoked?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is rather better than that. If there was a military dictatorship, Clause 21, which relates to human rights, would of course prevent us from extraditing to those countries to which my noble friend has drawn attention.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The Minister might think that there is a case for reviewing the wording of the subsection. I am afraid that I do not have in my mind exactly what was in the mind of the Home Affairs Committee in another place. I suspect that it wanted an absolute assurance that no one would be sent hack to a country which has the death penalty in respect of an offence that could carry the death penalty there. I do not feel that the Minister has quite addressed the

  GC 163
  point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about whether it really is the Government's policy that someone should no longer be able to be extradited for a serious fraud, for example, simply because it is a country which has become one that uses the death penalty. The issue needs to be looked at again. I quite see why the Home Affairs Committee in another place may very well have wished to be absolutely certain that no one should he sent back where there is a risk that they should suffer the death penalty in respect of the offence concerned, but there seem to be certain possible unintended or undesirable ramifications which need to be either addressed now or looked at again.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. Yes, obviously we will revisit the wording if that is helpful. I thought we had made clear what our position was and for that reason put in the new Clause 1(3). I hope also that the words that have been spoken today into the Official Report make it fairly clear that it is absolutely our intention that we would not seek to extradite in circumstances where someone was at risk from the death penalty. That is the Government's position.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I am unclear what the noble Lord is saying. We have a country which does not have the death penalty at all. It is therefore able to be and is designated. I t then has martial law introduced. That allows the death penalty for certain limited offences. Is it intended that that designation will immediately be revoked totally? Or is it intended merely that if the extradition is requested for an offence that could carry the death penalty, that extradition will be refused under Clause 21?
  We have two very different circumstances. As I understand Clause 1(3), the Government have decided for some reason that if you have the death penalty for any offence however remote—for example, a special form of treason—you cannot be a category I country for any offence at all. The noble Lord's answer about a country that changes its laws appears merely to be saying. "They will remain designated, but if the offence in question is a death penalty offence, then Section 21 will bite and the person will not be extradited, on human rights grounds." Could the noble Lord more clearly explain the Government's position'? If this is a new point and he would prefer, will he write to us about it?
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I am sorry to intervene on this. However, would not the most likely position be that if a country reintroduced the death penalty, it would cease to be eligible to be designated under Part 1, but it would of course be possible to re-designate it under Part 2—in which case the protections against extradition for death penalty offences which apply to
  GC 164
  Part 2 would come into play, although it would still be open to extradite in that way for fraud or any other serious offence?
  Viscount Bledisloe: With respect, the noble Lord has missed the point. Designation is a one-off event. If you are designated, you are designated by an Order in Council. That Order in Council, regardless of whether it is subject to the affirmative procedure, stands. It would be well and good if the Government were saying that we would immediately de-designate any country that had martial law and introduced the death penalty for an offence under it. However, they have not said that, and I do not believe that they mean it. I do not think that they should mean it.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, raises an important point. I thought and hoped that we were clear on that, but perhaps it is worth reflecting on it between now and Report. It is worth putting on the record the general point that both the human rights clause and ECHR case law have established that we would not extradite in any individual case where there was a prospect of the death penalty. It would then be for Parliament to revoke the designation order. However, that does not necessarily cover the noble Viscount's point. It is important that we reflect on this to ensure that we have the policy absolutely right.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am quite a difficult chap to convince. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
  "() A territory may only be designated for the purposes of this Part if it is a party to the framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 7 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 9 which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I thank Liberty for its briefing on the amendments.
  Earlier this afternoon, a while ago now, when speaking to Amendment No. 2, my noble friend Lord Hodgson talked about the importance of using the affirmative procedure for designating territories. He spent some time setting out the reasons why we feel that it is right to get the designation of territories right. I was therefore very interested to hear in the previous debate the intervention of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, with regard to designation and de-designation. I think that that whole debate is key to the debates on how one designates countries and which countries should be designated.
  In his response to the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, talked about the extended shopping list of countries that might be added in future. Ministers have previously been rather more cagey about extension. Although we certainly

  GC 165
  heard comments on the record about Norway and Iceland, Ministers have been a little more cautious about extending it to the ex-Commonwealth countries. I have heard asides, but I have not heard anything else put so clearly on the record. It was an interesting and important comment for the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, to put on the record.
  The principle behind the amendment is to try and insert into Clause 1 some criteria for which countries can be designated as the Part 1 countries. The lack of guidance and clarity on this issue is clearly not something that perturbs only me. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has tabled amendments which refer to bail policies and say that the country should accept the right of petition to the European Court.
  Speaking only to my own amendment, I presume that the Government will come back at me and say that to insert my specification for category 1 territories would be "inflexible"—which is the type of word that Ministers use. I do not think that that is a particularly valid argument in this case. Simplification of the extradition procedure and the consequential removal of certain traditional safeguards, which we have already discussed today, have been agreed to by the UK with other EU member states under the Eurowarrant scheme. So Part 1 of the Bill is designed to transpose the substance of the European arrest warrant into national legislation.
  The Home Office Select Committee report voiced the following concerns on the issue:
  "As the Bill is currently drafted, there is nothing to prevent an Order in Council designating a country which is not a signatory to the framework decision as a category I territory, meaning that a country which is not bound by that decision could still have the benefit of article 2.2 of the decision. A non-EU member state could therefore request that the UK extradites a suspect for an offence that does not constitute an offence in the UK".
  I would welcome some clarification from the Minister about whether territories that have not signed up to the framework decision will be designated as category 1 territories. In addition, perhaps rather than naming the future countries which he envisages, I hope that he will endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, has said. However, if he does not want to do so, perhaps he will be more forthcoming in setting out the criteria that will form the basis of the categorisation.
  I turn briefly to Amendment No. 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I shall listen with interest to his exposition of the amendments. I simply note that when I read a briefing from Fair Trials Abroad—which I thank very much for taking the time to come to the House in order to brief my noble friends on the Front Bench—I was a little concerned about the impact of Amendment No. 9. Fair Trials Abroad pointed out that countries could claim that they accepted the right of individual petition to the European Court, whereas in practice and in the experience of Fair Trials Abroad it would be very difficult for individuals to appeal successfully because of problems of corruption and discrimination against non-nationals in the country where the trial was taking place and because of the expense of pursuing a
  GC 166
  successful petition. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is able to show that those matters have been overcome, I think that he could be on to a winner.
  With regard to my own amendment, I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 9, which is in the same group as Amendment No. 7 which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Amendment No. 9 has a similar purpose to Amendment No. 7 but allows rather more leeway. Amendment No. 7 is limited to parties to the framework decision. Those parties must necessarily be member states of the European Union, whereas Amendment No. 9 can extend rather more widely.
  As I said in a previous debate, we welcome the fast-track process where we have confidence in criminal procedures in the requesting state. On that footing, we would be entirely happy with the proposal to extend category 1 status to Iceland and Norway and indeed to some non-European countries such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. However, I think that there should be some criterion beyond merely the absence of the death penalty to limit the Government's power to add new territories to category 1. I suggest that a suitable criterion would be the acceptance by the relevant territory of some exterior tribunal to which individuals can apply in cases of alleged breaches of human rights.
  In the case of member states of the Council of Europe such a tribunal already exists in the case of the European Court of Human Rights. It certainly appears on the whole that even in countries such as Turkey which are not as good as some other countries in observing human rights there is a fairly active system of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
  In the case of non-European countries, it has to be said that it is harder to find a suitable tribunal. However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has an optional protocol that enables an individual to bring a complaint before the Human Rights Committee which has been set up under that covenant. The Human Rights Committee can consider the facts and publish a report on the complaint, though admittedly it is a report rather than a judgment. Signing up to the optional protocol is not therefore an ideal basis for the criterion, but in many parts of the world it is the best that can be done.
  In answer to the point that the noble Baroness very fairly raised when she said that some countries subscribe to the European Court of Human Rights or to the optional protocol but would still not be suitable for category 1 status, I entirely accept that. However, my amendment does not suggest that all parties to the European Convention on Human Rights or to the optional protocol were in fact suitable for immediate category 1 status. It seems to me, however, that countries that are not parties to the European convention or which have not signed the optional protocol have shown a reluctance to allow individual cases to be subject to an independent scrutiny by an international body and that that reluctance should disqualify them from category 1 status. It would

  GC 167
  remain entirely within the Government's discretion whether in other cases they felt that it was suitable to approve category 1 status or whether those countries should remain in category 2.
  Amendment No. 9 therefore would allow the Government to negotiate category 1 status with states outside the European Union but would exclude from category I status any territory which has refused to accept the international oversight of individual complaints over human rights breaches.
  Lord Filkin: These amendments are concerned with which countries can be designated as category 1 extradition partners and in what circumstances. The effect of the amendment from the Official Opposition would be that the only countries which could be so designated would be those which had signed the framework decision on the EAW. That in turn means the member states of the EU together with Norway and Iceland which have so signed. The Liberal Democrat amendment goes slightly wider by allowing any country which has signed up to and operates the provisions of the ECHR to be in Part 1. That encompasses a rather wider range of European countries.
  It is the Government's intention, as we have indicated, that the only countries that should be subject to Part 1 procedures are precisely the ones covered by the official Opposition amendment—the member states of the European Union plus Norway and Iceland. However, I do not think that it would be wise to limit the future quite as tightly as that amendment would indicate. It would limit the room for manoeuvre of our successors if they decided that there were good reasons to bring before Parliament the case for putting a non-European country into Part 1. My noble friend Lord Bassam trailed that point by referring to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Although we currently have no intention of doing that, it is not outside the bounds of possibility. The day may come when one thinks that there are benefits in doing so. If that were so, one would make that proposal to Parliament. The USA is of course precluded from such designation in Part 1 for as long as it retains the death penalty.
  Those three countries are all established democracies, where the rule of law is respected. However, I hasten to stress that we have no plans to remove those three countries, or any other non-European countries, into Part 1, although it does not strike me as impossible. There may be a strong case for doing so in future, but that is not being deceptive; we are simply leaving open the possibility. Therefore, we need to retain a flexibility—although I hate to use that word—to cope with the situation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, suggested. I indicated by the amendment which I signalled we would table that we would not be able to do so, and we would not wish to be able to do so, without making a proposal that would have to stand the test of an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
  GC 168
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised some thoughtful additional points, as ever. I do not want to raise his hopes by signalling that I will reflect, but I do not want simply to be dismissive and strike it out altogether. I shall use some of the time between now and Report stage to reflect on the balance of advantage and disadvantage. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will he minded to withdraw her amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This would certainly have been a probing amendment, even if we had not been in Grand Committee. My objective was to elicit from the Minister some explanation of the criteria on which the Government were going to operate. I have failed signally in that regard. The Minister said that he did not like the amendment because it was too much of a straitjacket and too limited. I would certainly agree with him on that, if we must proceed as the Government want, and there may be a better way of limiting the scope of designation to Part 1 countries.
  The Minister said that it was unwise to limit the provision because we do not want to prevent people in future from adding other countries. The difficulty is that we still do not know on what criteria the Government will operate when we reach that stage.
  Lord Filkin: I am sorry to have to intervene twice in this way. First, we have not really given much thought to criteria because there is no current intention to add to designation. That does not mean to say that we believe that there should be a rigid set of criteria, but one might at least have to reflect on possible principles.
  Secondly, it would not be someone in future making the decision, but Parliament itself. We have made it clear that adding any country to Part I would he a decision made by Parliament through the affirmative resolution process.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for that. I was about to move on to the fact that he has helpfully signalled today that the Government will consider introducing amendments on Report that will make designation subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the fact is that by that stage the Government would presumably have had to give some thought to the matter. The Minister made the point that not much thought had been given to the criteria yet. That very much underwhelms me, I must say. Any Government that introduced an affirmative statutory instrument would presumably, at that stage, have to say what the criteria were on which they proposed that a country should be added to the list. One would assume that Parliament would, at that stage, consider the criteria that had been used to put the countries on the list in the first place.
  I feel as if I were going round and round in a circle and getting absolutely nowhere, which is why I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I shall have to bring this back at Report to test it further, even if we do not get the Government to consider it in the meantime. It is a matter on which noble Lords will

  GC 169
  have to establish their views before the Bill goes through the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Coodhartmoved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
  "() A territory may not be designated for the purposes of this Part unless it is bound by law not to discriminate against persons resident in other category 1 territories in the grant of bail pending trial."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is not exactly a probing amendment. It has been moved mainly in order to get the issue of bail on record. I have referred already to Fair Trials Abroad, which helps United Kingdom residents facing trials in other countries, and sometimes the converse. Over the years, it is clear that a main cause of hardship for people arrested abroad is the difficulty in getting bail in foreign countries. British lorry drivers especially, whose lorries are found to be holding something that should not be there, whether it be people, booze or cannabis, are often clapped in jail and held there for months pending trial. That is so even where a local lorry driver would be released on bail.
  The reasons for that discrimination are understandable up to a point. For example, a Spanish defendant who is arrested and charged with a criminal offence in Spain is unlikely to go abroad unless he is a serious professional criminal and can afford to go and live somewhere else. If a Spanish defendant jumps bail in Spain, the Spanish appeal can find him, put him in prison and bring him before the court with no formality. On the other hand, if a United Kingdom resident is charged in Spain and given bail, he will naturally want to return to the United Kingdom. If he does, there is a significant chance that he will not return for the trial, and if he does not go back to answer to hail, there is no quick and easy way in which to get him there. The Spanish authorities would have to apply for extradition which, as we know, even under the new procedure can be a long and expensive process. Of course, the bail can be forfeited, but many defendants are not in a position to find substantial bail, and if they are going to be released, they have to be released on relatively modest bail.
  The simplification of the extradition procedure by the Bill undoubtedly means that it would be easier to get bail jumpers back to other category 1 territories. That is one reason, and an important reason, why I support the European arrest warrant in principle. However, it is still a relatively complicated procedure.
  Fair Trials Abroad has been campaigning, for many years now, for the creation of a Eurobail system. That would mean that a defendant who refuses to answer to bail in another Eurobail country would be returned for trial to that country with the minimum of formality. Of course, there would have to be some formalities—for example, the person who had been arrested could raise the defence of mistaken identity and say that he was not the bail jumper—but the procedure would be kept to a minimum. That would minimise the protections against abuse, but that is a fair balance, because
  GC 170
  without a Eurobail system foreign defendants are more likely to be detained in custody, and the more opportunities that a person on bail has of delaying or blocking his return, the less likely it is that bail will be granted. Therefore, it is in the general interests of people charged with a crime in a foreign country that procedure for returning those who do not surrender to their bail voluntarily should be as simple as possible.
  That means having a Eurobail system that is separate from extradition and is as near automatic as reasonably possible. It is not practicable for us to introduce in amendments to this Bill any formula for a fully-fledged Eurobail system, as that would be far too complicated. Therefore, 1 have tabled an amendment that requires all category 1 territories to undertake not to discriminate against the residents of other category 1 territories in granting bail. I am not suggesting that that would be an adequate substitute for a proper Eurobail system, although it would be better than nothing.
  Are the Government prepared to give approval in principle to setting up a Eurobail system, and are they prepared to raise the matter with other member states of the European Union with a view to ultimately making progress and having a framework decision that would create such a system? I beg to move.
  Viscount Bledisloe: The noble Lord has raised an important and difficult problem, although I do not believe that his answer is the right one. As he said, the problem applies to people arrested for an offence abroad. It matters not whether they were arrested in that country when they committed the offence or whether they have been extradited for it. The problem arises when a person is in custody in a foreign country for an offence that he is alleged to have committed there. It makes no difference whether he got there because he was arrested before he got out of the country or whether he was hauled back pursuant to extradition.
  I also have to say that this country would probably not qualify within the test imposed by the amendment. I may be very out of date, because it has been a long time since I did a bail application, but it has always been a serious consideration of the court whether the person in question was, if given bail, likely to attend the trial. Many people in this country will be required, for example, to surrender their passports and give undertakings that they do not leave the country. The person granted bail in Greece after looking at aeroplanes will want to come home, and it is not much good to him to be given bail and required to remain in Greece. Almost no country could pass the test, because countries will inevitably discriminate against people whose natural tendency will be to leave the territory when they cannot prevent it.
  On the other hand, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that it is high time that we had a Eurobail system, and I do not see the objection to it. If one is arrested in a foreign country, one does not have to ask for bail; one can remain in custody. If one does ask for bail, one is either expressly or implicitly promising and undertaking that one will return for

  GC 171
  trial. If one breaks that undertaking, why should he not be hauled back straight away? I do not see the difficulty with Eurobail, which seems to me much less controversial and more reasonable than the arrest warrant. I do not understand why Europe has not got on with it; normally it gets on with far too many things, but this seems to be one thing that it should have got on with but has not. Will the Minister tell us where we are on that matter?
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I support the amendment, at least in spirit. There may be some problems with wording, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, but he referred to cases that would not amount to discrimination within the terms of the amendment. That is simply a matter of wording, at any rate. The spirit of the amendment is surely something we should support.
  I have some knowledge of the cases investigated by Fair Trails Abroad. I do not believe that the Government have really paid heed to the work of that organisation. Surely, the spirit of the amendment must be right in a general sense, when it says that we should not designate where there is discrimination against people from other territories as regards granting of bail. I point out to the noble Viscount that it is a matter of designation.
  The grant of bail is absolutely fundamental. People languish in prisons in other countries, which include countries in western Europe. The Government must surely, on principle, do something to establish right at the outset of the Bill that they are against that. They can do so by saying that no country can be designated where such discrimination exists. I do not know about the exact wording of the amendment, but this is a test case for the Government.
  The noble Lord, Lord Carter, speaking in the curious debate that determined whether the Bill should be sent to the odd procedure of a Grand Committee, recommended the procedure on the grounds that the Government were more likely to make concessions. His speech was highly recommended by my noble friend the Minister. I hope that my noble friend has that spirit now. I was so glad to hear that the previous amendment will be considered. Surely, if there is an amendment on the Marshalled List that the Government should reconsider—whatever the Home Office has thought in the past—this is it. I hope that my noble friend can reassure us on that point.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This is certainly an interesting amendment. When Fair Trials Abroad came to give their briefing, they made the point to me that when the European arrest warrant comes into force, it is necessary to have a practical traditional liberty system also in place as soon as possible, and that if that does not happen, European citizens who are foreign to the jurisdictions in which they find themselves will inevitably experience institutionalised discrimination in the granting of provisional liberty. That is why it made the suggestion of Eurobail.
  GC 172
  I was struck by the comment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, when he said that our jurisdiction might be found wanting within the definition of the amendment. I plead guilty to having myself sat on and refused granting of bail—in one case to an Italian and in another to a Spanish person, on the basis that they were likely not to surrender. In both cases they were accused of trafficking drugs. I am not sure that they would have been granted bail had they from this country, either, but it is certainly a matter for consideration in granting bail whether someone will skip the country. I appreciate that all those who grant bail must have that in mind.
  The amendment is helpful. It is important for the Government today to shed some light on the problematic issue of bail and how they intend to advance negotiations with their European partners. I was again struck by the comment of the noble Viscount that the matter was less controversial than the European arrest warrant. Some might not agree with him, but I think that he is right.
  Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I certainly agree that English law—at least as I know it—would not pass that test, and reasonably not. But why should the examining judge not be allowed when asked to extradite someone to consider whether bail had been unreasonably refused? Or, let us put the matter within the judge's remit. I have not worked out the appropriate wording, but that would be better than the flat-footed amendment that has been tabled—although I of course understand that it has been tabled merely to edge the Government towards Eurobail.
  Lord Filkin: That is an interesting and complicated discussion but, as I shall seek to demonstrate, one for another time.
  Bail in the context of extradition cases is something that the Government take seriously. Indeed, for the first time, the Bill extends the presumption in favour to cover extradition cases—accusation only—in this country. The presumption, which would normally apply in criminal proceedings in the UK, is extended to extradition proceedings in this country by virtue of Clause 193. We shall come to that due course.
  I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendment and the considerable knowledge about and involvement in the issue of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and of Fair Trials Abroad. I am delighted to put on the record that the Government commends the work of Fair Trials Abroad on the issue and on many other topics with which the noble Lord is closely involved. Of course, that does not mean that we automatically agree with them in every respect. Nevertheless, they must be listened to.
  I believe that the amendment is aimed at ensuring that any person extradited under Part 1 has access to equal consideration of bail, pending prosecution. I hope that I have correctly interpreted the objective of the amendment in that summary, although I think that the noble Lord was also speaking more widely about the benefits of Eurobail as a system. The Government could not disagree with the former view—not that we would ever want to.

  GC 173
  When taking a decision on bail, to discriminate on the basis of a person's race, religion, nationality and so forth, would clearly be unacceptable. Such discrimination is prohibited by the Human Rights Act 1998, as it is by the corresponding legislation in all other member states' law. However, residency is not one of the factors on which discrimination is prohibited. I should explain that, were the amendment to be accepted, exactly as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, we judge that no country, including even ours, would qualify to be in category 1.
  The reason for that is as follows. Let us take a judge in this country, for example. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, so personally and graphically illustrated, one of the judge's primary considerations must be how likely is the person in front of him or her to adhere to the conditions if bail is granted. Naturally, that applies in all types of jurisdiction when provisional liberty is being decided on.
  When considering hail, courts will take into account factors that would contribute to the probability of the person adhering to the conditions of bail, such as having a fixed abode, employment, family ties, and so forth. A non-resident is inevitably less likely to meet those tests and, consequently, may in some circumstances be less likely to be granted bail. But he is not being discriminated against purely on the basis of his place of residence. His likelihood to comply with the conditions of bail is being assessed, to which the effects of non-residence are one of range of factors that will he considered.
  We have already touched on the fact that extradition concerns serious criminal offences. By definition, extradition is likely to become an aspect of a case only when the person accused of the crime has fled from the place where it was committed. We need to view the matter in that context.
  I turn to Eurobail. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, Eurobail goes beyond the scope of the Bill. The principle of Eurobail as outlined by Fair Trials Abroad is that a person should be sent to his home country pending the start of his trial, so that the bail decision can be taken there.
  Whatever may be the general merits of Eurobail, it would be especially inappropriate for extradition. Let me explain why. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will respond if he feels that to be appropriate. If a British citizen committed a crime here and then fled to France, we would submit an EAW to France. Under a system of Eurobail, he would be returned here until the extradition hearing, whereupon we should have to return him to France, so that they could consider whether to return him to Britain to stand trial. That does not seem to us a sensible way to proceed in practice.
  I hear the arguments about whether a person abroad is more likely not to be bailed for the reasons on which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, touched in her case. All that I can say is that there is no change as a consequence of the Bill. It does not change that, for better or for worse.
  GC 174
  The Eurobail system is separate from extradition. However, I was invited to set out our position on it. I hope that we keep an open mind on all potential European Union measures, although we would start from a position that may disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, of being sceptical about whether the approximation of criminal procedures is a road down which we want to travel very far. So we start from a position of scepticism. However, currently, no negotiations are in process or planned on Eurobail in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. As I said, for reasons in both principle and practice, I hope that the noble Lord will feel minded to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Do I understand my noble friend to mean that the Government will not reconsider the impact of bail on the European arrest warrant?
  Lord Filkin: Our position is that Eurobail and bail is a separate matter from that of the European arrest warrant. That is the current position; we have no current plans to change the system of bail. There is no change to the current position of people who are subject to extradition requests into this country; there is nothing worse nor better than the current position as a consequence.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have supported the principle of Eurobail and that behind the amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is right in his criticism of the amendment; indeed, I am well aware of that. It is not a satisfactory substitute for a proper Eurobail system, and was never meant to be. It is mainly a peg on which to hang this debate; I am glad that we have had the debate.
  I also accept what the Minister says: that Eurobail is, on the whole, something rather different from extradition, because the Eurobail system would mainly apply in cases in which someone was believed to have committed an offence in, let us say, France, was arrested in France, and then a question arose whether he or she should be bailed in order to be allowed to return to the United Kingdom. So the question of extradition would not enter into that unless and until we reached the stage where. having been granted bail, the person, when back in the United Kingdom, refused to return to France, in which case France could instigate extradition proceedings to return the person.
  But what I frankly find disappointing is the negative attitude to the whole concept of Eurobail and the fact that the Government appear to have no intention to proceed any further with it. The present position causes serious hardship, not to a large but to a significant number of people, which should be considered. It should not be left as it is. I therefore regret that the Government have not seen fit to signal that they will take the matter any further. I shall have to consider whether I can take any further action on Report; I may well not be able to. However, I shall think about that, and, in the meantime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannochmoved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
  "() The EU or any of its institutions may not be designated for the purposes of this Part."
  The noble Lord said: I trust that it is clear that the amendment looks forward to the time when the European Union has its own legal personality. There appears to be little doubt that the EU is about to acquire legal personality, because that seems to have been generally agreed—including by Her Majesty's Government—in Mr Giscard d'Estaing's Convention on the Future of Europe.
  That acquisition of legal personality by the EU does not appear to have been fully thought through by those who support it. For instance, the EU flag will presumably acquire the status of a national flag, whereas, at the moment, as perhaps not all Members of the Committee may be fully aware, it is merely an advertising gimmick, requiring a local authority licence before it is displayed in this country. Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" will presumably suffer the ignominy of becoming the new EU mega-state's national anthem.
  The main aim of the amendment is therefore to ensure that the EU itself will never be able to extradite a British citizen, especially for the highly controversial crime of xenophobia. If some Members of the Committee feel that such a prospect is far-fetched, I refer them to an answer given to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, in debate on a Starred Question tabled in my name earlier this year. The noble Baroness said:
  "Conferring a single personality on the Union would give it the capacity to act within the legal system distinctly from the states that are its members. The noble Lord is quite right. In practice that would mean that the EU would have the capacity to make treaties, to sue and be sued, and to become a member of international organisations".—[Official Report, 20/3/03; col. 377.]
  So why should it not issue arrest warrants for xenophobia? I remind the Committee that Article 9 of the Giscard draft constitution, entitled,
  "Application of fundamental principles",
  States:
  "The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it by the Constitution, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States".
  I remind your Lordships that Article 11 of the draft constitution defines the competencies, or powers, that are to be exclusively granted to the EU, giving it complete power over the member states. Article 11(2) states:
  "The Union shall have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union, is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its competence internally, or affects an internal Union act".
  I appreciate that those clauses have not yet been agreed by the next intergovernmental conference, but the signs are that they will be. If they are, the concession made earlier today by the Government to
  GC 176
  the effect that new entries to the category 1 territories will have to be approved by affirmative resolution may not afford much protection.
  I raised the prospect of the EU issuing its own arrest warrants with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in our debate on 2nd April this year on the Convention on the Future of Europe in the name of my noble friend Lord Blackwell. I asked her specifically whether the Government could give a clear assurance that when the EU had legal personality, and after Parliament had rubber-stamped this outrageous EU arrest warrant—which is, of course, what we are doing now—whether one would be committing the crime of xenophobia if one insulted the European Union, perhaps while in Brussels or in another member state, or even in this country. Could calling it "the corrupt octopus in Brussels" or worse—perhaps much worse—lay one open to extradition and prosecution abroad?
  The noble Baroness was good enough to answer my question as follows:
  "Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that he will be able to continue to speak with his customary gusto on all matters European, without any hint of sedition or treachery, and that we would all wish to protect his rights to free speech".—[Official Report, 2/4/03; col. 1388.]
  Of course I am grateful for that answer, especially as the Government often never really attempt to answer questions I put to them on EU matters. But I think noble Lords will agree that the answer does not quite hit the spot. I was not asking about sedition or treachery, as defined in British law. I was asking about racism and xenophobia, which is not a crime here, as defined by a foreign magistrate. I was also asking about British rights to free speech which are rather different from those in Germany, where to deny the holocaust is a crime, or in France, where to insult the President is also an offence, believe it or not. My noble friend Lord Lamont mentioned today that whistling during the French national anthem is either a crime or becoming one.
  Furthermore, noble Lords may remember the recent judgment of the EU Advocate General in the case of Mr. Bernard Connolly, a senior Commission official, who had been sacked for writing a seminal and revealing book entitled,The Rotten Heart of Europe. Mr. Connolly claimed that his right to free speech had been violated. The so-called judge dismissed his case, of course, telling Mr. Connolly that free speech was not an absolute right. It could not be used to justify certain offences, such as criticism of the EU, which he put into the same category as blasphemy.
  So I confess that I tabled the amendment against the background of the deep apprehension with which I and many others view the path being taken by the European Union. Many of us see it as clearly undemocratic and corrupt, and we fear that it may be on the way to becoming a dictatorial unitary state. There are signs that, consciously or unconsciously, it is already setting in place the instruments of control, as that great Soviet dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky, has so expertly analysed.

  GC 177
  One instrument was exposed by the redoubtable Conservative MEP, Daniel Hannan, in the Sunday Telegraph two days ago, when he revealed that the EU is proposing legislation which could bar Euro-sceptic parties from the European Parliament. This is, of course, one of the principal methods by which the Soviets controlled their Union. They did not ban elections—they merely banned the dissidents from contesting the elections. Parties were initially banned as being fascist, but before long this description applied to everyone except the communists.
  As some Members of the Committee may remember, article 58 of the Soviet penal code went further than that. Anyone who spoke against the Soviet system was clearly mad, so mad that they had to be confined for eight years in the gulag, with its famous psychiatric hospitals, to straighten them out. That is the system which sent Solzhenitsyn and Bukovsky and millions of other to the camps, which very few survived.
  I am not sure whether I mention this in jest, but the recent editor of the BBC's flagship political programme, "Today", has publicly revealed that the BBC's hierarchy regards me and others as mad, because we believe that the European Union is developing into a colossal mistake, and that the United Kingdom would be very much better off out of it.
  Be that as it may, I trust the Government will he able to assure your Lordships that the EU will not be able to go down the path I have indicated, whether it wants to or not, and that they can therefore accept the amendment. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank my noble friend for taking us into more general waters. He has put the Bill against the background of a very important issue as we see the development of the European Union over the coming year. I was particularly struck that he asked during his peroration whether the safeguard the Government are offering us of having the affirmative statutory instrument as a designation of countries will be sufficient. That is something that I want to consider.
  My noble friend referred again to the fact that crimes in other jurisdictions would not be considered crimes here. He said that in France, whistling during the national anthem is about to become an offence. In defence of football in this country, perhaps it is just as well, because France will certainly never be able to hold the World Cup there again.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Of course I must support the noble Lord's amendment. I thought he raised some very real fears. He referred to the BBC, which thinks that anybody who is a little concerned about the European Union and the direction it is taking must be completely and utterly mad. That accusation has been levelled at many of us for a very long time.
  As I said earlier, what we have predicted has usually come to pass. For example, some of us said that the European Union was intent on setting up a United
  GC 178
  States of Europe. People said that that was a mad idea. The problem is that in his original draft, Giscard d'Estaing suggested that once his convention had sat and the constitution had been drawn up and agreed, the new organisation should be the United States of Europe. So those of us who said many years ago that this could happen were right after all.
  Many of us said, after 1985, at the time of the Single European Act, that we were on the way not to a federal Europe but to a unitary European state. Indeed, one needs only a cursory glance at what is being prepared and suggested by the European convention to see that it brings about that European unitary state. Our Government may resist many of the worst aspects, but if the past is anything to go by, they will talk a lot about it and say that they do not agree with this and that; but of course they will agree with this and that.
  In support of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I refer to Lord Denning, who made it clear in the House of Lords on 31st July 1986 that Acts of Parliament and decisions of our courts have been set aside and rendered invalid by decisions of the European Court, which is superior in all matters of EEC law not only to British courts, including the House of Lords, but also to Parliament where their Acts past, present or future have been, can be and will be declared illegal by an overweening court sitting in a foreign capital.
  As we proceed with the completion of the internal market, the powers and decisions of this supranational court will impinge more and more on every aspect of our national life—social, legal, political, business, labour, economic and, indeed, on our relations with countries in the rest of the world outside the EEC. Business and individuals will find themselves unwittingly breaking laws of which they have no knowledge and which have been made, not by their own Parliament in public, but by the institutions of the EEC meeting in private, probably after wheeling and dealing in secret.
  It seems to me that that great authority on constitutional and other law foresaw in 1986 exactly what would happen. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has every right to draw our attention to what could happen. I think that he will probably withdraw his amendment, but at least his concerns have been aired and it will be interesting to see exactly how the Minister replies.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I would like to ask the Minister a straight question on the amendment. I do not share some of the views expressed by noble Lords who have spoken to it so far, although I tend to he a bit of a sceptic—about everything, if possible—because I find it a useful way in. I resist, for example, taking things by way of revelation or faith, and I object to those who answer points, some of which have some substance, merely by making a joke. There is a certain arrogance which has overcome those who see Europe in a particular light—they think there is some conspiracy of mirth and that they can answer all points at once. I do not find that attitude in the best traditions of English or, more particularly, Scottish—to reveal

  GC 179
  my ultimate origins—political or economic philosophy. So I hope the Minister will not make a joke of this amendment.
  Is there any good reason why the European Union or an institution of the European Union could possibly be designated for the purposes of Part 1 in the world in which we live? If there is not, why does not the Minister say he will consider this amendment favourably?
  Lord Filkin: I will certainly not make a joke about the powerful and strongly felt arguments advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Stoddart, on these issues. They are in part a debate about where the future of Europe negotiations are, where they are moving to and what might happen during the next year or so, by the time they come to a conclusion.
  I understand why those concerns are raised. In a sense, they form a backdrop to issues of interest and concern, but this is a highly mobile and moving debate. There is a substantial amount of confusion and sometimes misinformation about what is or is not happening. Therefore, I do not intend to get into a detailed debate about what is happening on the future of Europe, although I have already given the signal that I am happy to talk about some of the matters with which I am involved, if that would be helpful. I have a very small part to play in some of the discussions on justice and home affairs. I will read what the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Pearson, have said on this, and reflect on it to see whether anything needs a fuller response at a later stage.
  Given where we are, the most helpful and straightforward response that I can make is relatively succinct. We are absolutely clear that we intend to designate individual countries and not the EU as a single entity. I will reflect on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, but I cannot think of any good reason why anyone would think of designating the EU or an EU institution for the purposes of the process that we are discussing. I must reaffirm that the affirmative resolution of Parliament is sovereign in these respects. That is the decision of Parliament.
  The best answer that I can give is that it is our view that it is not possible to designate the EU or an EU institution as a Part I territory or a Part 2 territory. It
  GC 180
  does not constitute a territory as required by Clause 1. That is the view of the Government on the issue. I am not seeking to be, in any sense, abrupt or flippant. I want to give our clear response to an important amendment.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I am glad to have been taken so seriously on this occasion. For many years, when the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I—and others—have risen to speak in the House on matters European, we were greeted with a groan. More recently, we have been greeted with a certain amount of jollity. On this occasion, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for restricting his contribution to a wry smile.
  I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns and others who supported the amendment. To the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, and answered, to some extent, by the Minister, I answer that I accept, of course, that, under the wording of the British Bill which we are considering, it might not be possible to designate the EU or an institution of the EU because they do not constitute territories. My worry, which I trust that the noble Lord will consider—we may discuss it more briefly at a future date—is whether the EU could designate itself and put itself into the position that I have indicated, if it is given the powers that the draft constitution envisages for it. However, as the noble Lord indicated, that is all to be decided at a future intergovernmental conference, and the eventual discussions which we will have in the House on the Bill which emerges from that.
  The amendment remains pertinent to a consideration of the Bill. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause a agreed to.
  Baroness Crawley: I think that this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Monday at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  Official Report: Numerical Index to Questions for Written Answer
  Official Report: Numerical Index to Questions for Written Answer
  Official Solicitor: Correspondence Language Policy
  Official Solicitor: Correspondence Language Policy
  M6 Toll
  M6 Toll
  Prisons: Disinfecting Tablets
  Prisons: Disinfecting Tablets
  Terrorism Act 2000: Section 44
  Terrorism Act 2000: Section 44
  Identity Checks for International Travellers: Iris Scans
  Identity Checks for International Travellers: Iris Scans
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  National Asylum Support Service Contracted Accommodation: Failed Asylum Seekers
  National Asylum Support Service Contracted Accommodation: Failed Asylum Seekers
  Iraq: WMD Sites
  Iraq: WMD Sites
  Tornado F3 Airframes in the Falkland Islands
  Tornado F3 Airframes in the Falkland Islands
  Military Law: Written Guidance
  Military Law: Written Guidance
  MoD: Questions for Written Answers
  MoD: Questions for Written Answers
  Iraqi Prisoners of War
  Iraqi Prisoners of War
  Defence Act 1842
  Defence Act 1842
  Royal Navy: Merlin Mk1 Helicopters
  Royal Navy: Merlin Mk1 Helicopters
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Benefit Sanctions
  Benefit Sanctions
  Non-Residential Property: Blackwall Ward, Tower Hamlets
  Non-Residential Property: Blackwall Ward, Tower Hamlets
  NHS: Specialised Commissioning
  NHS: Specialised Commissioning
  Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003
  Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003
  Food Hygiene Enforcement
  Food Hygiene Enforcement
  Christie Hospital, Manchester
  Christie Hospital, Manchester
  Accidental Injury Surveillance
  Accidental Injury Surveillance
  Domiciliary Oxygen Services
  Domiciliary Oxygen Services
  Physiotherapy: Patient Self-referral
  Physiotherapy: Patient Self-referral
  Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
  Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland Departments: Underspend
  Northern Ireland Departments: Underspend
  Cabinet Office Sub-Committee on Older People
  Cabinet Office Sub-Committee on Older People
  Iraq: UN Weapons Inspectors
  Iraq: UN Weapons Inspectors
  Convention on the Future of Europe: Eradication of World Poverty
  Convention on the Future of Europe: Eradication of World Poverty
  Iraq: Agricultural Reconstruction Appointments
  Iraq: Agricultural Reconstruction Appointments
  Iraq: UNSCR 1325 on Safeguarding the Rights of Women
  Iraq: UNSCR 1325 on Safeguarding the Rights of Women
  Israeli Defence Forces
  Israeli Defence Forces
  UNMOGIP
  UNMOGIP
  Iraq: Members of Former Regime
  Iraq: Members of Former Regime
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Gibraltar and Morocco: Territorial Waters
  Gibraltar and Morocco: Territorial Waters
  Middle East: Destruction of Palestinian Homes and Property
  Middle East: Destruction of Palestinian Homes and Property
  TUPE Regulations
  TUPE Regulations
  Sustainable Energy Research
  Sustainable Energy Research
  British Energy
  British Energy
  Rural Payments Agency: Late Payments
  Rural Payments Agency: Late Payments
  Technetium-99: Discharge into Irish Sea
  Technetium-99: Discharge into Irish Sea
  Slug Pellets: Song Thrush Population
  Slug Pellets: Song Thrush Population
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  Bovine TB Testing
  Bovine TB Testing
  Red Deer: Baronsdown Sanctuary, Exmoor
  Red Deer: Baronsdown Sanctuary, Exmoor
  Laying Hens
  Laying Hens
  LEADER + Programme
  LEADER + Programme
  Marine Protected Areas
  Marine Protected Areas
  Dairy Cows: Producer Support Estimate
  Dairy Cows: Producer Support Estimate